Suspicious Words Query (SF Mayor)

twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester filed this request with the Office of the Mayor of San Francisco, CA.

It is a clone of this request.

Est. Completion Oct. 10, 2019
Status
Partially Completed
Tags

Communications

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

RE: Suspicious Words Query

To Whom It May Concern:

** Please redact your responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including emails, attachments, file shares, and the disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there's no going back. **

We request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA) the following items from the {Office of the Mayor} .

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in any format we request, if you either hold them in that format OR the format is easy to generate. Note the Sunshine Ordinance does not discuss the difficulty of redacting in that format, which it considers a normal duty of the agency, only the ease with which the format itself is generated. Therefore, e-mails exported in the .eml or .msg format with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best.

You must make full and exact copies of all records (incl. metadata for example), except those parts explicitly exempt. However, if you choose to convert emails, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, but in contravention of our request, you must still ensure that you have preserved a full exact copy of the original email record, which contains colors, email addresses, timestamps, formatting, images, attachmennts and many detailed headers beyond the generally used From/To/Subject/Sent/etc. For the chat apps, a screenshot or print-out is acceptable, as long as all metadata is captured (timestamps, sender and receiver identities).

If you choose to use PDF, use properly redacted searchable or text pdfs. Please don't use image PDFs to make it harder to analyze the records.
If you provide PDFs instead of original email files, only give a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and/or improperly withhold public records that exist on private accounts/devices you may be in violation of SF Admin Code and/or CPRA, and we may challenge your decision at the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, Supervisor of Records, judicially, and/or via any other remedies available to us.

You must justify all withholding with particularity (ex. footnotes tying citations to specific redactions).

Provide records in a rolling fashion. Do not wait for all records to be available.

Even if you use a third-party website for tracking this request, please either make the disclosed records completely public (without login) on such website, and/or email records as attachments.

Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required free notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose. Please use email to respond.

I look forward to your prompt disclosure. [Credit for this idea goes to the "50 Fun Words" FOIA search tradition to find interesting records]

Please read the request carefully. It involves 4 types of accounts, of each of a number of persons, for a set of keywords. If a person has multiple accounnts (including but not limited to email aliases), messages from each are requested.

Within 7 days, under SFAC 67.21(c), you must provide a statement as to the existence, quantity, form, etc. of records responsive to each request, regardless of exemption from disclosure. Please provide a SFAC 67.21(c) statement for each of A9 to A9, B1 to B9, etc. There is no extension for this 7 day period. If you are able to provide this statement of quantity in sufficient detail for each of our requests, we may be able to cancel actual production of some subset of the records.

A - all emails, sent or received between Jan 1, 2018 to Sept 15, 2019, in all official email accounts;
B - all emails, sent or received between Jan 1, 2018 to Sept 15, 2019, in all personal email accounts (to the extent records are about the public's business under City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017));
C - all text, chat, SMS, MMS, instant messages, Twitter Tweets, Twitter Direct Messages, Facebook Messenger posts, Facebook Posts, Instagram Posts, Snapchat Posts, WhatsApp messages, Signal messages, Telegram messages, in all official accounts;
D - all text, chat, SMS, MMS, instant messages, Twitter Tweets, Twitter Direct Messages, Facebook Messenger posts, Facebook Posts, Instagram Posts, Snapchat Posts, WhatsApp messages, Signal messages, Telegram messages, in all personal accounts (to the extent records are about the public's business under City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017));

for all accounts of each of the following persons:

1. Mayor Breed
2. Chief of Staff
3. all persons holding title 'Senior Advisor to the Mayor' (including policy areas)
4. Deputy Chief of Staff
5. Communications Director
6. Policy Director
7. Mayor’s Liaison to the Board of Supervisors
8. Compliance Officer
9. the department as an entity (for example, office Twitter or Facebook pages)

with a case insensitive search for any of the following keywords, to be searched in all bodies, subjects, and attachments:

disgrace
disgraced
dishonor
dishonorable
immoral
unethical
turpitude
worry
worries
worried
perjure
perjury
perjured
conspire
conspired
conspiracy
silence
silenced
false
tamper
tampering
lie
lies
lied
1983
brady
exculpatory
coverup
cover-up
constitution
constitutional
shred
wipe
erase
delete
hide
hidden
destroy
internal affairs
DPA
cheat
damn
damnit
dammit
goddamn
goddam
goddammit

