Walter Wong Text Messages - Immediate Disclosure Request (SF PUC others)

Thank you for your public records request. We are in receipt of your request dated December 2, 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 14, 2020, in accordance with those Mayoral orders and the California Public Records Act.

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, the SFPUC estimates that it will be able to provide a full response to your request on or before March 26, 2021. 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.
Best regards,
SFPUC Public Records

Dear Requester,

We continue to conduct a diligent search for records responsive to your request. We have located responsive records, which are attached. Due to the need to continue searching and your request to release records on a rolling basis, we will send any additional responsive records (if any) as soon as reasonably possible on an incremental or rolling basis.
Best Regards,
SFPUC Public Records

Dear Requester,

The SFPUC has identified additional records responsive to your request. The responsive records are available to you at this link: https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-sd5344a3e2e014af3b064c0c817d15385. 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.

Please note that we have redacted personal phone numbers from record "Mail(49)_Redacted" and "RE_ The State of the Ocean Beach Master Plan So..._Redacted" the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. These redactions are based on California Constitution, Article I, section 1, California Government Code Section 6254(k), and California Government Code Section 6254(c).

Further, we have redacted certain information in the record "Fwd_ Safety at San Francisco PUC Wastewater_Redacted" because this record contains information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Specifically, we have redacted personal email addresses, disaster service worker ("DSW") numbers, personal phone numbers, and residential addresses, and information that may reveal the identity of a confidential informant, based on the California Constitution, article I, section 1, and California Government Code section 6254(c). These provisions guard against disclosure of information that would invade personal privacy.

Finally, please note that we have redacted Disaster Service Worker ("DSW") numbers from the records "Fwd_ Safety at San Francisco PUC Wastewater_Redacted" and "FW_ The SFPUC's Response to May 11th Email Enti..._Attachment_Redacted" because this information is exempt from disclosure under the official information privilege exemption of the Public Records Act. DSW numbers are used to coordinate emergency responses within the City and their disclosure may impede the City's ability to respond to disasters. DSW numbers constitute information acquired in confidence by a public employee in the course of his or her duty and are not disclosed to the public, and the SFPUC has determined that disclosure of this information is against the public interest because there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of this information that outweighs the interest in disclosure. (Evid. Code § 1040; Gov. Code § 6254(k) (exempting from disclosure records "the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege").)
Best Regards,
Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa
SFPUC Public Records Senior Analyst

Dear Requester,

We are writing in response to your March 9, 2021 message. Please note that the links previously shared with you have expired and we were unable to reactivate them. The responsive records are now available at the following link: https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-s82466a7d6fff4ccb8d8b625cbb1de980.

With regard to the folder titled "texts [161-219]," please note that the record "Harlan Kelly Text Messages - Redacted Jan 29 2021_175-219" contains the text exchanges between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Walter Wong provided to you on February 22, 2021. As previously noted, we have redacted several portions of the text exchange the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, such as discussions of family illnesses, children, and personal residential addresses or personal cell phone numbers, and a reference to a personnel matter. See Cal. Const., Art. I, § 1; Cal. Gov. Code § 6254(c),(k); S.F. Admin. Code § 67.1(g). We have also redacted the text message on page 1, dated January 1, 2015, because it does not contain information relating to the conduct of the public's business and therefore is not a public record responsive to your request. See Cal. Gov't Code § 6252(e). We have also excluded the portions of the first page that Mr. Kelly previously redacted because that portion of the text exchange occurred before January 1, 2015 and is not responsive to your June 11, 2020 request.

Additionally, please note that the folder titled "texts [161-219]" contains text exchanges between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Mayor London Breed. Please note that the attached versions are the only ones in SFPUC's possession. Accordingly, you may wish to submit a separate public records request directly to the Mayor's Office.

