Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 06/30/2020 02:05 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by N. Alvarez,Deputy Clerk 20STCP02106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LAW OFFICES OF KELLY AVILES KELLY AVILES (State Bar No. 257168) 1502 Foothill Blvd., #103-140 La Verne, California 91750 Telephone: (909) 991-7560 / Fax: (909) 991-7594 kaviles@opengovlaw.com LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC JEFF GLASSER (State Bar No. 252596) 2300 E. Imperial Highway El Segundo, California 90245 Telephone: (213) 237-5000 jeff.glasser@latimes.com 9 10 11 Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 14 15 16 LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Petitioner/Plaintiff, 17 18 19 20 21 v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent/Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT WITH EXHIBITS A THROUGH DD [Gov’t Code § 6250 et seq.] 22 23 Under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1060 and 24 Government Code sections 6258 and 6259, Petitioner/Plaintiff LOS ANGELES TIMES 25 COMMUNICATIONS LLC (“The Times”) petitions this Court for a writ of mandate and 26 declaratory relief directed to Respondent/Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, 27 ordering the County to provide public records that it has improperly withheld and to 28 respond to public records requests within the deadlines set out in the California Public -1VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 Records Act (“CPRA”). The County’s refusal to provide the withheld records and to 2 respond within the time required by the CPRA has obstructed and unnecessarily 3 delayed The Times’ and the public’s access to important public records, including video 4 footage and other files concerning shootings, uses of force causing great bodily harm, 5 sexual assaults, and acts of dishonesty by Los Angeles Sheriff’s deputies. 6 In this verified Petition, The Times alleges as follows: 7 8 9 INTRODUCTION 1. Respondent County of Los Angeles (the “County”) has refused repeatedly to disclose public information. In 2016, The Times filed a lawsuit – still pending – 10 against the County for its attempt to charge exorbitant fees to search for and produce 11 emails relating to bias and discrimination within the Sheriff’s Department command 12 staff. (Los Angeles Times Communications LLC v. County of Los Angeles, Second 13 Appellate District Case No. B294142, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS 162607.) 14 Two years later, The Times was forced to file another lawsuit contesting the 15 County’s pattern and practice of refusing to turn over a variety of public records, 16 including records related to sexual harassment and misconduct within the District 17 Attorney’s Office, homicide data, official email addresses of Sheriff’s Department 18 employees, CPRA policy and procedural manuals, and information about the positions 19 held by officers in the Sheriff’s Department. (Los Angeles Times Communications LLC 20 v. County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS172865.) 21 Then, in January 2019, The Times had to file a lawsuit to contest the Sheriff’s 22 Department’s delays in producing disciplinary records about Caren Carl Mandoyan, a 23 Sheriff’s official whom Sheriff Alex Villanueva reinstated two years after his 24 predecessor had fired him. The Times and other media companies also intervened in 25 January 2019 to fight a litigation brought by the Sheriff’s union to preclude the 26 Sheriff’s Department from releasing any records regarding shootings and/or discipline 27 meted out to Sheriff’s employees prior to 2019. (Association of Los Angeles Deputy 28 Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (Los Angeles Times Communications LLC Real -2VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 Party In Interest), Second Appellate District Case No. B295936, Los Angeles Superior 2 Court Case No. 19STCP00166.). The records sought by The Times became disclosable 3 January 1, 2019, when SB 1421 took effect, providing the press and the public with 4 access to records and information about shootings and/or discipline of law 5 enforcement officers for the first time in more than 40 years. 6 After the Sheriff’s union’s litigation failed, the County released video clips and 7 other records in March 2019 showing that the Sheriff’s Department “determined [Mr.] 8 Mandoyan repeatedly lied to internal affairs investigators by claiming that he never 9 tried to break into a woman’s home – statements that were contradicted by the video 10 footage,” as The Times reported. See https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me- 11 sheriff-mandoyan-video-20190327-story.html. The SB 1421 records also revealed that 12 a woman who accused Mr. Mandoyan of abuse told investigators that Mandoyan had a 13 tattoo of the Grim Reaper signifying that he was a member of a secret group of Sheriff’s 14 deputies. See https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-sheriff-mandoyan-tattoo- 15 20190328-story.html. As The Times noted, the woman said he warned her that 16 because of his membership with the Reapers, he had influential friends who could ruin 17 careers in the Sheriff’s Department. See id.1 18 2. Despite The Times’ repeated litigations to compel the County to comply 19 with transparency laws, and in spite of the new law, SB 1421, intended to lift the cloud 20 of secrecy that has so long obscured issues of serious police misconduct, officer- 21 involved shootings, and other uses of force by law enforcement officers in California, 22 the County has continued to deny The Times and the public access to public records 23 and information. 24 3. SB 1421 mandates that the public must have access to all records related 25 to four categories of information as of January 1, 2019. The four categories are (1) 26 incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer; (2) 27 The County eventually settled The Times’ lawsuit regarding Mandoyan’s records in 2020. (Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCP00118.) 1 28 -3VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 incidents involving the use of force by a peace officer against a person, resulting in 2 death or great bodily injury; (3) incidents in which a sustained finding was made by a 3 law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer 4 engaged in the sexual assault of a member of the public; and (4) incidents in which a 5 sustained finding was made by a law enforcement agency or oversight agency of 6 dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, 7 investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or 8 investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but 9 not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false 10 statements, filing false reports, and the destruction, falsifying, or concealing of 11 evidence. A true and correct copy of SB 1421 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. (See Pen. 12 Code § 832.7(b) [as amended].) 13 4. In enacting SB 1421, the Legislature was clear about its intent. The public 14 has a right to know all about serious police misconduct, as well as about officer- 15 involved shootings and other serious uses of force. Concealing crucial public safety 16 matters such as officer violations of civilians’ rights, or inquiries into deadly use of force 17 incidents, undercuts the public’s faith in the legitimacy of law enforcement, makes it 18 harder for tens of thousands of hardworking peace officers to do their jobs, and 19 endangers public safety. (SB 1421, § 1(b).) 20 5. Almost 18 months have passed since SB 1421 went into effect, and the 21 County continues to withhold records from The Times and the public on hundreds of 22 deputies who were involved in shootings, used force inflicting great bodily harm, 23 committed sexual assaults, or were disciplined for dishonesty, concealing evidence, or 24 similar misconduct. The County has improperly denied a number of The Times’ 25 requests and has only agreed to produce SB 1421 records for those deputies or other 26 covered employees whom the Times can identify, by name, as possibly having 27 disclosable records under the new law. 28 -4VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 6. Even as to the employees that The Times has specifically identified by 2 name, the County has produced almost no records. As to the 325 deputies or other 3 covered employees that The Times specifically identified as having records that may be 4 disclosable pursuant to SB 1421, the Sheriff’s Department has produced records for just 5 two deputies and responded that approximately 17 other deputies had no disclosable 6 letters of discipline. Information about the other more than 300 officers specifically 7 identified by The Times remains undisclosed. 8 9 7. Unfortunately, it appears the only way that the County will produce these long-sought records is through an order from this Court. Therefore, The Times seeks a 10 determination that the County violated the CPRA by: (a) denying The Times’ January 11 1, 2019, requests for all letters of discipline issued to Sheriff’s department members 12 from 2014-2019 and all electronic records maintained by the Sheriff’s Department on 13 Sheriff’s deputies or other individuals covered by the new law, claiming the requests 14 were overbroad; (b) rejecting The Times’ requests for records – that the Sheriff’s 15 Department maintains in existing databases – reflecting covered uses of force by 16 deputies, discipline of deputies, and deputies on the so-called Brady list because they 17 have Brady v. Maryland material in their personnel files reflecting histories of 18 dishonesty and similar misconduct that would damage the credibility of deputies called 19 as witnesses; (c) withholding timesheet records with unjustified claims about the 20 Pitchess statutes and privacy; (d) delaying and obstructing the disclosure of many 21 responsive, disclosable records by failing to process myriad public records requests on 22 matters of substantial public interest such as the helicopter crash that killed Kobe 23 Bryant; and (e) failing to respond to The Times’ requests for records under SB 1421 24 within the time set out in the CPRA. 25 26 THE PARTIES 8. Petitioner/Plaintiff LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC 27 (“The Times”) publishes the largest metropolitan daily newspaper circulated in 28 California. The Times maintains the website www.latimes.com, a leading source of -5VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 news about Los Angeles County and the state. The Times is authorized to do business 2 and is doing business in the County. At all times relevant to the Petition, The Times 3 has been engaged in the business of gathering and disseminating information to the 4 public, including information about the performance and functioning of public 5 agencies throughout the State of California, such as the County and its Sheriff’s 6 Department, through publication of The Times and www.latimes.com. As such, The 7 Times is within the class of persons beneficially interested in Respondent’s 8 performance of its legal duties. 9 9. Respondent/Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (“County”) is a local 10 public agency, as defined by Government Code section 6252(d), and is, therefore, 11 subject to the CPRA. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“Sheriff’s Department” 12 “LASD” or “Department”) is a department of the County. The County’s Executive 13 Offices are located in the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration at 500 West Temple 14 Street, in Los Angeles, California 90012. 15 16 17 18 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1060 and Government Code sections 6258 and 6259. 11. Venue is proper in this court, as the County is located within the County 19 of Los Angeles, and the records and the acts and events giving rise to the claims 20 occurred in the County of Los Angeles. 21 22 FACTS SUPPORTING THIS ACTION 12. On January 1, 2019, SB 1421 went into effect, modifying the way in which 23 the public could access certain law enforcement records. Prior to the enactment of SB 24 1421, police personnel records were only disclosable through a Pitchess motion. SB 25 1421 now requires that all records relating to specified incidents, complaints, and 26 investigations involving peace officers to be made available for public inspection 27 28 -6VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 pursuant to the California Public Records Act, notwithstanding any other law. A copy 2 of the Legislative Digest regarding SB 1421 is attached hereto as Exhibit A.2 3 13. Pursuant to the new law, on January 1, 2019, The Times submitted 4 various California Public Records Act Requests for disclosure of information mandated 5 by SB 1421. 6 14. The first request sought letters of discipline from January 1, 2014 7 through January 1, 2019, for current and former sworn officers employed by LASD 8 relating to the four specific categories of information made public by SB 1421.3 A copy 9 of the first CPRA request is attached as Exhibit B. The request made clear it was 10 “referring to any documents sent to peace officers that notify them of the discipline 11 being imposed against them.” The Times is informed and believes, and on that basis 12 alleges, that LASD issues letters of discipline any time it disciplines an officer. An 13 example of a letter of discipline issued by LASD in 2013 is attached hereto as Exhibit 14 C. 15 15. The second request asked for electronic records for the same four 16 categories of information sought in the first request. A copy of the second CPRA 17 request is attached as Exhibit D. For those officers subject to discipline, the request 18 specified that The Times was seeking the following categories of information 19 maintained by the Sheriff’s Department: “First, last and middle name of officer; 20 employee or badge number; most recent rank; rank at the time of discipline; date 21 hired; current employment status (active, retire, etc.); current salary; current total 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 All Exhibits attached hereto are true and correct copies of the documents they purport to be and are incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. 3 The four categories of incidents made disclosable by SB 1421 include any incident involving discharge of a firearm at a person by an officer; any incident in which use of force by an officer against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury; any incident in which an agency made a sustained finding that an officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public, as defined in the statute; any incident in which any agency made a sustained finding of dishonesty directly relating to the reporting, investigation or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting or investigation of misconduct, including findings of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, falsifying or concealing evidence. 2 -7VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 compensation; date of separation from the agency; work location (station, beat or 2 division); policy violation type, date of policy violation; discipline type (suspension, 3 reprimand, termination); suspension length in days; whether the discipline was 4 contested or appealed; result of the appeal.” (See Ex. D.) The Times is informed and 5 believes, and on that basis alleges, that LASD maintains a Personnel Performance 6 Index (“PPI”) and/or a Personnel Records Management System (“PRMS”), both of 7 which are computer systems that track uses of force by specific sworn members of the 8 Sheriff’s Department, policy violations, and any discipline imposed by the 9 Department. The Times is further informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, 10 that the computer tracking system(s) used by the Sheriff’s Department contain the 11 information sought by The Times in an electronic format. 