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

This is in response to your request below under S.F. Admin Code 67.21(c). We have performed an inquiry in response to your request to ascertain the general existence, form and nature of documents sought by the keywords you identify, among the sources of documents you identify. As an initial matter, your request is unusual in the context of Admin Code 67.21(c) which references departments providing in writing "a statement as to the existence, quantity, form and nature of records relating to a particular subject or questions."

Your inquiry does not relate to "a particular subject or questions" and instead lists 50 random words, without further context or topical limitation, aimed at over 10 custodians across more than a dozen types of electronic media. It is hardly a targeted subject matter or set of questions to which a highly specific response can reasonably be expected. However, without conceding this is an appropriate 67.21(c) request, we have endeavored to provide the following general description of the types of records located:

- Emails from constituents with various concerns or complaints;

- News clips featuring the identified terms;

- Records request responses featuring references to the California "Constitution";

- Privileged and exempt communications concerning litigations, including litigation updates and litigation holds;

- Emails from third parties with disclaimers to the effect of "If you have received the message in error, please notify us immediately and then 'delete'";

- A forwarded cease and desist letter containing the word "affidavit";

- Emails using the colloquial phrases "no 'worries'" or "'cheat' sheet";

- A press release from the Office of the Mayor regarding President Trump's attempt to "erase" transgender people through its discriminatory policies;

- Reports and updates from DPA or internal affairs;

- Documents referencing the entity Strada "Brady" LLC;

The documents described number in the hundreds of pages and exist in electronic Microsoft or PDF formats.

If you have any specific questions or requests regarding particular categories of documents, please let us know.

Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of Mayor London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco

September 16, 2019

RE: Suspicious Words Query

To Whom It May Concern:

** Please redact your responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including emails, attachments, file shares, and the disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there's no going back. **

We request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA) the following items from the {Office of the Mayor} .

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in any format we request, if you either hold them in that format OR the format is easy to generate. Note the Sunshine Ordinance does not discuss the difficulty of redacting in that format, which it considers a normal duty of the agency, only the ease with which the format itself is generated. Therefore, e-mails exported in the .eml or .msg format with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best.

You must make full and exact copies of all records (incl. metadata for example), except those parts explicitly exempt. However, if you choose to convert emails, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, but in contravention of our request, you must still ensure that you have preserved a full exact copy of the original email record, which contains colors, email addresses, timestamps, formatting, images, attachmennts and many detailed headers beyond the generally used From/To/Subject/Sent/etc. For the chat apps, a screenshot or print-out is acceptable, as long as all metadata is captured (timestamps, sender and receiver identities).

If you choose to use PDF, use properly redacted searchable or text pdfs. Please don't use image PDFs to make it harder to analyze the records.
If you provide PDFs instead of original email files, only give a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and/or improperly withhold public records that exist on private accounts/devices you may be in violation of SF Admin Code and/or CPRA, and we may challenge your decision at the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, Supervisor of Records, judicially, and/or via any other remedies available to us.

You must justify all withholding with particularity (ex. footnotes tying citations to specific redactions).

Provide records in a rolling fashion. Do not wait for all records to be available.

Even if you use a third-party website for tracking this request, please either make the disclosed records completely public (without login) on such website, and/or email records as attachments.

Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required free notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose. Please use email to respond.

I look forward to your prompt disclosure. [Credit for this idea goes to the "50 Fun Words" FOIA search tradition to find interesting records]

Please read the request carefully. It involves 4 types of accounts, of each of a number of persons, for a set of keywords. If a person has multiple accounnts (including but not limited to email aliases), messages from each are requested.

