Text and Chat Messages - Immediate Disclosure Request - San Francisco Universal Search (PUC)

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

It is a clone of this request.

Est. Completion Dec. 31, 2022
Status
Partially Completed

Communications

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

To Public Utilities Commission and its Department Head or Elected Official:

** DO NOT DESTROY ANY RESPONSIVE RECORDS. YOU MUST PRESERVE AND ORDER YOUR EMPLOYEES TO PRESERVE RECORDS DURING THE PENDENCY OF ALL APPEALS. WE WILL APPEAL ALL REDACTIONS OR WITHHOLDINGS. ** Immediate Disclosure Request.

Every department head/elected official must preserve and maintain all correspondence in a professional and businesslike manner (SFAC 67.29-7(a)) and also separately must comply with retention policies (SFAC 67.29-1). Note that if your retention policies do not retain text messages, I will argue before the SOTF and court that this is a failure to maintain **all correspondence** in a professional and businesslike manner.

Relevant precedent: SOTF 19098 - Anonymous v SFPD. Unanimous finding of violation for unlawfully withholding text message metadata (including the to/from/etc. - note SFPD had provided the dates and times, and you must as well), and also for unlawfully printing and scanning electronic records which does not constitute a "copy" of an electronic record.
See also prior rulings in my favor in SOTF 19044, 19047, 19091, 19098, 19103, and 19108 which ruled against the City for email, text messages, past and future calendar entries, meeting details, electronic metadata, and attachments.

The Mayor's Office appears to have destroyed their copies of certain text messages. I'd be happy to get them from her, if she preserved every record. Alas she did not, therefore we must now conduct a universal search of the City. You cannot refer me to another department unless you search and determine that you have no copies in your department. If this is causing more work for you, ask your Mayor to stop destroying her public records.

Note there are many anonymous requesters using MuckRock - I am just one of them. If you previously produced some subset of these records to a MuckRock email address, please reference that prior response so you do not duplicate work. If I am unable to get the prior MuckRock response because it is someone else's and they have marked it private, you will however need to provide me a copy here as well.

1. This is an immediate disclosure request for text, chat, or instant messages between the department head/elected official and either Sean Elsbernd, Andrea Bruss, London Breed, Harlan Kelly, Jr., Naomi Kelly, Hank Heckel, or Walter Wong, including all group messages, and all messages in threads, in any form and any app (including, but not limited to, SMS, MMS, text, iMessage, Teams, Discord, WeChat, QQ, Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp, Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Instagram, Hangouts, Meet, Slack, Skype, Viber, Snapchat, Line, Kik, FaceTime, Wickr Me, Chatroulette, Threema, KakaoTalk, Duo, GroupMe, Wire, Voxer, Allo, Tango, Bumble, Grindr, Tinder, Olive, Taimi, but NOT including email), on any government accounts/devices or on personal accounts or devices regarding the conduct of public business, including all participant names, message text, images, attachments, dates, and times, including any in trash or deleted folders or similar (see Good Government Guide - if the records have not been permanently deleted as of the time you receive this request, you must retrieve them from the so-called trash folders and provide them). Provide rolling responses. Provide exact copies including all metadata. There is no limitation by subject or date. If the total pages to produce numbers over 500, inform me of the rough dates, employees involved, and subject matter, and I may be willing to narrow the initial production, AS LONG AS YOU PRESERVE ALL THE RECORDS.