Please be advised that we have redacted information from the record "sfwater emails_0-160_Redacted" (Bates Stamps # 187, 188, 190, and 191), "Critical Project Questionnaire - rev 3GN edit_Redacted for ACP", "FW_ Final signed order_Redacted for ACP", "FW_ Request that 333 Valencia Project be EXEMPT..._Redacted for ACP", "FW_ Response to Revised Health Order_Redacted for ACP", "Fwd_ Essential Construction Guidelines - Confid..._Redacted for ACP", and "Re_ Essential Construction Guidelines - Confide..._Redacted for ACP" that constitutes attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product. (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, please note that information from record "sfwater emails_0-160_Redacted" (Bates Stamps # 113, 114, 130, 133, 134, 139, 161, 162, 181, 182, 185, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 217, 218, 219, 220, 228, 231, 232, 233, 235, 236, 238, 239), "personal email [220-260]" folder (PUC # 220-226, 228-231, 233-260), and "Re_ Chap 6 construction departments - essential..._Redacted for Privacy" have been redacted because these records contain information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Specifically, we have redacted personal email addresses, personal telephone numbers, dates and places of birth, personal identification numbers, and gender information pursuant to California Government Code section 6254, subdivisions (c) and (k) and Article I, section 1, of the California Constitution. (See also San Francisco Administrative Code § 67.1(g)).
Best Regards,
Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa
SFPUC Public Records Senior Analyst

Dear Ms. Leger,

Attached is SFPUC's full response to Complaint No. 21076 and supporting documents.

Thank you,
Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa
SFPUC Public Records Senior Analyst

1) The PUC has admitted that the additional spreadsheet of the attachment was non-exempt. So the violation is proven.
Contrary to PUC's argument, I am not required to, at SOTF, prove any form of intent.  A document was withheld, unlawfully, and without written justification.  Ergo, a violation occurred.

2) I am not obligated to again additionally request each email within a thread.
Each email is its own public record.  Each must be reproduced to me.
This Task Force has already considered the concept of producing separately each email as its own exact copy in SOTF Order 19121 and 19128.
Forwarded emails are not an exact copy of the original email.
A final reply email is not the same as the copy of each email in the thread, and each email must be produced.

Regards,

Anonymous
Twitter @journo_anon

IMPORTANT:
1. If you are a public official: I intend that these communications all be disclosable public records, and I will not hold in confidence any of your messages, notwithstanding any notices to the contrary.
2. If you are NOT a public official: This communication is confidential and may contain unpublished information or confidential source information, protected by the California Shield Law, Evidence Code sec. 1070. I am a member of the electronic media and regularly publish information about the conduct of public officials.
3. I am not a lawyer.  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.
4. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender.

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Dear Requester,

The SFPUC has located additional records responsive to your request, which are available at this link: https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-se4a5aaccb5c74edbb8c68f05f4d2d91b. Due to the need to continue reviewing responsive records, we will release additional records on a rolling basis.

Please note that we have withheld from disclosure two records that constitute attorney-client communications and attorney work product. We have also made redactions to the record titled "FW_ Land Use and Transportation Committee Recom..._Redacted for ACP" based on those same privileges. (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. Code Civ. Proc. Section 2018.030 (privilege for work product that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research); Cal. Gov't Code § 6276.04 (cross-referencing in the Public Records Act the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges).)

We have also redacted from the record titled "Fwd_ response to Letter re_ Wing Quock - Sewer ..._Attachment_Redacted" one name and three personal addresses of utility customers, based on the utility customer information exemption (Government Code section 6254.16), as well as the privacy provisions in 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.

We have also redacted a personal email address from the record titled "Fwd_ response to Letter re_ Wing Quock - Sewer ..._Redacted for Privacy" 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.

Please further note that we have redacted from the record titled "RE_ Urgent Information Request - Survey of Non-..._Attachment 1_Redacted" Taxpayer Identification Numbers because this information is protected from disclosure under federal law. (See Gov. Code § 6254(k) (exempting from disclosure "Records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law"); 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a), (b)(2)(A) and (b)(6) (protecting from disclosure "return information," including "taxpayer identifying number"); see also 26 C.F.R. § 301.6109-1(a)(1)(i) (defining employer identification numbers as taxpayer identifying numbers)).