Within 7 days, under SFAC 67.21(c), you must provide a statement as to the existence, quantity, form, etc. of records responsive to each request, regardless of exemption from disclosure. Please provide a SFAC 67.21(c) statement for each of A9 to A9, B1 to B9, etc. There is no extension for this 7 day period. If you are able to provide this statement of quantity in sufficient detail for each of our requests, we may be able to cancel actual production of some subset of the records.

A - all emails, sent or received between Jan 1, 2018 to Sept 15, 2019, in all official email accounts;
B - all emails, sent or received between Jan 1, 2018 to Sept 15, 2019, in all personal email accounts (to the extent records are about the public's business under City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017));
C - all text, chat, SMS, MMS, instant messages, Twitter Tweets, Twitter Direct Messages, Facebook Messenger posts, Facebook Posts, Instagram Posts, Snapchat Posts, WhatsApp messages, Signal messages, Telegram messages, in all official accounts;
D - all text, chat, SMS, MMS, instant messages, Twitter Tweets, Twitter Direct Messages, Facebook Messenger posts, Facebook Posts, Instagram Posts, Snapchat Posts, WhatsApp messages, Signal messages, Telegram messages, in all personal accounts (to the extent records are about the public's business under City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017));

for all accounts of each of the following persons:

1. Mayor Breed
2. Chief of Staff
3. all persons holding title 'Senior Advisor to the Mayor' (including policy areas)
4. Deputy Chief of Staff
5. Communications Director
6. Policy Director
7. Mayor's Liaison to the Board of Supervisors
8. Compliance Officer
9. the department as an entity (for example, office Twitter or Facebook pages)

with a case insensitive search for any of the following keywords, to be searched in all bodies, subjects, and attachments:

disgrace
disgraced
dishonor
dishonorable
immoral
unethical
turpitude
worry
worries
worried
perjure
perjury
perjured
conspire
conspired
conspiracy
silence
silenced
false
tamper
tampering
lie
lies
lied
1983
brady
exculpatory
coverup
cover-up
constitution
constitutional
shred
wipe
erase
delete
hide
hidden
destroy
internal affairs
DPA
cheat
damn
damnit
dammit
goddamn
goddam
goddammit

Sincerely,
Anonymous

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url_auth_token=AAAxJIxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuo1Y%3A1i9kYz%3Aztvwz-OVIZ43F2Ytsj-Apz0GqUk&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fsuspicious-words-query-sf-mayor-80426%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 80426
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

This further responds to your request below. We understood from your request that you would be considering our response under 67.21(c) to determine whether you would discontinue or proceed with your request for production for subsets of those records. We have not heard a response along those lines. Accordingly, we are continuing with our review and processing of responsive records.

Please note that due to the need to consult with other departments, we are continuing our response and invoking an extension of up to 14 days pursuant to Government Code § 6253(c) and San Francisco Admin. Code § 67.25. We will conduct this consultation with all practicable speed and anticipate completing our search no later than October 10, 2019
Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of Mayor London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Thank you - I did not realize you needed a response from me on the prior email (if you do need one in the future, please explicitly state as such so I review it).

You may exclude from response any record if it is only in these categories:
- Emails from third parties with disclaimers to the effect of "If you have received the message in error, please notify us immediately and then 'delete'";
- Emails from constituents with various concerns or complaints;
- Emails using the colloquial phrases "no 'worries'" or "'cheat' sheet";
If however, a record is responsive for any *other* reason, or is in an above-listed category AND another category, or in no category you listed, please still provide them.

Furthermore, if you provide the following records first (or particularized justifications for all withholdings for all of them), you may delay production of all other responsive records until the listed below are first produced:
- Reports and updates from DPA or internal affairs;
- Privileged and exempt communications concerning litigations, including litigation updates and litigation holds;
- results for "shred" "wipe" and "erase" (unless they are solely email footer disclaimers as per above)

Note I am merely using your classifications and do not concede that any records are privileged or otherwise exempt.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Actually I can further narrow the request.