2. This is a regular records request for text, chat, or instant messages between the other dept employees (not the head) and either Sean Elsbernd, Andrea Bruss, London Breed, Harlan Kelly, Jr., Naomi Kelly, Hank Heckel, or Walter Wong, including all group messages, and all messages in threads, in any form and any app (including, but not limited to, SMS, MMS, text, iMessage, Teams, Discord, WeChat, QQ, Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp, Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Instagram, Hangouts, Meet, Slack, Skype, Viber, Snapchat, Line, Kik, FaceTime, Wickr Me, Chatroulette, Threema, KakaoTalk, Duo, GroupMe, Wire, Voxer, Allo, Tango, Bumble, Grindr, Tinder, Olive, Taimi, but NOT including email), on any government accounts/devices or on personal accounts or devices regarding the conduct of public business, including all participant names, message text, images, attachments, dates, and times, including any in trash or deleted folders or similar (see Good Government Guide - if the records have not been permanently deleted as of the time you receive this request, you must retrieve them from the so-called trash folders and provide them). Provide rolling responses. Provide exact copies including all metadata. There is no limitation by subject or date. If the total pages to produce numbers over 500, inform me of the rough dates, employees involved, and subject matter, and I may be willing to narrow the initial production, AS LONG AS YOU PRESERVE ALL THE RECORDS.

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

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- Every redaction must be keyed by footnote or by other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each above request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

I look forward to your lawful response.

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Requester,

This email mailbox is no longer being monitored. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has transitioned to an online records request portal to improve customer experience; you can now make requests by clicking here<https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/new/?dept_id=4823> or at https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/new/<https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/new/?dept_id=4823>.

Thank you,
SFPUC Public Records

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

To Public Utilities Commission and its Department Head or Elected Official:

** DO NOT DESTROY ANY RESPONSIVE RECORDS. YOU MUST PRESERVE AND ORDER YOUR EMPLOYEES TO PRESERVE RECORDS DURING THE PENDENCY OF ALL APPEALS. WE WILL APPEAL ALL REDACTIONS OR WITHHOLDINGS. ** Immediate Disclosure Request.

Every department head/elected official must preserve and maintain all correspondence in a professional and businesslike manner (SFAC 67.29-7(a)) and also separately must comply with retention policies (SFAC 67.29-1). Note that if your retention policies do not retain text messages, I will argue before the SOTF and court that this is a failure to maintain **all correspondence** in a professional and businesslike manner.

Relevant precedent: SOTF 19098 - Anonymous v SFPD. Unanimous finding of violation for unlawfully withholding text message metadata (including the to/from/etc. - note SFPD had provided the dates and times, and you must as well), and also for unlawfully printing and scanning electronic records which does not constitute a "copy" of an electronic record.
See also prior rulings in my favor in SOTF 19044, 19047, 19091, 19098, 19103, and 19108 which ruled against the City for email, text messages, past and future calendar entries, meeting details, electronic metadata, and attachments.

The Mayor's Office appears to have destroyed their copies of certain text messages. I'd be happy to get them from her, if she preserved every record. Alas she did not, therefore we must now conduct a universal search of the City. You cannot refer me to another department unless you search and determine that you have no copies in your department. If this is causing more work for you, ask your Mayor to stop destroying her public records.

Note there are many anonymous requesters using MuckRock - I am just one of them. If you previously produced some subset of these records to a MuckRock email address, please reference that prior response so you do not duplicate work. If I am unable to get the prior MuckRock response because it is someone else's and they have marked it private, you will however need to provide me a copy here as well.

1. This is an immediate disclosure request for text, chat, or instant messages between the department head/elected official and either Sean Elsbernd, Andrea Bruss, London Breed, Harlan Kelly, Jr., Naomi Kelly, Hank Heckel, or Walter Wong, including all group messages, and all messages in threads, in any form and any app (including, but not limited to, SMS, MMS, text, iMessage, Teams, Discord, WeChat, QQ, Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp, Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Instagram, Hangouts, Meet, Slack, Skype, Viber, Snapchat, Line, Kik, FaceTime, Wickr Me, Chatroulette, Threema, KakaoTalk, Duo, GroupMe, Wire, Voxer, Allo, Tango, Bumble, Grindr, Tinder, Olive, Taimi, but NOT including email), on any government accounts/devices or on personal accounts or devices regarding the conduct of public business, including all participant names, message text, images, attachments, dates, and times, including any in trash or deleted folders or similar (see Good Government Guide - if the records have not been permanently deleted as of the time you receive this request, you must retrieve them from the so-called trash folders and provide them). Provide rolling responses. Provide exact copies including all metadata. There is no limitation by subject or date. If the total pages to produce numbers over 500, inform me of the rough dates, employees involved, and subject matter, and I may be willing to narrow the initial production, AS LONG AS YOU PRESERVE ALL THE RECORDS.