We have also redacted from the record titles "RE_ Urgent Information Request - Survey of Non-..._Attachment 1_Redacted" City Supplier Numbers under Government Code section 6254.33, which exempts from disclosure identification numbers, alphanumeric characters, or other unique identifying codes that a public agency uses to identify a vendor or contractor.

Finally, we have redacted from the record titled "RE_ Urgent Information Request - Survey of Non-..._Attachment 1_Redacted" a Disaster Service Worker ("DSW") number because this information is exempt from disclosure under the official information privilege and privacy exemptions of the Public Records Act.

DSW numbers are used to coordinate emergency responses within the City and their disclosure may impede the City's ability to respond to disasters. DSW numbers constitute information acquired in confidence by a public employee in the course of his or her duty and are not disclosed to the public, and the SFPUC has determined that disclosure of this information is against the public interest because there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of this information that outweighs the interest in disclosure. (Evid. Code § 1040; Gov. Code § 6254(k) (exempting from disclosure records "the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege").)

DSW numbers have also been redacted because these numbers may be used to access information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. These numbers have been redacted based on the California Constitution, article I, section 1, and California Government Code section 6254(c). These provisions guard against disclosure of information that would invade personal privacy.
Best regards,
Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa
SFPUC Public Records Senior Analyst

Dear Requester,

The SFPUC has located additional records responsive to your request. Please see the attached. Due to the need to continue reviewing responsive records and the need to consult with the City Attorney's Office on privileged and confidential information, we will release additional records on a rolling basis.

Please note that we have withheld from disclosure one record (the attachment to the record titled "RE_ BCTD revised Budget Request") because that record is 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).
Best regards,
Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa
SFPUC Public Records Senior Analyst

Dear Requester,

The SFPUC has located additional records responsive to your request, which are available at this link: https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-s5cd1b476dfb0406b8ef7b8cb535bff1a
Due to the need to continue reviewing responsive records, we will release additional records on a rolling basis.

Please be advised that we have redacted records ("FW_ New Legislation_ Sup. Stefani Contracting O..._Redacted for ACP"; "Re_ New Legislation_ Sup. Stefani Contracting O..._Redacted for ACP and Privacy ") that contain information that constitutes attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product. (See Cal. Gov't Code § 7927.705 (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 § 7930.110 (cross-referencing in the Public Records Act the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges).)

We have also redacted from the linked records private leave information ("Re_ New Legislation_ Sup. Stefani Contracting O..._Redacted for ACP and Privacy"), personal email addresses ("RE_ WUWC_ Update on HEROES Act Covid relief le..._Redacted for Privacy"; "WUWC_ Covid-19 legislation_Redacted Meeting Info and Privacy") on privacy grounds. Redactions are based on California Constitution, Article I, section 1, California Government Code Section 7927.705, and California Government Code Section 7927.700. These provisions guard against disclosure of information that would invade personal privacy. Further, both the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 7921.000) 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.

Further, we have redacted from the records ("SFPW_SFMTA Directors Coordination Meeting(1)_Redacted Meeting Info"; "SFPW_SFMTA Directors Coordination Meeting_Redacted Meeting Info"; "WUWC_ Covid-19 legislation_Redacted Meeting Info and Privacy") conference meetings hyperlinks, conference call-in numbers, meetings IDs and corresponding passwords in order to prevent access to privileged, private, or otherwise confidential communications that are protected from disclosure under the Public Records Act, for example, attorney-client privileged communications (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 7927.705, 7930.110; Cal. Evid. Code §§ 950 et seq.), personal private information (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 7921.000, 7927.700; Cal. Const., Art. I, §1; Admin. Code §67.1(g)), trade secrets (Cal. Govt. Code § 7930.205; Cal. Civil Code §§ 3426, 3426.7(c); Cal. Evid. Code § 1060), and utility customer data (Cal. Govt. Code § 7927.410).
Best Regards,
Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa
SFPUC Public Records Senior Administrative Analyst