In addition to the above, you may provide only those messages sent BY any city employee (on any city email domain not just sfgov AND on any city employee's personal accounts). If the message from the city employee includes in it the non-city message you must still include the latter (i.e. a city email response will usually include the non-city email body within its own body as emails usually do).

I don't care for now about what non-city employees are saying, unless a city employee responded of course.

Please acknowledge this and the prior narrowing so I know what to expect.

From: Office of the Mayor

Dear Anonymous,

Please see the attached records responsive to your request below. We will be providing additional records under separate email.

The responsive information has been provided in a PDF format for its ease of transferability and accessibility, consistent with Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9(a)(1). Metadata from any native format has not been provided to avoid risks to the security and integrity of the original record as well as the city's data and information technology systems and to avoid the release of exempt confidential or privileged information. See Cal. Gov. Code 6253.9 (f) and 6254.19. The PDF format ensures the security and integrity of the original record as well as the security and integrity of the city's data and information technology systems.

Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of Mayor London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco

October 5, 2019

This is a follow up to a previous request:

Actually I can further narrow the request.

In addition to the above, you may provide only those messages sent BY any city employee (on any city email domain not just sfgov AND on any city employee's personal accounts). If the message from the city employee includes in it the non-city message you must still include the latter (i.e. a city email response will usually include the non-city email body within its own body as emails usually do).

I don't care for now about what non-city employees are saying, unless a city employee responded of course.

Please acknowledge this and the prior narrowing so I know what to expect.

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
Upload documents directly: https://www.muckrock.com/
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 80426
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

---

On Oct. 4, 2019:
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Suspicious Words Query (SF Mayor)
Thank you - I did not realize you needed a response from me on the prior email (if you do need one in the future, please explicitly state as such so I review it).

You may exclude from response any record if it is only in these categories:
- Emails from third parties with disclaimers to the effect of "If you have received the message in error, please notify us immediately and then 'delete'";
- Emails from constituents with various concerns or complaints;
- Emails using the colloquial phrases "no 'worries'" or "'cheat' sheet";
If however, a record is responsive for any *other* reason, or is in an above-listed category AND another category, or in no category you listed, please still provide them.

Furthermore, if you provide the following records first (or particularized justifications for all withholdings for all of them), you may delay production of all other responsive records until the listed below are first produced:
- Reports and updates from DPA or internal affairs;
- Privileged and exempt communications concerning litigations, including litigation updates and litigation holds;
- results for "shred" "wipe" and "erase" (unless they are solely email footer disclaimers as per above)

Note I am merely using your classifications and do not concede that any records are privileged or otherwise exempt.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

---

On Oct. 4, 2019:
Subject: FW: 50 Keywords Query
Dear Anonymous,

This further responds to your request below. We understood from your request that you would be considering our response under 67.21(c) to determine whether you would discontinue or proceed with your request for production for subsets of those records. We have not heard a response along those lines. Accordingly, we are continuing with our review and processing of responsive records.

Please note that due to the need to consult with other departments, we are continuing our response and invoking an extension of up to 14 days pursuant to Government Code § 6253(c) and San Francisco Admin. Code § 67.25. We will conduct this consultation with all practicable speed and anticipate completing our search no later than October 10, 2019
Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of Mayor London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco
---

On Sept. 24, 2019:
Subject: 50 Keywords Query
Dear Anonymous,

This is in response to your request below under S.F. Admin Code 67.21(c). We have performed an inquiry in response to your request to ascertain the general existence, form and nature of documents sought by the keywords you identify, among the sources of documents you identify. As an initial matter, your request is unusual in the context of Admin Code 67.21(c) which references departments providing in writing "a statement as to the existence, quantity, form and nature of records relating to a particular subject or questions."