2. This is a regular records request for text, chat, or instant messages between the other dept employees (not the head) and either Sean Elsbernd, Andrea Bruss, London Breed, Harlan Kelly, Jr., Naomi Kelly, Hank Heckel, or Walter Wong, including all group messages, and all messages in threads, in any form and any app (including, but not limited to, SMS, MMS, text, iMessage, Teams, Discord, WeChat, QQ, Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp, Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Instagram, Hangouts, Meet, Slack, Skype, Viber, Snapchat, Line, Kik, FaceTime, Wickr Me, Chatroulette, Threema, KakaoTalk, Duo, GroupMe, Wire, Voxer, Allo, Tango, Bumble, Grindr, Tinder, Olive, Taimi, but NOT including email), on any government accounts/devices or on personal accounts or devices regarding the conduct of public business, including all participant names, message text, images, attachments, dates, and times, including any in trash or deleted folders or similar (see Good Government Guide - if the records have not been permanently deleted as of the time you receive this request, you must retrieve them from the so-called trash folders and provide them). Provide rolling responses. Provide exact copies including all metadata. There is no limitation by subject or date. If the total pages to produce numbers over 500, inform me of the rough dates, employees involved, and subject matter, and I may be willing to narrow the initial production, AS LONG AS YOU PRESERVE ALL THE RECORDS.

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

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- Every redaction must be keyed by footnote or by other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each above request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

I look forward to your lawful response.

NOTE: THE EMAIL ADDRESS SENDING THIS REQUEST IS A PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

From: Public Utilities Commission

Thank you for your public records request. We are in receipt of your request dated December 7, 2020. As explained in the attached memo<https://www.sfwater.org/modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=15142>, per the emergency orders of the Mayor, the provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance relating to immediate disclosure requests have been temporarily suspended for the duration of the local emergency. We will provide our initial response to you on or before December 17, 2020, in accordance with those Mayoral orders and the California Public Records Act.

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Requester,

We are conducting a diligent search for records, and we have determined that we may have records responsive to your request. Please note that the SFPUC reserves the right to invoke one or more exemptions to the disclosure of records, as applicable. Finally, due to the broad scope of your request, the SFPUC estimates that it will be able to provide a full response to your request on or before December 31, 2022. Please be advised that the SFPUC reserves the right to further extend this timeline due to the voluminous amount of records that might be located. This timeline may be reduced, however, if you agree to narrow your request.
Best regards,
SFPUC Public Records

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Provide rolling responses working backwards from the most recent records to the oldest, and prioritize the most senior employees including your department head.

Note that if you unreasonably delay any particular records that will be a violation of 67.21(a) and I will file complaints on that basis.

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Requester,

The SFPUC has requested the Executive Management staff to search for responsive records. The responsive records are available to you at this link: https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-s72233ecd4fec4ba5858e17407834405c. Due to the need to continue searching and reviewing responsive records, we will produce any additional responsive records as soon as reasonably possible on an incremental or rolling basis. In order for us to continue our search, please specify which other employees, if any, you would like to search for further responsive records. Please keep in mind that the SFPUC has over 2,300 employees and the search will likely take a substantial amount of time without a narrower scope.

Finally, please be advised that we have redacted from the enclosed records the home addresses and personal phone numbers on privacy grounds. Redactions are based on California Constitution, Article I, section 1, California Government Code Section 6254(k), and California Government Code Section 6254(c). These provisions guard against disclosure of information that would invade personal privacy. Further, both the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250) and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.1(g)) acknowledge the importance of protecting personal privacy where disclosing records in response to a public records request.
Best Regards,
SFPUC Public Records

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Search also all persons who directly reported to Harlan Kelly prior to his termination and also all persons who reported directly or indirectly to Juliet Ellis.