12 16. The third request sought all (1) “letters sent on or around Oct. 14, 2016 by 13 former Assistant Sheriff Todd Rogers to deputies notifying them that potential Brady 14 v. Maryland material has been identified in their personnel files;” (2) “letters received 15 by Capt. Gregory Nelson, sent by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies or their 16 representatives, in response to Rogers’ Oct. 2016 letter about Brady material;” (3) 17 “letters sent by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to deputies, after Oct. 24, 18 2016, including printouts of the deputies’ Personnel Performance Indexes (PP[I]s);” 19 and “lists of deputies with potential Brady material in their personnel files – 20 sometimes called a “Brady list” – compiled in any form by the Los Angeles County 21 Sheriff’s Department.” A copy of the third CPRA request is attached as Exhibit E. 22 17. The fourth request specifically asked for SB 1421 information for 325 23 named officers who worked at the LASD. A copy of the fourth request is attached 24 hereto as Exhibit F. 25 18. On January 10, 2019, the Sheriff’s Department extended its time to 26 respond to The Times’ requests for first and second requests (letters of discipline and 27 electronic records). Copies of the extension letters are attached hereto as Exhibit G. 28 -8VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 19. On the morning of March 8, 2019, The Times General Counsel, Jeff 2 Glasser, wrote a letter via email to the Sheriff’s Department regarding the Sheriff’s 3 Department’s delays. “The Times made [CPRA] requests to the Los Angeles County 4 Sheriff’s Department … for certain SB 1421 records January 1 and 7, 2019, including 5 asking for letters of discipline, Brady v. Maryland letters…. LASD has had almost ten 6 weeks to process the records, and yet LASD has not disclosed a single record to The 7 Times.” The Times noted that the Sheriff’s Department’s delays violated the CPRA – 8 “LASD’s continued delays in disclosing SB 1421 records are obstructing public access to 9 key records reflecting on shootings and how the agency dealt with police misconduct.” 10 A true and correct copy of the March 8, 2019 letter from Mr. Glasser of The Times to 11 Sheriff Alex Villanueva and Chad Smeltzer is attached as Exhibit H. 12 20. Later that afternoon, the Sheriff’s Department denied The Times’ first 13 and second CPRA requests for electronic records and letters of discipline, claiming that 14 The Times’ requests were overbroad. LASD claimed that it was “unable to assist … 15 with your request as it is too broad in scope” and that The Times had not made 16 requests that “reasonably describe the identifiable record or records.” The Sheriff’s 17 Department claimed that The Times would have to identify specific names to obtain SB 18 1421 records, even though SB 1421 has no such requirement and the names of deputies 19 disciplined were not public before the Legislature enacted SB 1421. A copy of the 20 March 8, 2019 letters from the Sheriff’s Department denying The Times’ first and 21 second requests are attached hereto as Exhibit I. 22 21. On March 12, 2019, the Sheriff’s Department denied The Times’ third 23 CPRA request for Brady list materials, including the notification letters sent by the 24 Sheriff’s Department to deputies in 2016 and the response letters sent back by 25 deputies, the printouts from the PPI or PRMS databases reflecting the deputies on the 26 Brady list, and any other Brady lists compiled by the Sheriff’s Department. LASD 27 claimed that the requested records “were exempt from disclosure” under Article I, 28 Section I of the California Constitution, Government Code sections 6254(b),(c),(f),(k) -9VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 and 6255, Evidence Code section 1043, Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8, and a 2 court order in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS 166063. A copy of the 3 Department’s March 12 denial is attached hereto as Exhibit J. 4 22. On March 29, 2019, Mr. Glasser of The Times wrote to Sheriff Villanueva 5 and Lt. Alise Norman and asked LASD to reconsider its denials of The Times’ first, 6 second, and third requests. The Times pointed out that the County’s position that The 7 Times did not describe identifiable records in the CPRA requests “does not pass the 8 barest of scrutiny – it is well known, for example, that the County has a Personnel 9 Performance Index (“PPI”) database that tracks Sheriff’s deputies and officials who are 10 disciplined.” The County is required to disclose those electronic records, Mr. Glasser 11 pointed out. As for letters of discipline, Mr. Glasser wrote, “We know the County 12 Sheriff’s Department maintains letters of discipline because The Times has published 13 prior letters of intent to discipline deputies. See 14 http://documents.latimes.com/andrea-cecere-letter-discipline; 15 http://documents.latimes.com/william-cordero-letter-discipline/; 16 http://documents.latimes.com/jeffrey-l-moore-letter-intent-discipline/.” 17 On the Sheriff’s Department’s claim that the requests are overbroad, The Times 18 explained that the “Department’s evident distaste for the new law, SB 1421, does not 19 make The Times’ requests overbroad. Letters of Discipline published by The Times are 20 three pages long. Therefore, it would be hardly onerous or overly burdensome for the 21 County to produce five years of such letters in response to The Times’ requests.” As to 22 the requested electronic records, Mr. Glasser noted that “the County can query the PPI 23 system for responsive records on use of force and/or discipline in minutes, if not 24 seconds.” The Times also noted that the “Legislature was aware of the burden on 25 police agencies in having to search for underlying responsive records reflecting 26 discipline and/or uses of force and still enacted SB 1421 requiring that agencies 27 disclose them.” 28 -10VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 On access to Brady lists compiled by the Sheriff’s Department and related 2 letters to affected Sheriff’s deputies, The Times noted that the case cited by the County 3 was decided before the enactment of SB 1421 and could not prohibit the disclosure of 4 records that the Legislature expressly made disclosable after January 1, 2019. 5 Finally, The Times discussed the California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal 6 authorities recognizing the profound public interest in access to records on uses of 7 force by police and/or discipline for misconduct such as dishonesty and sexual abuse. 8 As part of establishing why any burden on the Sheriff’s Department could not clearly 9 outweigh the public interest in disclosure of SB 1421 records, The Times quoted from 10 the statute: “The public has a right to know all about serious police misconduct, as well 11 as about officer-involved shootings and other serious uses of force. Concealing crucial 12 public safety matters such as officer violations of civilians’ rights, or inquiries into 13 deadly use of force incidents, undercuts the public’s faith in the legitimacy of law 14 enforcement, makes it harder for tens of thousands of hardworking peace officers to do 15 their jobs, and endangers public safety.” A copy of Mr. Glasser’s March 29, 2019 letter 16 is attached as Exhibit K. 17 23. While Cmdr. Scott Johnson of the Sheriff’s Department stated on April 5 18 and 8, 2019, in communications by phone and email, that the Sheriff’s Department 19 would provide records on a rolling basis regarding the 325 named individuals, the 20 County has failed to provide responsive information on more than 300 of them even 21 though more than 18 months have passed since SB 1421 went into effect. A copy of the 22 April 8, 2019 correspondence between LASD and The Times is attached as Exhibit L. 23 24. On July 9, 2019, the County produced letters of discipline for Sheriff’s 24 employees Lawrence Del Mese and Daniel Morris. The County claimed it had no 25 responsive letters of discipline for eight other Sheriff’s employees. For one other 26 Sheriff’s deputy, Giancarlo Scotti, the County claimed that responsive records were 27 “part of an ongoing and active criminal investigation” and cited to pre-SB 1421 cases 28 recognizing before the law changed that evidence gathered as part of an ongoing -11VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 investigation is confidential. Mr. Scotti pleaded no contest to sexually assaulting six 2 women September 5, 2019, and was sentenced to two years in prison September 26, 3 2019. Despite the conclusion of criminal proceedings, the Sheriff’s Department has not 4 released any letters of discipline or electronic records concerning Mr. Scotti’s 5 misconduct. A copy of LASD’s July 9, 2019 response is attached hereto as Exhibit M. 6 25. On September 17, 2019, the Sheriff’s Department sent a response 7 regarding 25 officers, producing letters of discipline for six: Joseph Ament, Jesus 8 Anguiano, Marco Allen, Michael Ascolese, Samuel Aldama, and Sussie Ayala. The 9 County refused to “confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records concerning 10 Armes, Andrew and certain personnel pursuant to Government Code section 6255(a).” 11 The County did not include any justification for its invocation of Government Code 12 section 6255, the CPRA’s “catch-all” exemption, which requires the Department to 13 demonstrate that the public interest served by not disclosing each record clearly 14 outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the records. A copy of LASD’s 15 September 17, 2019 response is attached hereto as Exhibit N. 16 26. Despite the limited disclosures of letters of discipline for nine of the 17 identified deputies, LASD has also failed to provide the files about the incidents 18 underlying those instances of discipline or any response for the rest of the 325 officers 19 that The Times had reason to believe were involved in incidents which would be 20 disclosable under SB 1421. 21 27. On February 6, 2020, the Sheriff’s Department sent several hundred 22 identical emails claiming that “stays … prohibited the Department from releasing 23 records until they were lifted,” even though the stays had been lifted eleven months 24 earlier. The Sheriff’s Department stated that it was processing the requests for specific 25 deputies made by The Times. A copy of one such email containing the same language 26 used in all the emails is attached as Exhibit O. 27 28 28. On April 23, 2020, the Sheriff’s Department asked The Times if the requested SB 1421 electronic records and letters of discipline for the other 335 -12VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 identified officers and any other pending CPRA requests remained a priority. While 2 The Times responded that the requests are still a priority, no further response has been 3 received and no further records have been produced. A copy of LASD’s 4 correspondence and The Times’ response is attached hereto as Exhibit P. 5 6 7 29. The County has also failed to respond to numerous requests made by 30. On April 9, 2019, Maya Lau of The Times made CPRA requests for letters Times. 8 of discipline and underlying case files, reports, investigations or findings involving 9 Sheriff’s Department employees Danilo Martinez and David Parker. A copy of Ms. 10 11 Lau’s request is attached as Exhibit Q. 31. On April 12, 2019, Capt. Kimberly Unland responded, claiming the 12 Sheriff’s Department had no responsive records to either CPRA request because 13 neither one was employed as a peace officer. On April 12, 15 and 16, 2019, the parties 14 exchanged emails, and Ms. Lau of The Times made clear that if the County was taking 15 the position that Martinez and Parker were custody assistants and not sworn peace 16 officers, then the Pitchess statutes had no application, and the records reflecting 17 discipline or well-founded allegations of misconduct have to be disclosed. Ms. Lau 18 stated that she had been given access to disciplinary records of custody assistants in 19 the past. On April 26, Captain Unland responded, “Upon further review, the 20 Department will not release the requested personnel records for its custody assistants 21 based on Government Code sections 6254(c) and 6255(a).” Copies of the 22 communications between The Times and the Sheriff’s Department are attached as 23 Exhibit R. 24 32. On April 30, 2019, Mr. Glasser of The Times wrote to Sheriff Villanueva 25 and County Counsel Mary Wickham and stated that “the County has been required for 26 more than 40 years to disclose records reflecting misconduct by non-sworn public 27 employees where the allegations against them are true or well founded, or discipline is 28 imposed. E.g., American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. -13VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 Regents of the University of California, 80 Cal. App. 3d 913, 918 (1978); Marken v. 2 Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist., 202 Cal. App. 4th 1250, 1268 (2012); BRV, 3 Inc. v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 4th 742, 759 (2006); Bakersfield City Sch. Dist. v. 4 Superior Court, 118 Cal. App. 4th 1041, 1047 (2004). This long-standing rule requires 5 public agencies to produce records reflecting the complaint, the discipline, and the 6 information upon which it was based. Id. The County’s Sheriff’s Department once 7 again appears to be flouting California law as part of refusing to disclose the 8 disciplinary records for employees such as David Parker and Danilo Martinez. The 9 County employs Parker and Martinez despite prior imposition of discipline or well- 10 found accusations of misconduct against them. Under the controlling case law, the 11 County must disclose to The Times records reflecting the complaints, underlying facts, 12 and the outcomes of any investigation involving Parker and/or Martinez where the 13 allegations were true or well-founded, or discipline was imposed. As custody 14 assistants, Parker and Martinez are entrusted with helping to ensure the safe 15 administration of the jails and inmate care, which only heightens the public interest in 16 access to records reflecting on any well-founded allegations of misconduct or discipline 17 imposed by the County against them.” A copy of Mr. Glasser’s April 30 letter to Sheriff 18 Villanueva and County Counsel Wickham is attached as Exhibit S. 19 33. On May 10, 2019, Ms. Lau of The Times spoke on the telephone with 20 Capt. Unland, who said the Sheriff’s Department was no longer invoking blanket 21 denials of the records requests for Parker and Martinez and that they would be placed 22 in the queue for processing. 23 24 25 34. Despite the passage of more than one year and one month, the Sheriff’s Department has not produced any records for Parker or Martinez. 