Your inquiry does not relate to "a particular subject or questions" and instead lists 50 random words, without further context or topical limitation, aimed at over 10 custodians across more than a dozen types of electronic media. It is hardly a targeted subject matter or set of questions to which a highly specific response can reasonably be expected. However, without conceding this is an appropriate 67.21(c) request, we have endeavored to provide the following general description of the types of records located:

- Emails from constituents with various concerns or complaints;

- News clips featuring the identified terms;

- Records request responses featuring references to the California "Constitution";

- Privileged and exempt communications concerning litigations, including litigation updates and litigation holds;

- Emails from third parties with disclaimers to the effect of "If you have received the message in error, please notify us immediately and then 'delete'";

- A forwarded cease and desist letter containing the word "affidavit";

- Emails using the colloquial phrases "no 'worries'" or "'cheat' sheet";

- A press release from the Office of the Mayor regarding President Trump's attempt to "erase" transgender people through its discriminatory policies;

- Reports and updates from DPA or internal affairs;

- Documents referencing the entity Strada "Brady" LLC;

The documents described number in the hundreds of pages and exist in electronic Microsoft or PDF formats.

If you have any specific questions or requests regarding particular categories of documents, please let us know.

Regards,

Hank Heckel
Compliance Officer
Office of Mayor London N. Breed
City and County of San Francisco

September 16, 2019

RE: Suspicious Words Query

To Whom It May Concern:

** Please redact your responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including emails, attachments, file shares, and the disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there's no going back. **

We request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA) the following items from the {Office of the Mayor} .

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in any format we request, if you either hold them in that format OR the format is easy to generate. Note the Sunshine Ordinance does not discuss the difficulty of redacting in that format, which it considers a normal duty of the agency, only the ease with which the format itself is generated. Therefore, e-mails exported in the .eml or .msg format with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best.

You must make full and exact copies of all records (incl. metadata for example), except those parts explicitly exempt. However, if you choose to convert emails, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, but in contravention of our request, you must still ensure that you have preserved a full exact copy of the original email record, which contains colors, email addresses, timestamps, formatting, images, attachmennts and many detailed headers beyond the generally used From/To/Subject/Sent/etc. For the chat apps, a screenshot or print-out is acceptable, as long as all metadata is captured (timestamps, sender and receiver identities).

If you choose to use PDF, use properly redacted searchable or text pdfs. Please don't use image PDFs to make it harder to analyze the records.
If you provide PDFs instead of original email files, only give a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and/or improperly withhold public records that exist on private accounts/devices you may be in violation of SF Admin Code and/or CPRA, and we may challenge your decision at the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, Supervisor of Records, judicially, and/or via any other remedies available to us.

You must justify all withholding with particularity (ex. footnotes tying citations to specific redactions).

Provide records in a rolling fashion. Do not wait for all records to be available.

Even if you use a third-party website for tracking this request, please either make the disclosed records completely public (without login) on such website, and/or email records as attachments.

Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required free notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose. Please use email to respond.

I look forward to your prompt disclosure. [Credit for this idea goes to the "50 Fun Words" FOIA search tradition to find interesting records]

Please read the request carefully. It involves 4 types of accounts, of each of a number of persons, for a set of keywords. If a person has multiple accounnts (including but not limited to email aliases), messages from each are requested.

Within 7 days, under SFAC 67.21(c), you must provide a statement as to the existence, quantity, form, etc. of records responsive to each request, regardless of exemption from disclosure. Please provide a SFAC 67.21(c) statement for each of A9 to A9, B1 to B9, etc. There is no extension for this 7 day period. If you are able to provide this statement of quantity in sufficient detail for each of our requests, we may be able to cancel actual production of some subset of the records.

