City Stonewalls Public Records Request

Only Complies After Months of Pressure

The California Public Records Act (CPRA) requires that government records (defined as “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics”) be disclosed to any member of the public upon request (with specific exemptions for privacy and/or public safety issues) within 24 calendar days.

Last December, the Bureau of Engineering (BOE), the City of Los Angeles department responsible for the refurbishment of the historic Warner Grand Theatre in San Pedro, responded to a November 21 request from Random Lengths News for “any and all records, communications, correspondence, etc. […] pertaining to the refurbishment of the Warner Grand Theatre” from the prior three months by providing 17 pages of records.

But because these 17 pages did not include multiple pertinent e-mails sent from BOE staff — including to and from project manager Marcus Yee, and with phrases such as “Warner Grand Theatre” and “WGT Renovation Project” in the subject line — Random Lengths News was able to independently verify that the BOE had not fully complied with their CPRA obligations. 

Nonetheless, on four separate occasions, the BOE attempted to close RLn’s request without disclosing all records, making explicit claims to both RLn and even L.A. City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto’s office that no additional records existed.

After five months of back-and-forth, the City ultimately produced nearly 1,400 pages of pertinent records — over 99% more than the BOE claimed to exist. 

A brief timeline:

• Nov. 21 – Public Records Request submitted to the BOE.
• Dec. 9 – Request closed after the release of 8 pages of records. Request reopened after I suggested this could not be everything.
• Dec. 26 – Request closed with the release of an additional 9 pages of records. Request reopened after I again suggested that this could not be everything.
• Jan. 2 – I inform the City Attorney’s Office that it appears the BOE is not complying with California law regarding disclosure of records.
• Jan. 6 – Request closed with no additional records released (“We have again verified with our divisions and the Bureau of Engineering has no additional records to provide at this time”).
• Jan. 7 – Statement from Deputy City Attorney Bethelwel Wilson: “I have had exhaustive communications with the BOE regarding this request and the determination that was arrived after numerous searches is that you have been provided all responsive records and there is nothing further for BOE to provide.” I reply that I am in possession of material proving this is not the case, citing one example. “In light of your latest email,” Wilson replies, “I have asked BOE to conduct a more comprehensive search of staff emails.”
• Feb. 11 – Having received no further communications or additional records, I follow up with the City Attorney’s Office.
• Feb. 12 – Request reopened; I receive approximately 100 pages of additional records — though the above-mentioned BOE staff e-mails are absent.
• Feb. 28 – I follow up with the City Attorney’s Office. Wilson: “I understand BOE is reviewing the final batch of emails. Let [me] check with them again for an estimate.”
• Mar. 11 – Having received no further communications or records, I follow up with the City Attorney’s Office.
• Mar. 25 – I again follow up with the City Attorney’s Office.
• May 6 – Wilson: “In light of BOE’s delay I will personally ensure you receive nonexempt records before week’s end.”
• May 7 – I receive approximately 1,300 pages of additional records.

It is unclear whether the BOE’s gross misrepresentation of the existence of pertinent records was intentional or not. (The BOE did not reply to numerous requests for comment.) What is certain, however, is that the City failed to comply with the California law.

“This sounds like a classic example of an inadequate search,” says David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition. “I can’t read minds as to whether it is malice or incompetence, but it definitely should not be this way. The duty of conducting a search is not perfection, it’s reasonableness — but that is not a blank check not to do due diligence. […] If you requested e-mails, doing a keyword search on e-mails is Search 101 stuff, so there’s no excuse not to produce any records that have the project name in the subject line.”

City Attorney Feldstein Soto did not respond inquiries concerning whether she is troubled with such an egregious failure to comply with state law; what safeguards are supposed to be in place to ensure that the City complies with its legal obligation and how/why these safeguards failed so completely; whether the City take any action against the person(s)/department(s) responsible for this failure; whether the City will conduct any research/audit of its responses to prior records requests to ascertain how prevalent such failures are; and whether the City make any changes to its methodology concerning disclosure of requested public records.