35. On October 3, 2019, The Times made a CPRA request for an Excel 26 spreadsheet of all promotions within LASD to the rank of captain and above since 27 December 1, 2018, including name, prior rank and assignment and current rank and 28 assignment; Sheriff Villanueva’s daily schedule since he took office; an Excel -14VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 spreadsheet of in-custody jail deaths since January 1, 2009, including the following 2 categories: name, facility, date, cause of death; and all public records requests sent to 3 LASD from 12/1/18 to present/PRA log or spreadsheets kept by LASD to track 4 requests, including the requestor, request, date received and status of the request. A 5 copy of The Times’ October 3 request is attached hereto as Exhibit T. 6 36. On April 9, 2020, more than six months after the October 3, 2019 CPRA 7 request, the Sheriff’s Department alleged it was “continuing to gather records to 8 review.” The Sheriff’s Department claimed: “Once we have determined what records 9 are responsive to your request, we will review them to determine if some of the records 10 are exempt from disclosure. Not having reviewed all of the records, we cannot specify 11 all the applicable authorities upon which records would be withheld or redactions 12 would be required. The authorities may include, but are not limited to, the 13 following: California Constitution, article I, section 1; matters protected by the 14 attorney-client, official information, and deliberative process privileges; matters 15 relating to pending litigation, personnel matters, investigations, or where the 16 particular facts and circumstances warrant nondisclosure of the information. 17 (Government Code §§ 6254 (a), (b), (c), (f), (k), and 6255(a).)” A copy of LASD’s April 18 9 correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit U. 19 20 21 37. Despite the passage of more than eight months, The Times has not received any records in response to its October 3, 2019 request. 38. On October 7, 2019, The Times requested SB 1421 records for Deputies 22 Carrie Esmeralda Robles-Placencia and Vincent Moran. On October 11, 2019, The 23 Times requested SB 1421 records for Deputy Fernando Quintero. Copies of these two 24 requests are attached hereto as Exhibits V and W, respectively. Despite the passage 25 of more than eight months, the Sheriff’s Department has produced no responsive 26 records to these requests 27 28 39. On October 11, 2019, The Times made a CPRA request for all of the internal audits conducted within the Sheriff’s Department since December 1, 2018. A -15VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 copy of the request is attached hereto as Exhibit X. The request has been pending for 2 more than eight months, but the Sheriff’s Department has not responded or produced 3 any responsive records. 4 40. On January 9, 2020, The Times made a CPRA request for: all 5 LASD/Probation Dept. emails and records returned as a result of a Jan. 25 2019 search 6 warrant prepared by Sgt. Richard Biddle (warrant number: 82189); all records 7 returned as a result of an April 3 2019 search warrant prepared by Sgt. Richard Biddle 8 for Scott Budnick’s Google account info (warrant number: 84191); any and all reports 9 or memos or documents or communications concerning Scott Budnick being banned 10 from/not allowed into LA County jails, from Dec. 1 2018 to the date this request is 11 fulfilled; any and all emails sent to or received by Alex Villanueva that contain any of 12 the following words: “Scott” “Scott Budnick” “Budnick” “Anti Recidivism Coalition” or 13 “ARC,” from Dec. 1 2018 to the date this request is fulfilled; and emails sent to or 14 received by Alex Villanueva from the following email addresses: 15 scottarcla@gmail.com and comm.private@gmail.com, from Dec. 1 2018 to the date this 16 request is fulfilled. A copy of this request is attached hereto as Exhibit Y. 17 41. Despite the deadlines set forth in the CPRA (Gov’t. Code § 6253(c)), 18 LASD failed to respond to the January 9 requests until April 22, 2020, at which time it 19 claimed it was gathering information, but could not “specify all the applicable 20 authorities upon which records would be withheld or redactions would be required” 21 because it had not reviewed all of the records. A copy of LASD’s April 22 response is 22 attached hereto as Exhibit Z. As of the date of the filing of this lawsuit, the Sheriff’s 23 Department has not produced a single responsive record. 24 42. On February 11, 2020, The Times made a CPRA request for a spreadsheet 25 of promotions to sergeant and above from the day the Sheriff took office, Dec. 3, 2018, 26 to the date this request is fulfilled. The Times stated that the list should include: name, 27 prior rank/assignment, current rank/assignment, ethnicity and gender. A copy of The 28 -16VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 Times’ February 11 request is attached hereto as Exhibit AA. To date, the Sheriff’s 2 Department has not responded or produced any records responsive to this request. 3 43. On February 26, 2020, The Times requested the following records: “any 4 and all communications -- including but not limited to text messages, emails, reports, 5 complaints, memos and voicemails -- that reference the taking and/or sharing of Kobe 6 Bryant helicopter crash photos by Sheriff's Department employees. These emails would 7 have been sent or received by employees assigned to the Lost Hills station, including 8 trainees and reserves, and/or any members of the LASD command staff, including 9 Sheriff Villanueva, and possibly others. The search should include communications 10 sent or received between Jan. 26, 2020 and the date this request is fulfilled. The search 11 could include, but would not be limited to, the following terms: “photos,” “photo,” 12 “pictures,” “picture,” “images,” “image,” “crash,” “Kobe,” “helicopter.” We ask that you 13 search all files and baskets, including those for deleted items and drafts, and all drives. 14 Please include all attachments with the emails you produce. We ask that any electronic 15 records be produced in their original electronic form.” The request also sought a 16 record of all calls to the internal affairs bureau from Jan. 26, 2020 to Feb. 25, 2020; 17 recordings of all voice messages left with the internal affairs bureau from Jan. 26, 2020 18 to Feb. 25, 2020; and a list of Sheriff's Department personnel who responded to the 19 Kobe Bryant helicopter crash. A true and correct copy of this request is attached hereto 20 as Exhibit BB. The request also made clear that “[b]ecause this concerns a timely 21 matter of significant public interest, we ask that records be produced as soon as they 22 are located, including in piecemeal form, as the search for more records continues” and 23 asked if there was anything The Times could do “to speed production of the records.” 24 To date, the Sheriff’s Department has not responded or produced any records 25 responsive to this request. 26 27 44. On February 26, 2020, The Times made a CPRA request to the Los Angeles County Auditor for the daily time sheets of every Sheriff’s Department 28 -17VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 employee who worked at the Lost Hills Station on Jan. 26, 2020. A copy of the 2 February 26 request is attached hereto as Exhibit CC. 3 45. On March 12, 2020, the Sheriff’s Department denied The Times’ request 4 regarding the time sheets. Without any explanation, the Sheriff’s Department cited 5 Penal Code sections 832.7 & 832.8 (part of the Pitchess statutes), Art. 1, section 1 of the 6 California Constitution, and Gov’t Code section 6254(c) and 6255, even though Section 7 6255 requires the Sheriff’s Department to justify withholding the time sheets by 8 demonstrating on the facts of the particular case that the public interest served by not 9 disclosing the time sheets clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of 10 the time sheets. A copy of LASD’s denial of the February 26 CPRA request is attached 11 hereto as Exhibit DD. 12 46. The Times is the largest news organization covering the day-to-day 13 activities and actions of the County and the Sheriff’s Department as part of 14 disseminating important information to the general public. That coverage requires 15 timely access to public records. The baseless obstruction of access to records made 16 public by SB 1421 and the CPRA and frequent, unjustified delays in accessing County 17 records directly affects the ability of the press, like The Times, to report on information 18 of great public interest, and consequently damages the public’s ability to monitor its 19 government – a fundamental and basic right of our democratic society. 20 CAUSE OF ACTION 21 FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 22 (GOV. CODE §§ 6258, 6259; CODE CIV. PROC. §§ 1060, 1085) 23 24 25 26 27 28 47. Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporate herein by this reference Paragraphs 1 thorough 46 of this Petition as though set forth herein in full. 48. The CPRA defines the term “public records” to include “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….” -18VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 49. The requested records relate to the conduct of the public’s business and 2 were prepared, owned, used or retained by the County. Therefore, the records are 3 deemed to be public records pursuant to Government Code section 6252(e). 4 50. Government Code section 6253(a) requires public records to be “open to 5 inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency” and provides 6 that “every person has a right to inspect any public record.” 7 51. Requests for copies of records are governed by Government Code sections 8 6253(b) and (c), which provide that “upon a request for a copy of records that 9 reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, [the agency] shall 10 make the records promptly available” and requires that “[e]ach agency, upon a 11 request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, 12 determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public 13 records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the 14 request of the determination and the reasons therefor.” 15 52. The only time that an agency may take longer than 10 days to make its 16 determination is in “unusual circumstances.” (Gov’t. Code § 6253(c).) In that case, the 17 time limit may be extended by written notice by no more than 14 days. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 53. Government Code section 6253(c) defines unusual circumstnaces as follows: As used in this section, “unusual circumstances” means the following, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request: (1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request. (2) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. (3) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein. -19VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (4) The need to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data. 54. Government Code section 6253(d) provides “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.” 55. Amended by SB 1421, Government Code section 6254(k) and Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 now require disclosure of: (1) incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer; (2) incidents involving the use of force by a peace officer against a person, resulting in death or great bodily injury; (3) incidents in which a sustained finding was made by a law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in the sexual assault of a member of the public; and (4) incidents in which a sustained finding was made by a law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, and the destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. 56. The County has violated Government Code section 6254(k) and Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 by refusing to disclose: (1) the letters of discipline for all Sheriff’s deputies or officials since 2014 (the hyperlinks to sample letters of discipline cited above shows each one is two-three pages long); (2) the responsive electronic records from 2014-2019 reflecting covered use of force and disciplinary incidents and the names of affected Sheriff’s deputies and sworn employees – the names and incidents are readily available through disclosure of the Sheriff’s Department’s PPI or PRMS databases, among other obviously disclosable records; and (3) the Brady lists and letters or other covered records sent to/from affected Deputies/employees, their counsel or authorized representatives, and the Sheriff’s -20VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 Department.4 Government Code section 6254(k) and Penal Code sections 832.7 and 2 832.8 include no requirement that a requester provide specific names of a public 3 agency’s employees to obtain SB 1421 records – for the obvious reason that a requester 4 would not necessarily know such names since many were not known prior to 5 enactment of the law. The Sheriff’s Department’s imposition of this additional 6 prerequisite for disclosure therefore does not comply with SB 1421’s disclosure 7 mandates. The records sought by The Times in their various CPRA requests are not 8 exempt from disclosure under any of the provisions relied on by the County, any other 9 provision of the CPRA, or any other relevant statute, and are specifically required to be 10 disclosed under SB 1421 “notwithstanding any other law.” 11 57. The County also violated the CPRA by invoking the catchall exemption 12 (Government Code section 6255) as to “Andrew Armes and certain personnel.” The 13 catchall exemption requires that the County justify for each record withheld that the 14 public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. 15 But the County provided no justification – and failed even to identify what “personnel” 16 were subject to the withholding on this basis. 17 58. The County violated the CPRA by invoking the investigative records 18 exemption (Government Code section 6254(f)) as to former Sheriff’s Deputy Giancarlo 19 Scotti and then never providing the responsive records to The Times even though 20 Scotti pleaded no contest to sexually assaulting six women in September 2019. 21 59. The County violated the CPRA by refusing to provide the time sheets for 22 Sheriff’s Department deputies who worked at the Lost Hills Station January 26, 2020. 23 The County cited Penal Code sections 832.7 & 832.8, but neither of these provisions 24 applies to time sheets, which are not specified as among the categories of personnel 25 26 27 28 The Times asked for letters sent by former Assistant Sheriff Todd Rogers to deputies informing them that Brady information had been identified in their personnel files; letters received by Capt. Greg Nelson in response to Rogers’ letters; letters containing printouts of deputies’ PPIs; and any lists of deputies with potential Brady material in their files. (Ex. _.) 4 -21VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 records that are protected from public disclosure. 5 The Sheriff’s Department also cited 2 Section 6254(c) (the privacy exemption), Section 6255 and the privacy provision in the 3 California Constitution (Art. 1, § 1). Time sheets fit none of the categories made 4 confidential by the Pitchess statutes, and disclosure of time sheets does not constitute 5 an unwarranted invasion of privacy, as time sheets are about Sheriff’s employees 6 public work paid for by taxpayers, and not any private activities of those employees. 7 For that reason, any invocations of privacy by the Sheriff’s Department do not clearly 8 outweigh the public’s interest in access to time sheets at a Sheriff’s station on the day 9 when Kobe Bryant died. 10 60. The County violated the CPRA by failing to timely or adequately respond 11 as required by Government Code section 6253(c) to The Times’ various CPRA 12 requests, including the January 1, 2019 (Ex. F), April 9, 2019 (Ex. Q), October 3, 2019 13 (Ex. T), October 7, 2019 (Exs. V & W), October 11, 2019 (Exs. W & X), January 9, 2020 14 (Ex. Y), February 11, 2020 (Ex. AA), and February 26, 2020 (Ex. BB) requests. 