A - all emails, sent or received between Jan 1, 2018 to Sept 15, 2019, in all official email accounts;
B - all emails, sent or received between Jan 1, 2018 to Sept 15, 2019, in all personal email accounts (to the extent records are about the public's business under City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017));
C - all text, chat, SMS, MMS, instant messages, Twitter Tweets, Twitter Direct Messages, Facebook Messenger posts, Facebook Posts, Instagram Posts, Snapchat Posts, WhatsApp messages, Signal messages, Telegram messages, in all official accounts;
D - all text, chat, SMS, MMS, instant messages, Twitter Tweets, Twitter Direct Messages, Facebook Messenger posts, Facebook Posts, Instagram Posts, Snapchat Posts, WhatsApp messages, Signal messages, Telegram messages, in all personal accounts (to the extent records are about the public's business under City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017));

for all accounts of each of the following persons:

1. Mayor Breed
2. Chief of Staff
3. all persons holding title 'Senior Advisor to the Mayor' (including policy areas)
4. Deputy Chief of Staff
5. Communications Director
6. Policy Director
7. Mayor's Liaison to the Board of Supervisors
8. Compliance Officer
9. the department as an entity (for example, office Twitter or Facebook pages)

with a case insensitive search for any of the following keywords, to be searched in all bodies, subjects, and attachments:

disgrace
disgraced
dishonor
dishonorable
immoral
unethical
turpitude
worry
worries
worried
perjure
perjury
perjured
conspire
conspired
conspiracy
silence
silenced
false
tamper
tampering
lie
lies
lied
1983
brady
exculpatory
coverup
cover-up
constitution
constitutional
shred
wipe
erase
delete
hide
hidden
destroy
internal affairs
DPA
cheat
damn
damnit
dammit
goddamn
goddam
goddammit

Sincerely,
Anonymous

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com%3cmailto:requests@muckrock.com>>
Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?url_auth_token=AAAxJIxKbHL78P4hPis99lsuo1Y%3A1i9kYz%3Aztvwz-OVIZ43F2Ytsj-Apz0GqUk&next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F%3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Foffice-of-the-mayor-3891%252Fsuspicious-words-query-sf-mayor-80426%252F%253Femail%253Dmayorsunshinerequests%252540sfgov.org
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 80426
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.

---

On Sept. 16, 2019:
Subject: California Public Records Act Request: Suspicious Words Query (SF Mayor)
RE: Suspicious Words Query

To Whom It May Concern:

** Please redact your responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including emails, attachments, file shares, and the disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there's no going back. **

We request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA) the following items from the {Office of the Mayor} .

We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in any format we request, if you either hold them in that format OR the format is easy to generate. Note the Sunshine Ordinance does not discuss the difficulty of redacting in that format, which it considers a normal duty of the agency, only the ease with which the format itself is generated. Therefore, e-mails exported in the .eml or .msg format with all non-exempt headers, metadata, attachments, etc. are best.

You must make full and exact copies of all records (incl. metadata for example), except those parts explicitly exempt. However, if you choose to convert emails, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, but in contravention of our request, you must still ensure that you have preserved a full exact copy of the original email record, which contains colors, email addresses, timestamps, formatting, images, attachmennts and many detailed headers beyond the generally used From/To/Subject/Sent/etc. For the chat apps, a screenshot or print-out is acceptable, as long as all metadata is captured (timestamps, sender and receiver identities).

If you choose to use PDF, use properly redacted searchable or text pdfs. Please don't use image PDFs to make it harder to analyze the records.
If you provide PDFs instead of original email files, only give a few of the headers or lacking attachments/images, and/or improperly withhold public records that exist on private accounts/devices you may be in violation of SF Admin Code and/or CPRA, and we may challenge your decision at the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, Supervisor of Records, judicially, and/or via any other remedies available to us.

You must justify all withholding with particularity (ex. footnotes tying citations to specific redactions).

Provide records in a rolling fashion. Do not wait for all records to be available.

Even if you use a third-party website for tracking this request, please either make the disclosed records completely public (without login) on such website, and/or email records as attachments.

Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required free notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose. Please use email to respond.

I look forward to your prompt disclosure. [Credit for this idea goes to the "50 Fun Words" FOIA search tradition to find interesting records]

Please read the request carefully. It involves 4 types of accounts, of each of a number of persons, for a set of keywords. If a person has multiple accounnts (including but not limited to email aliases), messages from each are requested.