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Supervisor of Records,

The 2nd redaction on the attached public record from PUC is challenged. Please determine in writing that it is public and order it disclosed pursuant to SFAC 67.21(d).

The location of a water leak worked on by PUC is by definition conduct of public business. The Mayor doesn't have special rights to hide certain public utility work that happens to be near her. ( Note that the water leak is apparently NOT the Mayor's home address and thus is not exempt under Gov Code 6254.21 or their other citations. )

--Anonymous

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Requester,

The SFPUC was notified about your challenge to the redaction of file 20210125_100027. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed your request and determined that this record poses no privacy concerns. Therefore, please find a new version of the challenged record here<https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-s3bcef32b744a40c280ec459e675b3d29>, without the redacted address.

Please note that we have kept redacted from the enclosed record the listed personal phone number on privacy grounds. Redactions are based on California Constitution, Article I, section 1, California Government Code Section 6254(k), and California Government Code Section 6254(c). These provisions guard against disclosure of information that would invade personal privacy. Further, both the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250) and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.1(g)) acknowledge the importance of protecting personal privacy where disclosing records in response to a public records request.
Best Regards,
SFPUC Public Records

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

FYI - PUC states "The SFPUC was notified about your challenge to the redaction of file 20210125_100027. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed your request and determined that this record poses no privacy concerns. Therefore, please find a new version of the challenged record here<https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-s3bcef32b744a40c280ec459e675b3d29>, without the redacted address."

Therefore remember to tell the truth in your "determination" to my Supervisor of Records petition.
As I suspect in all cases where the City gives more information, you have *in fact* determined some or all of the information was public and must say so.

--Anonymous

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Requester,

In response to your February 17, 2021 email to the Supervisor of Records, we have been advised to provide you with copy of the record you referenced in that email with the address in question unredacted, as well as an unredacted copy of the record titled 20210125_101118.

The SFPUC released a less-redacted version of file 20210125_100027 on February 19, 2021. We are now releasing an unredacted copy of the record titled 20210125_101118.
Best regards,
SFPUC Public Records

From:

To Whom It May Concern -

We understand that the Public Utilities Commission has now produced the record to you and has removed the redaction you contested. We therefore close your petition as moot.

Bradley Russi
Deputy City Attorney
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl., San Francisco, CA 94102
www.sfcityattorney.org

From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester

Even when the public is completely right, and the entirety was public, you still won't give us a determination...

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Requester,

We are writing in response to your email dated February 17, 2021. The SFPUC has requested all employees who directly reported to Harlan Kelly Jr. and all employees who reported directly or indirectly to Juliet Ellis to search for records responsive to your request. The responsive records are available at this link: https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-seeb8dfc4e68b4353bfdf90eef9d2d902.

Please be advised that we have redacted the record "Emily Lam_Redacted for Privacy and ACP" on privacy grounds. The redactions include a personal phone number and information regarding family status, age, gender, and ethnicity. These redactions are based on California Constitution, Article I, section 1, California Government Code Section 6254(k), and California Government Code Section 6254(c). These provisions guard against the disclosure of information that would invade personal privacy. Further, both the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.1(g)) acknowledge the importance of protecting personal privacy where disclosing records in response to a public records request.

Please be further advised that, on the first page of record "Emily Lam_Redacted for Privacy and ACP," we have redacted information that constitutes a privileged attorney-client communication. (See Cal. Gov't Code § 6254(k) (exemption for records protected from disclosure under federal or state law, including provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege); Cal. Evid. Code § 954 (privilege for communications between attorneys and their clients); Cal. Gov't Code § 6276.04 (cross-referencing in the Public Records Act the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges).)

Finally, due to the need to continue searching and reviewing responsive records, we will produce any additional responsive records as soon as reasonably possible on an incremental or rolling basis. In order for us to continue our search, please specify which other employees, if any, you would like to search for further responsive records. Please keep in mind that the SFPUC has over 2,300 employees and the search will likely take a substantial amount of time without a narrower scope.
Best Regards,
Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa
SFPUC Public Records Senior Analyst

Files

pages

Close