15 61. The County’s delays have obstructed access to important information 16 about police misconduct, uses of force and other important information in violation of 17 Government Code sections 6253 and 6253.3. The Sheriff’s Department’s failure for 18 almost 18 months to provide any letters of discipline or other responsive SB 1421 19 records for nearly all of the more than 300 officers that The Times identified is 20 inexcusable. The Sheriff’s Department’s inactivity with regard to these requests makes 21 a mockery of the CPRA’s requirement that agencies make records “promptly available” 22 and its requirements that agencies do not “delay or obstruct the inspection or copying 23 of public records.” See Gov’t Code §§ 6253(b),(d). Likewise, the Sheriff’s Department 24 created effectively a public records blackout by ignoring many of the requests made by 25 26 27 28 The categories are “[p]ersonal data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses or similar information”; “[m]edical history”; “[e]lection of employee benefits; [e]mployee advancement, appraisal, or discipline”; “[c]omplaints or investigation of complaints; and “[a]ny other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” (Pen. Code § 832.8.) 5 -22VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 The Times and by invoking inapposite exemptions on the rare occasions when its 2 employees did respond to The Times’ requests. 3 62. The County has claimed that it can delay – if not avoid – compliance 4 with SB 1421 because it is a “major unfunded mandate” from the Legislature. See 5 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-02/families-sue-sheriffs- 6 department-shooting-records. But the people of California enacted a constitutional 7 amendment in 2014 making clear that the CPRA is not optional and that all local 8 government agencies – including the Sheriff’s Department – have to comply with its 9 disclosure obligations. See Cal. Const. Art. 1 § 3(b)(7). As former State Senator Mark 10 Leno, the sponsor of the constitutional amendment, stated, “The state should not have 11 to provide a fiscal incentive to local government so that they comply with these 12 important transparency laws.” See https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-xpm-2013- 13 jun-21-la-me-pc-california-jerry-brown-public-records-act-20130621-story.html. 14 15 63. necessary right. To that end, Government Code section 6250 states: 16 In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. 17 18 19 The Legislature has deemed access to public records a fundamental and 64. The People of California have elevated the right to open government to 20 one protected by their State Constitution. The California Constitution, Article 1, Section 21 3, Paragraphs (a) - (b) state: 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good. The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny. A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. -23VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 65. 2 3 4 5 has impaired Petitioner’s ability to gain information necessary to report on the activities of the County, in violation of its rights pursuant to the California Constitution, Article I, Section 3, and the California Public Records Act. 66. 6 7 8 9 The County’s improper witholding of the specified public records records Government Code section 6258 provides: “Any person may institute proceedings for injunctive or declarative relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce his or her right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record or class of public records under this chapter.” 67. 10 Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 provides: Any person interested … may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action or cross-complaint in the superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises … either alone or with other relief … The declaration may be had before there has been any breach of the obligation in respect to which said declaration is sought. 11 12 13 14 68. 15 An actual controversy exists between the parties regarding whether the 16 County failed to respond in the time mandated by the CPRA to Petitioner’s CPRA 17 requests and whether the County obstructed, delayed, and denied Petitioner’s access to 18 inspection and copying of the public records. 69. 19 20 Petitioner has exhausted any available administrative remedies. Petitioner has requested copies of disclosable public records from the County and have 21 sought to inspect the responsive public records, but the County has refused to timely 22 respond or provide for inspection of those public records. The only plain, speedy, and 23 adequate remedy left to Petitioner is the relief provided by Government Code section 24 6258. 25 26 27 28 70. The County has a ministerial duty to perform according to the laws of State of California, including the CPRA. 71. The County has a present legal duty and present ability to perform its ministerial duties, as required by the CPRA. -24VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 72. The County has failed to perform its ministerial duties as required by the 73. Petitioner has an interest in having the laws executed and public duties CPRA. enforced and, therefore, have a beneficial interest in the outcome of the proceedings. 74. Petitioner has a clear, present, and legal right to the County’s performance of its ministerial duties, as required by the CPRA. 75. Through this action, Petitioner seeks no greater relief than would be afforded to any other member of the public. 76. Therefore, this Court should find that the County violated the CPRA by 10 obstructing access to the disclosable public records requested by Petitioner, and order 11 the County to immediately respond to Petitioner’s requests and provide for immediate 12 inspection and/or copying of all responsive records. 13 WHEREFORE, PETITIONER PRAYS AS FOLLOWS: 14 1. This Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate, without a hearing or 15 further notice, directing the County to disclose the improperly withheld records or, in 16 the alternative, an order to show cause why these public records should not be 17 disclosed. 18 2. This Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate, without a hearing or 19 further notice, directing the County to immediately respond to Petitioner’s unfulfilled 20 requests and provide for immediate inspection of all responsive records; or, in the 21 alternative, an order to show cause why these public records should not be released. 22 3. This Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate and/or injunctive relief 23 preventing the County from delaying its response to CPRA requests where it does not 24 meet the circumstances set out in Government Code section 6253(c) and from 25 improperly delaying inspection to public records. 26 4. This Court issue a declaratory judgment that the public records requested 27 by Petitioner are disclosable public records and that the County violated the CPRA by 28 (1) failing to timely respond to Petitioner’s CPRA requests and (2) improperly -25VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 obstructing and denying the inspection and copying of public records responsive to 2 Petitioner’s CPRA requests. 3 5. This Court set “times for responsive pleadings and for hearings in these 4 proceedings … with the object of securing a decision as to these matters at the earliest 5 possible time,” as provided in Government Code section 6258. 6 6. This Court enter an order allowing Petitioner to recover attorneys' fees 7 and costs incurred in this action pursuant to Government Code section 6259 and/or 8 Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; and, 9 7. This Court award such further relief as is just and proper. 10 11 12 13 DATED: June 30, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF KELLY AVILES KELLY A. AVILES LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC JEFF GLASSER 14 15 16 17 18 By: Kelly Aviles Attorneys for Petitioner LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -26VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE VERIFICATION (C.C.P. §§ 446 and 2015.5) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I, Shelby Grad, am a Deputy Managing Editor of The Los Angeles Times, which is published by LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Petitioner in the aboveentitled action or proceeding. I have read the foregoing VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT WITH EXHIBITS A THROUGH DD and know the contents thereof, and I certify that the same is true and correct of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated upon my information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. 12 13 This Verification was executed on June 30, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. 14 15 16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 17 18 Shelby Grad 19 Shelby Grad 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1VERIFICATION 1 2 INDEX OF EXHIBITS A. SB 1421 Legislative Digest B. January 1, 2019 CPRA Request for Letters of Discipline from 2014-2019 C. Sample Letter of Disciple Issued by LASD in 2013 D. January 1, 2019 CPRA Request for Electronic SB 1421 Records E. January 1, 2019 CPRA Request for Brady List Materials F. January 1, 2019 CPRA Request for SB 1421 for 325 Named Sheriff’s Department Employees G. January 10, 2019 LASD Extension Letter Regarding Letters of Discipline and Electronic Records H. March 8, 2019 Letter from Jeff Glasser to LASD Regarding Delays I. March 8, 2019 LASD Denial of Request for Letters of Discipline and Electronic Records 14 J. March 12, 2019 LASD Denial of Request for Brady List Materials 15 K. March 29, 2019 Letter from Jeff Glasser to LASD Challenging Denials 16 L. April 8, 2019 Correspondence Between LASD and The Times Regarding Rolling Production of Named Employees 18 M. July 9, 2019 Response from LASD Regarding Various Named Officers 19 N. September 17, 2019 Response from LASD Regarding Various Named Officers O. February 6, 2020 Email from LASD Claiming it Was Processing Requests for Specific Deputies P. April 23, 2020 Inquiry from LASD Asking if Pending CPRA Requests Remain a Priority and The Times Response Q. April 9, 2019 Request for Information Regarding Investigation and Discipline of LASD Employees Martinez and Parker R. April 12, 2019 LASD Denial of Request and Related Follow up Correspondence S. April 30, 2019 Letter from Jeff Glasser to County Counsel Mary Wickham Challenging Denial Íof April 9 Request 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1INDEX OF EXHIBITS 1 T. October 3, 2019 CPRA Request for Promotions, the Sheriff’s Schedule, InCustody Deaths, and Public Records Requests Made to LASD. U. April 9, 2020 LASD Correspondence Claiming It Was Gathering Records Responsive to the October 3, 2019 CPRA Request V. October 7, 2019 Request for SB 1421 records for Deputies Carrie Esmeralda Robles-Placencia and Vincent Moran 6 W. October 11, 2019 Request for SB 1421 for Deputy Fernando Quintero 7 X. October 11, 2019 Request for Internal Audits Y. January 9, 2020 Request for Information Relating to Scott Budnick Z. April 22, 2020 LASD Correspondence Claiming It Was Gathering Records Responsive to the January 9, 2020 CPRA Request AA. February 11, 2020 Request for Promotions BB. February 26, 2020 Request for Information Related to Kobe Bryant Crash CC. February 26, 2020 Request for Time Sheets DD. March 12, 2020 LASD Denial of February 26, 2020 Request for Time Sheets 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2INDEX OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Senate Bill No. 1421 CHAPTER 988 An act to amend Sections 832.7 and 832.8 of the Penal Code, relating to peace officer records. [Approved by Governor September 30, 2018. Filed with Secretary of State September 30, 2018.] legislative counsel’s digest SB 1421, Skinner. Peace officers: release of records. The California Public Records Act requires a state or local agency, as defined, to make public records available for inspection, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law requires any peace officer or custodial officer personnel records, as defined, and any records maintained by any state or local agency relating to complaints against peace officers and custodial officers, or any information obtained from these records, to be confidential and prohibits the disclosure of those records in any criminal or civil proceeding, except by discovery. Existing law describes exceptions to this requirement for investigations or proceedings concerning the conduct of peace officers or custodial officers, and for an agency or department that employs those officers, conducted by a grand jury, a district attorney’s office, or the Attorney General’s office. This bill would require, notwithstanding any other law, certain peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records relating to specified incidents, complaints, and investigations involving peace officers and custodial officers to be made available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act. The bill would define the scope of disclosable records. The bill would require records disclosed pursuant to this provision to be redacted only to remove personal data or information, such as a home address, telephone number, or identities of family members, other than the names and work-related information of peace officers and custodial officers, to preserve the anonymity of complainants and witnesses, or to protect confidential medical, financial, or other information in which disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy that clearly outweighs the strong public interest in records about misconduct by peace officers and custodial officers, or where there is a specific, particularized reason to believe that disclosure would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the peace officer, custodial officer, or others. Additionally the bill would authorize redaction where, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure. The bill would allow the delay of disclosure, as specified, for records relating to an open investigation or court proceeding, subject to certain limitations. 