Gmail - Response PRR McDonough re Representation Page 1 of 2 Eric McDonough Response PRR McDonough re Representation Elizabeth Sewell To: Eric McDonough Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 6:15 PM Good afternoon Dr. McDonough, I apologize if there was a miscommunication during our conservation earlier this week. I was caught off guard and flustered by being videotaped and what I thought was your aggressive tone. I would like to clarify the reasons for different responses to your two different public records requests. On October 15, 2015, you made a very narrow request specifically for “records related to the City’s decision to use the law firm of Weiss, Serota, Helfman, Cole and Bierman to defend Officer Alejandro Murguido” and “documentation as to who made the decision to have the City defend this Officer.” There are only a few records that actually reflect those specific decisions. Each of the responsive records are exempt and confidential as they include risk management file records, privileged work product protected information, and insurance claim negotiations. Those records remain confidential and exempt until the conclusion of the claim. Your more recent June 5, 2016 public records request was considerably broader as it requested the following: 1. All emails between you, your firm, and the city, excluding any direct communications between you and your client Mr. Murguido, relating to your defense of Murguido. 2. Any other non­exempt/non­confidential documents, records, communications, etc., ad infinitum related to the city’s decision to defend Murguido, or the defense of Murguido. 3. Explicitly cited exemptions for each redaction and/or refused record/document. 4. The number of billable hours you have charged/worked/billed to date in the defense of Murguido. The hourly billing rate you are charging the city, and the total amount to dollars charged or to be billed to the city as of the date of this email, including the time you spend reading and responding to this email and request. The records responsive to this second request are voluminous. Some of the responsive records are not exempt and have already been made available to you. We are just awaiting your payment. Some of those records will be redacted as they reveal attorney mental impressions pursuant to Chapter 119.071(1)(d)(1) Florida Statutes. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=0e34f33ef3&view=pt&msg=1560f874ae9658f... 5/16/2017 Gmail - Response PRR McDonough re Representation Page 2 of 2 There are also many responsive records that are confidential and exempt pursuant to Sections 119.0719(1)(d)(1), 768.28(16)(b) and 624.311(2), Florida Statutes. The requested records contain privileged work product protected information, are claims file records and/or reflect insurance claim negotiations and, as such, will remain confidential and exempt until termination of all litigation and settlement of all claims arising out of the incident. Your threatened claim against the City within your notice of claim dated April 21, 2014 is the active claim from which these exemptions arise. From: Eric McDonough [mailto:phd2b05@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 7:25 PM To: Elizabeth Sewell Cc: agreenstein004@hotmail.com; Felipe Hemming ; craig@weissberglegal.com; Pro Subject: Fwd: Response PRR McDonough re Representation [Quoted text hidden] https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=0e34f33ef3&view=pt&msg=1560f874ae9658f... 5/16/2017