Within 7 days, under SFAC 67.21(c), you must provide a statement as to the existence, quantity, form, etc. of records responsive to each request, regardless of exemption from disclosure. Please provide a SFAC 67.21(c) statement for each of A9 to A9, B1 to B9, etc. There is no extension for this 7 day period. If you are able to provide this statement of quantity in sufficient detail for each of our requests, we may be able to cancel actual production of some subset of the records.

A - all emails, sent or received between Jan 1, 2018 to Sept 15, 2019, in all official email accounts;
B - all emails, sent or received between Jan 1, 2018 to Sept 15, 2019, in all personal email accounts (to the extent records are about the public's business under City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017));
C - all text, chat, SMS, MMS, instant messages, Twitter Tweets, Twitter Direct Messages, Facebook Messenger posts, Facebook Posts, Instagram Posts, Snapchat Posts, WhatsApp messages, Signal messages, Telegram messages, in all official accounts;
D - all text, chat, SMS, MMS, instant messages, Twitter Tweets, Twitter Direct Messages, Facebook Messenger posts, Facebook Posts, Instagram Posts, Snapchat Posts, WhatsApp messages, Signal messages, Telegram messages, in all personal accounts (to the extent records are about the public's business under City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017));

for all accounts of each of the following persons:

1. Mayor Breed
2. Chief of Staff
3. all persons holding title 'Senior Advisor to the Mayor' (including policy areas)
4. Deputy Chief of Staff
5. Communications Director
6. Policy Director
7. Mayor's Liaison to the Board of Supervisors
8. Compliance Officer
9. the department as an entity (for example, office Twitter or Facebook pages)

with a case insensitive search for any of the following keywords, to be searched in all bodies, subjects, and attachments:

disgrace
disgraced
dishonor
dishonorable
immoral
unethical
turpitude
worry
worries
worried
perjure
perjury
perjured
conspire
conspired
conspiracy
silence
silenced
false
tamper
tampering
lie
lies
lied
1983
brady
exculpatory
coverup
cover-up
constitution
constitutional
shred
wipe
erase
delete
hide
hidden
destroy
internal affairs
DPA
cheat
damn
damnit
dammit
goddamn
goddam
goddammit

Sincerely,
Anonymous

Filed via MuckRock.com
E-mail (Preferred): requests@muckrock.com<mailto:requests@muckrock.com>
Upload documents directly: https://www.muckrock.com/
Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.

For mailed responses, please address (see note):
MuckRock News
DEPT MR 80426
411A Highland Ave
Somerville, MA 02144-2516

PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.
[http://email.requests.muckrock.com/o/eJw1ykEOwiAQAMDXyJGwuLvAgUsxfsNUii2plAjWxN_bi9fJTJ6IRSpjft7y5EFpg86KxTu0idga5gnigVEzWo53AjJnGJ3IXitwoBRpAKNRguQLhjAEsleFPIRwQtXSa0_93WXZ49pqXGWsRTRfxm9tfd_6krf0T8fvj7l-ZG3zD4FbLe0]

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Thank you. Please do include the PDF attachments in those emails, as originally requested.

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

You can ignore the autoreminder...

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

You may terminate this request if it remains open.

Files

pages

Close
  • 10/10/2019

    ___ STATEMENT ___ MAYOR LONDON BREED ON NEED FO...(1)

  • 10/10/2019

    ___ STATEMENT ___ MAYOR LONDON BREED ON NEED FO... 2

  • 10/10/2019

    ___ PRESS RELEASE ___ MAYOR LONDON BREED ISSUES... 2

  • 10/10/2019

    ___ STATEMENT ___ MAYOR LONDON BREED AND DIRECT... 2

  • 10/10/2019

    ___ PRESS RELEASE ___ MAYOR LONDON BREED, SUPER...2

  • 10/10/2019

    ___ PRESS RELEASE ___ MAYOR LONDON BREED SIGNS ...

  • 10/10/2019

    ___ STATEMENT ___ MAYOR LONDON BREED ON TRANSGE... 2