91 Ch. 988 —2— The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a)  Peace officers help to provide one of our state’s most fundamental government services. To empower peace officers to fulfill their mission, the people of California vest them with extraordinary authority — the powers to detain, search, arrest, and use deadly force. Our society depends on peace officers’ faithful exercise of that authority. Misuse of that authority can lead to grave constitutional violations, harms to liberty and the inherent sanctity of human life, as well as significant public unrest. (b)  The public has a right to know all about serious police misconduct, as well as about officer-involved shootings and other serious uses of force. Concealing crucial public safety matters such as officer violations of civilians’ rights, or inquiries into deadly use of force incidents, undercuts the public’s faith in the legitimacy of law enforcement, makes it harder for tens of thousands of hardworking peace officers to do their jobs, and endangers public safety. SEC. 2. Section 832.7 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 832.7. (a)  Except as provided in subdivision (b), the personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers and records maintained by any state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code. This section shall not apply to investigations or proceedings concerning the conduct of peace officers or custodial officers, or an agency or department that employs those officers, conducted by a grand jury, a district attorney’s office, or the Attorney General’s office. (b)  (1)  Notwithstanding subdivision (a), subdivision (f) of Section 6254 of the Government Code, or any other law, the following peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records maintained by any state or local agency shall not be confidential and shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 91 —3— Ch. 988 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code): (A)  A record relating to the report, investigation, or findings of any of the following: (i)  An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer. (ii)  An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury. (B)  (i)  Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public. (ii)  As used in this subparagraph, “sexual assault” means the commission or attempted initiation of a sexual act with a member of the public by means of force, threat, coercion, extortion, offer of leniency or other official favor, or under the color of authority. For purposes of this definition, the propositioning for or commission of any sexual act while on duty is considered a sexual assault. (iii)  As used in this subparagraph, “member of the public” means any person not employed by the officer’s employing agency and includes any participant in a cadet, explorer, or other youth program affiliated with the agency. (C)    Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. (2)  Records that shall be released pursuant to this subdivision include all investigative reports; photographic, audio, and video evidence; transcripts or recordings of interviews; autopsy reports; all materials compiled and presented for review to the district attorney or to any person or body charged with determining whether to file criminal charges against an officer in connection with an incident, or whether the officer’s action was consistent with law and agency policy for purposes of discipline or administrative action, or what discipline to impose or corrective action to take; documents setting forth findings or recommended findings; and copies of disciplinary records relating to the incident, including any letters of intent to impose discipline, any documents reflecting modifications of discipline due to the Skelly or grievance process, and letters indicating final imposition of discipline or other documentation reflecting implementation of corrective action. (3)  A record from a separate and prior investigation or assessment of a separate incident shall not be released unless it is independently subject to disclosure pursuant to this subdivision. 91 Ch. 988 —4— (4)  If an investigation or incident involves multiple officers, information about allegations of misconduct by, or the analysis or disposition of an investigation of, an officer shall not be released pursuant to subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1), unless it relates to a sustained finding against that officer. However, factual information about that action of an officer during an incident, or the statements of an officer about an incident, shall be released if they are relevant to a sustained finding against another officer that is subject to release pursuant to subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1). (5)  An agency shall redact a record disclosed pursuant to this section only for any of the following purposes: (A)  To remove personal data or information, such as a home address, telephone number, or identities of family members, other than the names and work-related information of peace and custodial officers. (B)  To preserve the anonymity of complainants and witnesses. (C)  To protect confidential medical, financial, or other information of which disclosure is specifically prohibited by federal law or would cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy that clearly outweighs the strong public interest in records about misconduct and serious use of force by peace officers and custodial officers. (D)  Where there is a specific, articulable, and particularized reason to believe that disclosure of the record would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the peace officer, custodial officer, or another person. (6)  Notwithstanding paragraph (5), an agency may redact a record disclosed pursuant to this section, including personal identifying information, where, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the information clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the information. (7)  An agency may withhold a record of an incident described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) that is the subject of an active criminal or administrative investigation, in accordance with any of the following: (A)  (i)  During an active criminal investigation, disclosure may be delayed for up to 60 days from the date the use of force occurred or until the district attorney determines whether to file criminal charges related to the use of force, whichever occurs sooner. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this clause, the agency shall provide, in writing, the specific basis for the agency’s determination that the interest in delaying disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. This writing shall include the estimated date for disclosure of the withheld information. (ii)  After 60 days from the use of force, the agency may continue to delay the disclosure of records or information if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding against an officer who used the force. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this clause, the agency shall, at 180-day intervals as necessary, provide, in writing, the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding. The writing shall include the estimated date for the disclosure 91 —5— Ch. 988 of the withheld information. Information withheld by the agency shall be disclosed when the specific basis for withholding is resolved, when the investigation or proceeding is no longer active, or by no later than 18 months after the date of the incident, whichever occurs sooner. (iii)  After 60 days from the use of force, the agency may continue to delay the disclosure of records or information if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding against someone other than the officer who used the force. If an agency delays disclosure under this clause, the agency shall, at 180-day intervals, provide, in writing, the specific basis why disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding, and shall provide an estimated date for the disclosure of the withheld information. Information withheld by the agency shall be disclosed when the specific basis for withholding is resolved, when the investigation or proceeding is no longer active, or by no later than 18 months after the date of the incident, whichever occurs sooner, unless extraordinary circumstances warrant continued delay due to the ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding. In that case, the agency must show by clear and convincing evidence that the interest in preventing prejudice to the active and ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding outweighs the public interest in prompt disclosure of records about use of serious force by peace officers and custodial officers. The agency shall release all information subject to disclosure that does not cause substantial prejudice, including any documents that have otherwise become available. (iv)  In an action to compel disclosure brought pursuant to Section 6258 of the Government Code, an agency may justify delay by filing an application to seal the basis for withholding, in accordance with Rule 2.550 of the California Rules of Court, or any successor rule thereto, if disclosure of the written basis itself would impact a privilege or compromise a pending investigation. (B)  If criminal charges are filed related to the incident in which force was used, the agency may delay the disclosure of records or information until a verdict on those charges is returned at trial or, if a plea of guilty or no contest is entered, the time to withdraw the plea pursuant to Section 1018. (C)  During an administrative investigation into an incident described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), the agency may delay the disclosure of records or information until the investigating agency determines whether the use of force violated a law or agency policy, but no longer than 180 days after the date of the employing agency’s discovery of the use of force, or allegation of use of force, by a person authorized to initiate an investigation, or 30 days after the close of any criminal investigation related to the peace officer or custodial officer’s use of force, whichever is later. (8)  A record of a civilian complaint, or the investigations, findings, or dispositions of that complaint, shall not be released pursuant to this section if the complaint is frivolous, as defined in Section 128.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or if the complaint is unfounded. 91 Ch. 988 —6— (c)  Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a department or agency shall release to the complaining party a copy of his or her own statements at the time the complaint is filed. (d)  Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a department or agency that employs peace or custodial officers may disseminate data regarding the number, type, or disposition of complaints (sustained, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded) made against its officers if that information is in a form which does not identify the individuals involved. (e)  Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a department or agency that employs peace or custodial officers may release factual information concerning a disciplinary investigation if the officer who is the subject of the disciplinary investigation, or the officer’s agent or representative, publicly makes a statement he or she knows to be false concerning the investigation or the imposition of disciplinary action. Information may not be disclosed by the peace or custodial officer’s employer unless the false statement was published by an established medium of communication, such as television, radio, or a newspaper. Disclosure of factual information by the employing agency pursuant to this subdivision is limited to facts contained in the officer’s personnel file concerning the disciplinary investigation or imposition of disciplinary action that specifically refute the false statements made public by the peace or custodial officer or his or her agent or representative. (f)  (1)  The department or agency shall provide written notification to the complaining party of the disposition of the complaint within 30 days of the disposition. (2)  The notification described in this subdivision shall not be conclusive or binding or admissible as evidence in any separate or subsequent action or proceeding brought before an arbitrator, court, or judge of this state or the United States. (g)  This section does not affect the discovery or disclosure of information contained in a peace or custodial officer’s personnel file pursuant to Section 1043 of the Evidence Code. (h)  This section does not supersede or affect the criminal discovery process outlined in Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1054) of Title 6 of Part 2, or the admissibility of personnel records pursuant to subdivision (a), which codifies the court decision in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. (i)  Nothing in this chapter is intended to limit the public’s right of access as provided for in Long Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th 59. SEC. 3. Section 832.8 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 832.8. As used in Section 832.7, the following words or phrases have the following meanings: (a)  “Personnel records” means any file maintained under that individual’s name by his or her employing agency and containing records relating to any of the following: 91 —7— Ch. 988 (1)  Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses, or similar information. (2)  Medical history. (3)  Election of employee benefits. (4)  Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline. (5)  Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in which he or she participated, or which he or she perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which he or she performed his or her duties. (6)  Any other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (b)  “Sustained” means a final determination by an investigating agency, commission, board, hearing officer, or arbitrator, as applicable, following an investigation and opportunity for an administrative appeal pursuant to Sections 3304 and 3304.5 of the Government Code, that the actions of the peace officer or custodial officer were found to violate law or department policy. (c)  “Unfounded” means that an investigation clearly establishes that the allegation is not true. SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 2 of this act, which amends Section 832.7 of the Penal Code, furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings: The public has a strong, compelling interest in law enforcement transparency because it is essential to having a just and democratic society. SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district under this act would result from a legislative mandate that is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. O 91 Exhibit Subject: Public records request -- le0ers of discipline all Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 9:01:10 AM Pacific Standard Time From: Lau, Maya To: Discovery Unit PRA Requests CC: Leiva, Katherine P. A8achments: image003.jpg, PRA.Sheriff.Records.1.1.19a.doc Hi there, Please see a0ached a public records request, the text of which is the same as the below. Could you confirm you got this? Thank you. Maya 453 S. Spring St. Ste. 308 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Lt. Chad Smeltzer Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Discovery Unit Via Email: prarequests@lasd.org --- Jan. 1, 2019 Re: Public records request – letters of discipline Dear Lt. Smeltzer, or his designee: Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, SecGon 6250 et seq. of the Government Code and the California state ConsGtuGon, as amended by ProposiGon 59, and all other applicable laws, including Penal Code SecGon 832.7(b), I am asking to review records in the possession of your agency. Specifically, I would like to review: • Any and all le8ers of discipline for current and former sworn officers employed by your agency relaGng to reports, invesGgaGons, or findings from: o Incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; o Incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; o Any record relaGng to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; o Any record relaGng to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relaGng to the reporGng, invesGgaGon, or prosecuGon of a crime, or Page 1 of 3 officer directly relaGng to the reporGng, invesGgaGon, or prosecuGon of a crime, or directly relaGng to the reporGng of, or invesGgaGon of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destrucGon, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. By Le0ers of Discipline, I am referring to any documents sent to peace officers that noGfy them of the discipline being imposed against them. The documents may also include the severity of the discipline; the policies and procedures violated; the basic facts of the case, the officer’s work history and whether the officer contested the discipline. Please respond to this request promptly. As you probably know, the following legal rules apply to this request. Prompt Disclosure: Government Code Sec6on 6253 (b), (d) Records not exempt from disclosure are to be made “promptly available.” No provision of the CPRA, including the response periods noted below, “shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspecGon or copying of public records.” Deadlines: Government Code Sec6on 6253 (c) You are required “promptly” and in no case more than 10 calendar days from the date of this request, to determine, and inform me in wriGng, whether you are going to decline all or part of the request, and the law(s) that you are relying on, unless within that period you noGfy me in wriGng that you intend to take up to an addiGonal 14 days to make the determinaGon because of your need: · · · · to search for and collect the requested records from field faciliGes or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request; to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and disGnct records that are demanded in a single request; for consultaGon, which shall be conducted with all pracGcable speed, with another agency having substanGal interest in the determinaGon of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substanGal subject ma0er interest therein; or to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data. Your noGce must set forth “the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determinaGon is expected to be dispatched.” If you determine that any of the records I have requested are disclosable, your wri0en noGce must “state the esGmated date and Gme when the records will be made available.” Cons6tu6onal Rule of Interpreta6on: Ar6cle I, Sec6on 3 (b) The California ConsGtuGon requires that the Public Records Act “shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.” This rule must be heeded in interpreGng any exempGons from disclosure you believe to be applicable. To the extent that a porGon of the informaGon I have requested is exempt by express provisions of law, the public records act addiGonally requires segregaGon and deleGon of that material in order that the remainder of the informaGon may be provided in saGsfacGon of my request. If you determine that an express provision of law exists to exempt from disclosure all or a porGon of the informaGon I have requested, please respond to me in wriGng, via email, ciGng the specific porGon of the law Page 2 of 3 that allows for the exempGon. In addiGon, the act requires government agencies to “provide suggesGons for overcoming any pracGcal basis for denying access to the records or informaGon sought.” Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any quesGons about my request. I can be reached at (213) 221-5754 and maya.lau@laGmes.com. Sincerely, Maya Lau Los Angeles Times Staff Writer Maya Lau Staff Writer Los Angeles Times Maya.Lau@laGmes.com @mayalau Page 3 of 3 Exhibit 7M Deii Cordoro. #405352 r" a 0 County of La: Angela Department Headquarters 4700 Ram: Hooray Cdr'?nrr'a 917542169 6* . 0? . RELADONI Dear Deputy Cordoro: oponodolnlloen (15) ?yo. An Investigation under Flo Number 2305823. conductor! by Internal Allaln Bureau. coupled wihyourown statements Mutabkhul ?following: 1. MP) Sodlono MMO.10. Portonmoo to swam; Mo: 3- 01/030.10. Obodlonoo to Law. Random and Orders (am outlining to Una 5- 09220.50. FoolPunrulb). onorlboul Januaryzo. 2011. whio on Procedure: (MPP) Secllono 3-01IOSO.10, Performanc- lo Standards; under 3- Unauthorized Person In County Vehicle, on or about moproporouthorimllon. Nowhyoo. 7 Qmowhn g/rSuw'a ?Sm mo OOIJJS 9- Cordon. 0408362 - 3. That in vioiation of Manual oi Poilcy and Procedures (MPP) Sections Performance to Standards; and/or 3- 01/100.35. False Information in Records. on or about January 29. 2011. while on duty. you laiied to periorm to standards established foryour position when you authored an inaccurate Along whowitnesaed a crime. 4. That in violation of Manual of Policy and Procedures Section sot/030.05. General Behavior. on or about January 29. 2011. while on duty. you wrotean inaccurate reportthereby discredit and embarrassment upon yourseif and the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department Additional facts for this decision are set forth in the Disposition Worksheet. Invesugatlve Summary and investigative Packet which are incorporated hereh by reference. Prior to determining this discipihary action. i have thoroughly reviewed the incident and your this Department. You have the right to grieve this disciplinary action within ten (10) business days of receipt of this later. Your grievance procedures may be found it your ciasslication's negotiated Memendmn of Understanding. Failuretorespondtothis a-walverofyourridittogrieve andwili resultin theimpoeition ofthia disciplne indicated herein. onwhichthedecipineisbaaed. aremabiaio aooesathe information provided in the enclosed CD. you may contact Maggie Olson. of internal Affairs Bureau. at (323) 890- 6314. and arrange an appointment for assistance In this regard The Sheriff?s Department reserves the right to amend andlor add to this letter. Sincereiy. LEROY D. BACA. SHERIFF Original Signed Douglas A. Fotterol. NCaptain Commander. Avalon Station LASD 001336 1' communal: DAF 'AEAzmd o: Advocacy Unlt Employee Relations Unlt James Lopez. cw. Field Opentiom Region II lntemaI Malta Bureau 0mm of Independent Revlaw (OIR) (File IAB 2305823) LASD 001337 Exhibit Subject: [MARKETING] Request for electronic discipline records Date: Monday, December 31, 2018 at 11:59:18 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Ben Poston and Maya Lau To: Discovery Unit PRA Requests Jan. 1, 2019 To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Section 6250 et seq. of the Government Code and the California state Constitution, as amended by Proposition 59, and all other applicable laws, including Penal Code Section 832.7(b), we are asking for electronic records in the possession of your agency. Specifically: Information for all current and former sworn officers relating to: • • • • Any incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; Any incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; Any incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; Any incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Specifically, we would like the electronic records to include the following fields: First, last and middle name of officer; employee or badge number; most recent Page 1 of 4 rank; rank at the time of discipline; date hired; current employment status (active, retired, etc); current salary; current total compensation; date of separation from the agency; work location (station, beat or division); policy violation type, date of policy violation; discipline type (suspension, reprimand, termination);suspension length in days; whether the discipline was contested or appealed; result of the appeal. We ask that this data be provided in a machine-readable format such as a Microsoft Excel file, a text file or a Microsoft Access file. We also request a copy of the record layout of the database and a data dictionary to help interpret the information in the database. Please respond to this request promptly. As you probably know, the following legal rules apply to this request: Prompt Disclosure: Government Code Section 6253 (b), (d) Records not exempt from disclosure are to be made “promptly available.” No provision of the CPRA, including the response periods noted below, “shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.” Deadlines: Government Code Section 6253 (c) You are required “promptly” and in no case more than 10 calendar days from the date of this request, to determine, and inform us in writing, whether you are going to decline all or part of the request, and the law(s) that you are relying on, unless within that period you notify us in writing that you intend to take up to an additional 14 days to make the determination because of your need: • to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other • • establishments that are separate from the office processing the request; to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request; for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein; or Page 2 of 4 • to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data. Your notice must set forth “the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched.” If you determine that any of the records we have requested are disclosable, your written notice must “state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available.” Constitutional Rule of Interpretation: Article I, Section 3 (b) The California Constitution requires that the Public Records Act “shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.” This rule must be heeded in interpreting any exemptions from disclosure you believe to be applicable. To the extent that a portion of the information we have requested is exempt by express provisions of law, the public records act additionally requires segregation and deletion of that material in order that the remainder of the information may be provided in satisfaction of our request. If you determine that an express provision of law exists to exempt from disclosure all or a portion of the information we have requested, please respond to us in writing, via email, citing the specific portion of the law that allows for the exemption. In addition, the act requires government agencies to “provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.” Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions about our request. Ben Poston can be reached at (213) 237-2205 or ben.poston@latimes.com and Maya Lau can be reached at 213-221-5754 or maya.lau@latimes.com. Sincerely, Ben Poston and Maya Lau Los Angeles Times Staff Writers Page 3 of 4 This email was sent to Prarequests@lasd.org did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences -why-----------------LA Times · 2300 E. Imperial Highway · El Segundo, CA 90245 · USA Page 4 of 4 Exhibit Subject: Public records request -- Brady le3ers Date: Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 9:01:27 AM Pacific Standard Time From: Lau, Maya To: Discovery Unit PRA Requests CC: Leiva, Katherine P. A8achments: image003.jpg, PRA.LASD.BradyLe3ers.1.1.19.docx Hi there, Please see a3ached a public records request, the text of which is the same as the below. Could you confirm you got this? Thank you. Maya 453 S. Spring St. Ste. 308 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Lt. Chad Smeltzer Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Discovery Unit Via Email: prarequests@lasd.org --- Jan. 1, 2019 Re: Public records request -- Brady letters Dear Lt. Smeltzer, or his designee: Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, SecGon 6250 et seq. of the Government Code and the California state ConsGtuGon, as amended by ProposiGon 59, and all other applicable laws, including Penal Code SecGon 832.7(b), I am asking to review records in the possession of your agency. Specifically, I would like to review: • • • • Any and all le3ers sent on or around Oct. 14, 2016 by former Assistant Sheriff Todd Rogers to depuGes noGfying them that potenGal Brady vs. Maryland material had been idenGfied in their personnel files. Please include copies of each le3er that was sent, not a sample le3er. Any and all le3ers received by Capt. Gregory Nelson, sent by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s depuGes or their representaGves, in response to Rogers’ Oct. 2016 le3er about Brady material Any and all le3ers sent by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to depuGes, aMer Oct. 24, 2016, including printouts of the depuGes’ Personnel Performance Indexes (PPIs) Any and all lists of depuGes with potenGal Brady material in their personnel files – someGmes called a “Brady list” – compiled in any form by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Page 1 of 3 Please respond to this request promptly. As you probably know, the following legal rules apply to this request. Prompt Disclosure: Government Code Sec;on 6253 (b), (d) Records not exempt from disclosure are to be made “promptly available.” No provision of the CPRA, including the response periods noted below, “shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspecGon or copying of public records.” Deadlines: Government Code Sec;on 6253 (c) You are required “promptly” and in no case more than 10 calendar days from the date of this request, to determine, and inform me in wriGng, whether you are going to decline all or part of the request, and the law(s) that you are relying on, unless within that period you noGfy me in wriGng that you intend to take up to an addiGonal 14 days to make the determinaGon because of your need: · · · · to search for and collect the requested records from field faciliGes or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request; to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and disGnct records that are demanded in a single request; for consultaGon, which shall be conducted with all pracGcable speed, with another agency having substanGal interest in the determinaGon of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substanGal subject ma3er interest therein; or to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data. Your noGce must set forth “the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determinaGon is expected to be dispatched.” If you determine that any of the records I have requested are disclosable, your wri3en noGce must “state the esGmated date and Gme when the records will be made available.” Cons;tu;onal Rule of Interpreta;on: Ar;cle I, Sec;on 3 (b) The California ConsGtuGon requires that the Public Records Act “shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.” This rule must be heeded in interpreGng any exempGons from disclosure you believe to be applicable. To the extent that a porGon of the informaGon I have requested is exempt by express provisions of law, the public records act addiGonally requires segregaGon and deleGon of that material in order that the remainder of the informaGon may be provided in saGsfacGon of my request. If you determine that an express provision of law exists to exempt from disclosure all or a porGon of the informaGon I have requested, please respond to me in wriGng, via email, ciGng the specific porGon of the law that allows for the exempGon. In addiGon, the act requires government agencies to “provide suggesGons for overcoming any pracGcal basis for denying access to the records or informaGon sought.” Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any quesGons about my request. I can be reached at (213) 221-5754 and maya.lau@laGmes.com. Sincerely, Maya Lau Los Angeles Times Staff Writer Page 2 of 3 Maya Lau Staff Writer Los Angeles Times @mayalau Page 3 of 3 Exhibit 453 S. Spring St. Ste. 308 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Lt. Chad Smeltzer Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Discovery Unit Via Email: prarequests@lasd.org Jan. 1, 2019 Re: Public records request – letters of discipline, named individuals Dear Lt. Smeltzer, or his designee: Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Section 6250 et seq. of the Government Code and the California state Constitution, as amended by Proposition 59, and all other applicable laws, including Penal Code Section 832.7(b), I am asking to review records in the possession of your agency. Specifically, I would like to review: • For the following current and former Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies, any and all letters of discipline relating to reports, investigations, or findings of: o Incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; o Incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; o Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; o Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. • Alexandro (a.k.a. Alex) Villanueva #246296 • Ray Leyva • Robert Olmsted • Tim Murakami • LaJuana Haselrig • Eliezer Vera • James Hellmold • John S. Benedict • Caren Carl Mandoyan • James P. McDonnell • Jacques Anthony La Berge • Bobby Denham • Edwardo Rivero • Alicia Ault • Paul Tanaka • Leroy Baca • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Richard Westin Todd Rogers Jody Sharp Christy A. Guyovich Joseph E. Dempsey Sergio Aloma #263553 Christopher Blasnek #220850 Christopher Cahhal #246300 Agustin Del Valle #235077 Scott Johnson #155628 Carlos Marquez #268098 Christopher Reed #260198 Anthony Rivera #238846 Andrew Rosso #221088 April Tardy #428406 Joseph M. Gooden Kelley S. Fraser Eric Parra Stephen Johnson Maria Gutierrez Jaime Juarez John C. Stedman Alicia Ault Giancarlo Scotti Neil David Kimball Adam Halloran # 525753 Michael McPheeters #247594 John Leitelt #466200 Mike Vann #517171 Dan Peacock #273476 Jeremy Joseph Fennell Marc Antrim Samuel Aldama Mizrain Orrego Ron Hernandez Josh Clark Carlos Arellano Brian Moriguchi Renard Ables Crystal Abrego Jeffrey Acton Donald Alexander Derrick Alfred Allen, Marco Alvarez, Gabriela Ament, Joseph Anderson, Ronald Anguiano, Jesus Apolinar, Daniel Armes, Andrew • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Ascolese, Michael Avila, David Avila, Otoniel Ayala, Sussie Bailey, Dale Banuelos, Ernesto Barnett, John Benitez, Patricia Benning, Robert Berg, Michael Bernasconi, Raymond E. Bishop, Cort Boothe, Kevin Borrego, Arturo Boyer, Steven Bravo III, Frank Brock, Michael Burgos, Shanelle Burks, Kyle Burton, John Callahan, Eric Callahan, Gilbert Campbell, David Candelario, Remberto L. Canela, Brian Canfield, Richard Caouette, Michael Carr, Gregory Carter, Thomas Castillo Ruiz, Rafael Cecere, Andrea Chaffin Jr., William Chamness, Christian Chey, Renna Clayborn, Arthur Coates, Jeffrey Cocke, Richard Collier, Damon Collinsworth, Keith Conner, Robert Contreras, Angela Cordero, William Courduff, Christophe Crosswhite, Jason Crow, Greg Currie, Dean Curry, Andre Curry, Richard Dailey, Kenneth Davis, Gary • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Dawley, Jerome De La Garza, Robert Debets, Johnny Debs, Lisa Delaney, Anthony Denkinger, Bela Diggs, Lawrence Dowling, Casey Christopher Drake, Thomas Duffy, Vance Duran, Daniel Duran, Louis Duxbury, Kevin Eddins, Lance Edwards, Jerome Ellis, Richard Enriquez, Alyssa Enriquez, Baldomero Erena, Robert Esquibel, Ricardo Fernandez, Max Flores, Eduardo Flores, Julian Forney, Randall Gamez, Francisco Gamez, Ramon Garcia, Jorge Garcia, Roel Garza, Manuel Gonzalez, Angela Gonzalez, Daniel Gonzalez, Jose Gordon, Joel Graves, Gabrielle Greenberg, Lane D. Grubb, James Guerrero-Gonzalez, Pedro Guerrero, Guillermo Guevara, David Gurr, Richard Hale, Eldon Hanley, Paul Hartshorne, Brandon Healy, Cornelius Heredia, Francisco Hernandez, David A Hernandez, Luis Hernandez, Romelia Higuera, Frank Holm, John • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Horsley, Michael Howard, Baron Hurst, Brian Idlebird, Terence Jackson, Jermaine Jacobson, David Jensen, Jarrod Jensen, Thomas M. Jimenes, Jesus Jimenez, Susana Jimenez, Timothy Johnson, David Johnson, Roosevelt Jones, Clifford Jordan, Thomas Jouzi, David Jurado, Gilbert Kennison, Ronald Klement Jr., Timothy Kluth, David Knudson, Robert Larios, Antonio Lear, Davis Leavins, Stephen Lee, Brian Lee, John Leyba Jr., Robert R. Lindsay, Robert Loquet, Rene Loureiro, Armando Love, Brandon Luna, Philip Lutz, Richard Macias, Armando Macias, Orlando Macias, Ruben E Macinnis, Stephen C. Maddalena, Richard S. Magallanes, George Magdaleno, Enrique Malki, Martha Maloney, Shane Manning, Robert Marella, Steven Martinez, Edmundo Maus, Scott McDaniel, Charles McDonagh, Eric McDonagh, Gerlene Mead, Larry • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Mercado, Martin Meza, Jorge Modica, Michael Moore, Jeffrey L. Moore, Leon Morris, Daniel Mosley, Otis Motts, David Muhammad, Kevin Munoz, Fabian Murgatroyd, Ramon Nagler, Richard Navarro, Andres Nichol, Robert Nuckols, Charles Nuno, Hector Oganesyan, Armond Oliver, Marquette Ortiz, Tony Ovalle, Jose M. Owens, Timothy Pak, Sung Palm, William Paredes, Gerardo Parks, Joseph Pate, Jimmie Pellicano, Michael Pena, Enrique Pena, Javier Perez, Arthur Perez, John Perez, Maricruz Perez, Richard Perez, Steven Peterson, James Pomposo, David Ponce, Kimberly Prentice, John Prieto, Mariano Quiroga, John E Quiroz, Steve Racho, Jose F Rafter, Michael H Ramirez, Alejandro C Ramirez, Antonio Rebueno, Antonio Reddish, David Reed, Robert A Reyes, Alfred M Richards, Brian J • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Rickell, Keith F Riggin, Jeffery L Risiglione, Robert Roachford, Donaldo F Roberts, Michelle Robledo Jr., Jose A Rodarte, Mario J Rodriguez, Abran Rodriguez, Angel Aurelio Rodriguez, Charles G Rodriguez, Ernesto D Rojas, Adriana Rubalcaba, Richard J. Ruedas, Ralph A Ruffin, Veronica A Ruiz, Rafael C Salazar, Virginia A. Salles, Mark Sanchez, Guillermo Sanchez, John Santino, Deanna Santos, Carlos Schaap, Michael Shaw, Robert Shreves, Jeffrey Skeels, Dennis Smith III, Robert Smith, Carl G Smith, David Smyth, Seon Spelatz, Jeffrey Starks, Jerome Stephen, Joseph H Stephens, Mark Russell Strawn, Richard C. Curtis Strickland, Michael Allen Sullivan, Kevin Sutton, Carlos A Sweeney, Wayne Tafoya, Alex A. Tauilili, Peivi Thatcher, Michael #223404 Thomas, Arthur R. Thomas, Bruce David Thompson, Darin Thompson, Donald D. Thornton Jr., James C. Torres, Erica A. Tubbs, Robert Urrutia, Larry J. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Valentine, David E Valenzuela Jr., Jesus Vallozzi, Alexander Van Houten, Joshua Vasquez, David B Verdugo, Eduardo M. Walden, Yancy Walker, Rudolph Walth, Michael J. Wargo, John Washington, William J. Wealer, Steven Webb, Ray White, John W. Wolf, Rene Yegavian, Bedros R All of the officials listed on the attached LASD organization chart, to the extent their names are not already listed above. • All of the deputies listed on any department list of officers with potential Brady material (a.k.a. evidence of moral turpitude) in their personnel files, to the extent their names are not already listed above. • All of the deputies listed on any department list of officers who have been involved in 3 or more shootings or 3 or more uses of serious force, to the extent their names are not already listed above. By Letters of Discipline, I am referring to any documents sent to peace officers that notify them of the discipline being imposed against them. The documents may also include the severity of the discipline; the policies and procedures violated; the basic facts of the case, the officer’s work history and whether the officer contested the discipline. Please respond to this request promptly. As you probably know, the following legal rules apply to this request. Prompt Disclosure: Government Code Section 6253 (b), (d) Records not exempt from disclosure are to be made “promptly available.” No provision of the CPRA, including the response periods noted below, “shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.” Deadlines: Government Code Section 6253 (c) You are required “promptly” and in no case more than 10 calendar days from the date of this request, to determine, and inform me in writing, whether you are going to decline all or part of the request, and the law(s) that you are relying on, unless within that period you notify me in writing that you intend to take up to an additional 14 days to make the determination because of your need: · · · to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request; to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request; for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein; or · to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data. Your notice must set forth “the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched.” If you determine that any of the records I have requested are disclosable, your written notice must “state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available.” Constitutional Rule of Interpretation: Article I, Section 3 (b) The California Constitution requires that the Public Records Act “shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.” This rule must be heeded in interpreting any exemptions from disclosure you believe to be applicable. To the extent that a portion of the information I have requested is exempt by express provisions of law, the public records act additionally requires segregation and deletion of that material in order that the remainder of the information may be provided in satisfaction of my request. If you determine that an express provision of law exists to exempt from disclosure all or a portion of the information I have requested, please respond to me in writing, via email, citing the specific portion of the law that allows for the exemption. In addition, the act requires government agencies to “provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.” Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about my request. I can be reached at (213) 2215754 and maya.lau@latimes.com. Sincerely, Maya Lau Los Angeles Times Staff Writer Exhibit CouNTY oF L os A"'GELES ~~'L_, cpyJi~STIQE ALEX VILLAN U EVA, SHERIFF January 10, 2019 Ben Poston Maya Lau ben.poston@latimes. com Maya.Lau@latim.es .com Dear Mr. Poston and Ms. Lau: This letter is in response to your request for records under the California Public Records Act dated January 1 , 2019, and received by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) Discovery Unit on December 31 , 2018. In your request, you are seeking the following : "Information for all current and former sworn officers relating to: " • • • • "Any incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; " "Any incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury;" Any incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement a gency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public;" "Any incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or p rosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but n ot limited to , any sustained finding of perjury, false statement s , filing false reports , destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence ." "Specifically, we would like the electronic records to include the following fields: " 211 'VEST TmiPLE STREET, Los A.c~GELES, G .c\.LIFOIL'\LA 90012 A f!7u;u~ft_'on o/ .% wt"ce - .fjlf JICP / 8-i {J - " ' Ben Poston and Maya Lau • -2- January 10, 2019 "First, last and middle name of officer; employee or badge number; most recent rank; rank at the time of discipline; date hired; current employment status (active, retired, etc); current salary; current total compensation; date of separation from the agency; work location (station, beat or division); policy violation type, date of policy violation; discipline type (suspension, reprimand, termination);suspension length in days ; whether the discipline was contested or appealed; result of the appeal." Although the Sheriff's Department is obligated to respond within 10 days of receipt of the request, this time limit is subject to an extension of up to fourteen ( 14) days under the following circumstances as defined in Government Code §6253(c)(1): The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request. In addition, please note that we may redact or withhold records if there are any exempt matters impacting the privacy rights of individuals (California Constitution, Article I, Section 1, and Government Code Sections 6254(k) and 6255(a) . Other exempt matters will include those protected by the attorneyclient, official information and deliberative process privileges, pending litigation exemption, personnel exemption, or other matters otherwise protected from disclosure by law or where the particular facts and circumstances warrant nondisclosure of the information (Government Code sections 6254(b), (c) , (k), and 6255(a)). If you have any questions, please contact Lieutenant Smeltzer of the Discovery Unit at (323 ) 890-5000. Sincerely, ALEX VILLANUEVA, SHERIFF Scott E . Johnson, Captain Risk Management Bureau OF:FJCE OF l1 rH E Cou N TY OF Los t$H E RIF _F A~GELES ~IL~nL.~©F cU'YS'T-I~E ALEX V I LL-\K C"EY...~. SHEHIF F January 10 , 2019 Ben Poston Maya Lau ben.poston @latim.es .com Maya.Lau @latimes .com Dear Mr. Poston and Ms . Lau: This letter is in r esponse to your request for records under the California Public Records Act dated January 1, 20 19 , and received by the Los Angeles County Sh eriff's Department (LASD) Discovery Unit on December 31, 2018 . In your request, you are seeking the following : • "Letters of discipline from Jan. 1, 2014, through Jan. 1 , 2019 , for current and former sworn officers employed by your agency relating to reports, investigations, or findings from :" o "Any incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer ;" o "Any incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury;" o "Any incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; " o "Any incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime , or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to , any sustained finding of perjury, false statements , filing false r eports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. " 211 "\\'"EST T miPLE S TREET, Los ~'~"GELES, GALIF OR...'-.'L\ 9 001 2 d Phaclj lion o/ .9e 1t:-tce -~ .'J?/u cr> M.; n --=' Ben Poston and Maya Lau -2- January 10, 2019 Although the Sheriff's Department is obligated to respond within 10 days of receipt of the request, this time limit is subject to an extension of up to fourteen ( 14) days under the following circumstances as defined in Government Code §6253( c)( 1): The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the r equest. In addition, please note that we may redact or withhold records if there are any exempt m atters impacting the privacy rights of individuals ( California Constitution, Article I, Section 1, and Government Code Sections 6254(k ) and 6255(a). Other exempt matters will include those protected by the attorneyclient, official information and deliberative process privileges, pending litigation exemption, p ersonnel exemption, or other matters otherwise protected from disclosure by law or where the particular facts and circumstances warrant nondisclosure of the informat ion (Government Code sections 6254(b) , (c) , (k ), and 6255(a) ) . If you have any questions , please contact Lieutenant Smeltzer of the Discovery Unit at ( 323) 890-5000 . Sincerely, ALEX VILLANUEVA, SHERIFF Scott E. J ohnson, Captain Risk Management Bureau Exhibit 5105 Angeles Glimes 2300 E. Imperial Highway El Segundo, CA 90245 21 3-237-5000 jeff.glasser@latimes.com March 8, 2019 Jeff Glasser General Counsel VIA EMAIL AND us MAIL Sheriff Alex Villanueva Los Angeles County Sheriff?s Department Hall of Justice 211 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 avillan asd.org Lieutenant Chad Smeltzer Risk Management Bureau Los Angeles County Sheriff?s Department 4900 S. Eastern Ave. #102 Commerce, CA 90040 cesmeltz@lasd.orq Dear Sheriff Villanueva and Lieut. Smeltzer: I represent the Los Angeles Times and reporters Maya Lau and Ben Poston (?The Times?). The Times made California Public Flecords Act requests to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for certain SB 1421 records January 1 and 7, 2019, including asking for letters of discipline, Brady v. Maryland letters, and records pertaining to the discipline of Caren Carl Mandoyan. LASD has had almost ten weeks to process the records, and yet LASD has not disclosed a single record to The Times. LASD can no longer invoke the litigations brought by unions to block disclosure of the requested records. Despite the failure of LASD to defend public access to these important records, the courts have rejected the contentions of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the Professional Peace Officers Association. As you are aware, the California Supreme Court denied review and a request for a stay in the ALADS lawsuit, and PPOA dismissed its lawsuit. delays violate the Under the agencies must respond within 10 days to the sender of a request and inform the requester whether the records March 8, 2019 Page 2 will be disclosed or withheld pursuant to a specific exemption. State law also gives agencies the ability to request an extension of that deadline by no more than 14 days only in "unusual circumstances,? which are strictly limited under the law. Government Code Section 6253(b) requires a public agency to make public records available" to a requester such as The Times. And Government Code Section 8253(d) says, ?Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records." These statutory provisions are mandatory under the CPRA. Marken, 202 Cal. App. 4th at 1268 n.14 (2012) (expressing serious concern about whether a 40-day delay in disclosure of public records complied with the CPRA). In 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a declaratory judgment against the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission, finding that its repeated failures to disclose to The Times responsive records in a prompt manner constituted ?unreasonably delays? that violated the The Times and Californians Aware recovered more than $400,000 for the unreasonable delays and wrongful withholdings. Here, LASD is well beyond the 10-day period for response and the 14-day extension for unusual circumstances. continued delays in disclosing SB 1421 records are obstructing public access to key records reflecting on shootings and how the agency dealt with police misconduct. The Times and the public have a right to inspect these records containing highly newsworthy information. If LASD continues to fail to provide the required prompt access to the requested information, and The Times is forced to obtain an order compelling LASD to live up to its obligations under the then LASD will be responsible for all of The Times? fees and costs. Filarsky v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. 4th 419, 431 (2002) (noting that attorney fee ?provision contemplates that the public agency always will pay any costs and attorney fees should the plaintiff prevail"); Los Angeles Times Communications LLC v. Alameda County Trans. Auth., 88 Cal. App. 4th 1381, 1390 (2001) (prevailing party must be awarded fees under Government Code Section 8259(d)). Please give me a call (213-237-7077) or email me at jeff.glasser@latimes.com to discuss these issues further. Sincerely, git/1.5. General Counsel Los Angeles Times cc: Geoffrey Sheldon Kelly Aviles Shelby Grad Jack Leonard Maya Lau Ben Poston Exhibit I ()FyrcE·OF t: rHE p SHERIF_F Cor~·ry 0 1,~ Los i \.~GELE S Jl £~UL_,©F' if~·sTICE March 8 , 2019 Ben Poston Maya Lau ben.p oston@latimes. com Maya. Lau@lat imes.com Dear Mr. Poston and Ms. Lau: This letter is in response to your request for records under the California Public Records Act dated January 1, 2019, and received by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) Discovery Unit on December 31, 2018. In your request, you are seeking the following: • Letters of discipline from Jan. 1, 2014, through Jan. 1, 2019, for current and former sworn officers employed by your agency relating to reports, investigations, or findings from : o Any incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; o Any incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; o Any incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; o Any incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the r eporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence . 211 \VEST TmIPLE STREET, Los AKGELES, CALIFORXL\. 90012 u1 :Y'wd/lt'on o/ /h, dee ~ .1/ 'i uc" 11.;r· --=- Ben Poston and Maya Lau -2 - March 8, 2019 Response: Unfortunately, we are unable to assist you with your request as it is too broad in scope . The Public Records Act, Government Code §6253(b), requires that a request for a copy of records reasonably describe the identifiable record or records. If you would please provide us wtth more detailed information such as: the name of the deputy that you want records for , we will be happy to assist you If you have any questions, please contact Lieutenant Smeltzer of the Discovery Unit at (323) 890-5000. Sincerely, ALEX VILLANUEVA, SHERIFF Kimberly L. Unland, Captain Risk Management Bureau OF:F:rCE OF l: rHE' SHERIF_F C o t·~TY OF L os A ~ GEI .. ES J~ 'L,,~ iJ!-·STICE March 8, 2019 Ben Poston Maya Lau b en.post on@latim.es .com Maya .Lau@latim.es .com Dear Mr . Poston and Ms. Lau: This letter is in response to your request for records under the California Public Records Act dated January 1, 2019, and received by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) Discovery Unit on December 31, 2018. In your request, you are seeking the following: "Information for all current and former sworn officers relating to :" • • • • "Any incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; " "Any incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury;" Any incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public;" "Any incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements , filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence." "Specifically, we would like the electronic records to include the following fields: " 211 "\\TEsT TE~IPLE STREET, Los ANGELES, C .-:\LIFOR..,--r.A 90012 Ji :!harli lirm o/ /J7e1n'ce - fl',i,a 11.;, ---=- Ben Poston and Maya Lau • -2 - March 8, 2019 "First, last and middle name of officer ; employee or badge number; most recent rank; rank at the time of discipline; date hired; current employment status (active , retired, etc); current salary; current total compensation; date of separation from the agency; work location ( station , beat or division) ; policy violation type , date of policy violation; discipline type (suspension, reprimand, termination) ;suspension length in days; whether the discipline was contested or appealed; result of the appeal. " Response: Unfortunately, we are unable to assist you with your request as it is too broad in scope . The Public Records Act, Government Code §6253(b) , requires that a request for a copy of records reasonably describe the identifiable record or records. If you would please provide us with more detailed information such as: the name of the deputy that you want records for , we will be happy to assist you If you have any questions, please contact Lieutenant Smeltzer of the Discovery Unit at ( 323 ) 890-5000 . Sincerely, ALEX VILLANUEVA, SHERIFF Kimberly L. Unland, Captain Risk Management Bureau Exhibit p ()FyrcE· OF l:rHE SHERIF_ F Cor~TY J~ OF Los A~G-ELES ~p F 6'1-,·sTICE March 12, 2019 Maya Lau Los Angeles Times Editorial/Metro - 3 rd Floor 202 West First Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Maya.Lau@latimes.com Dear Ms. Lau: This letter is in response to your request for records under the California Public Records Act dated and received by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) Discovery Unit on January 1, 2019. In your request, you are seeking the following: 1. "Any and all letters sent on or around Oct. 14, 2016 by former Assistant Sheriff Todd Rogers to deputies notifying them that potential Brady vs. Maryland material had been identified in their personnel files. Please include copies of each letter that was sent, not a sample letter." 2 . "Any and all letters received by Capt. Gregory Nelson, sent by Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies or their representatives, in response to Rogers' Oct. 2016 letter about Bradymaterial" 3. "Any and all letters sent by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to deputies, after Oct. 24, 2016, including printouts of the deputies' Personnel Performance Indexes (PPis)" 4. "Any and all lists of deputies with potential Bradymaterial in their personnel files - sometimes called a "Brady list" - compiled in any form by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department" 211 ,v EST T E~IPLE STREET, Los Ai~GELES, C~-\LIFOR~"1A 90012 d 2Twclilirm ~ /1',J ,cp o/ /JJe,rice J\ .;f'1 - - Maya Lau -2 - March 12, 2019 Response: The responsive records are not being released to you because they are exempt from disclosure under several authorities, including, but not limited to the following: California Constitution art.I, section 1; Government Code sections 6254 (b), (c), (f) , (k), 6255, Evidence Code 1043, Penal Code sections 832. 7 and 832.8, and by court order (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No . BS 166063). If you have any questions, please contact Lieutenant Norman of the Discovery Unit at (323) 890-5000. Sincerely, ALEX VILLANUEVA, SHERIFF ~LfhL;;{ Kimberly L. Unland, Captain Risk Management Bureau Exhibit 1105 Angeles mimics 2300 E. Imperial Highway El Segundo, CA 90245 21 3-237-5000 jeff.glasser@latimes.com March 29, 2019 Jeff Glasser General Counsel VIA EMAIL AND us MAIL Sheriff Alex Villanueva Los Angeles County Sheriff?s Department Hall of Justice 211 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 avillan @lasd.org Lieutenant Alise Norman Fiisk Management Bureau Los Angeles County Sheriff?s Department 4900 S. Eastern Ave. #102 Commerce, CA 90040 anorman@lasd.orq Dear Sheriff Villanueva and Lieut. Norman: I represent the Los Angeles Times and reporters Maya Lau and Ben Poston (?The Times"). The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (the "County?) failed to address my letter of March 8, 2019, and instead sent a form response claiming that The Times did not describe identifiable SB 1421 records or that The Times' requests for these records are overbroad. Either claim is meritless and contradictory to prior communications with Times reporters when the County claimed that it was working to process the requested records pertaining to serious uses of force or discharges of firearms by Sheriff?s deputies, sustained findings of sexual assault involving Sheriff?s deputies, and/or discipline of Sheriff's deputies for misconduct such as dishonesty or falsifying or concealing evidence. No other public agency has claimed that California Public Records Act requests for letters of discipline or the specified electronic records made disclosable by SB 1421 do not describe identifiable public records. The claim does not pass the barest of scrutiny it is well known, for example, that the County has a Personnel Performance Index database that tracks Sheriff's deputies and officials who are disciplined. Those records are within SB 1421, and the County must disclose them. Among its March 29, 2019 Page 2 requests, The Times asked for SB 1421 records pertaining to a single deputy, Caren Carl Mandoyan, who was terminated after being disciplined and reinstated this year. Despite no court order preventing disclosure, the County Sheriff's Department has failed to produce any records pertaining to Mandoyan, even though such records obviously exist The Times this week obtained records on Mandoyan from the County Civil Service Commission. See video-20190327-storv.html. The County's claims about letters of discipline are also untrue. We know the County Sheriff?s Department maintains letters of discipline because The Times has published prior letters of intent to discipline deputies. See As to the County's claims that the requests are overbroad, the County would have to demonstrate that the public interest in nondisclosure on the basis of the breadth of records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. See Gov?t Code 6255. The County cannot do so here. As many courts have recognized, the Public Fiecords Act imposes a tangible burden on government agencies to produce records. The Legislature was aware of this case law when it enacted SB 1421, Opening to the public records regarding investigations of police shootings, officer dishonesty and discipline. Balanced against any burden that the County may face is the robust public interest in disclosure of police records on misconduct and lethal shootings. The California Supreme Court has found an overwhelming public interest in records reflecting on the activities of peace officers. That interest obviously exists here, where the public deserves to understand how the County investigated these shootings and allegations of misdeeds by those entrusted with protecting us. If the County was going to deny The Times? records requests, then the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs never should have been allowed to bring a lawsuit seeking to enjoin disclosure of records that the County never intended to disclose. In any event, if the County persists with this gamesmanship in preventing the public and The Times from inspecting SB 1421 records, and The Times is forced to include this behavior in a lawsuit, The Times will be entitled to recover all of its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in holding the County to account for its serial violations of the CPFIA.1 See Gov't Code 6259. 1 The County repeatedly has refused to comply with requests made by The Times. In 2016, the County tried to charge The Times almost $7,000 for Times reporters to inspect emails sent, forwarded or received by the Sheriff?s Department command staff containing racist or derogatory language. In 2017, the County Sheriff?s Department refused to provide the official government email addresses and jobs held by its employees. The County also refused to produce information about the statuses of homicide cases, including the Sheriff?s Department case numbers, homicide dates, times, and locations, the victim?s ages, sex, and names, the names, dates of birth, sex, and races of any persons arrested. The County previously had produced similar information to another news organization. The County also refused to provide any March 29, 2019 Page 3 The Times' Requests And The County?s Responses. On January 1, 2019, Ben Poston and Maya Lau of The Times made requests for letters of discipline from January 1, 2014 through January 1, 2019, for current and former sworn officers employed by the County Sheriff's Department relating to the categories of information made public by SB 1421: any incident involving discharge of a firearm at a person by an officer; any incident in which use of force by an officer against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury; any incident in which an agency made a sustained finding that an officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; any incident in which any agency made a sustained finding of dishonesty directly relating to the reporting, investigation or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting or investigation of misconduct, including findings of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, falsifying or concealing evidence. Mr. Poston and Ms. Lau of The Times made clear they were ?referring to any documents sent to peace officers that notify them of the discipline being imposed against them." The documents may also include the severity of the discipline; the policies and procedures violated; the basic facts of the case; the officer?s work history; and whether the officer contested the discipline, the reporters noted. That same day, Ms. Lau and Mr. Poston of The Times requested electronic records in the possession of the County Sheriff?s Department for the same categories of information outlined above that the Legislature made public by enacting SB 1421. They asked that the responsive electronic records include the following fields: ?First, last and middle name of officer; employee or badge number; most recent rank; rank at the time of discipline; date hired; current employment status (active, retired, etc.); current salary; current total compensation; date of separation from the agency; work location (station, beat or division); policy violation type, date of policy violation; discipline type (suspension, reprimand, termination); suspension length in days; whether the discipline was contested or appealed; result of the appeal." On the last day possible, January 10, 2019, the County granted itself an additional fourteen days for responding to these requests, with no explanation or effort records about sexual misconduct and/or harassment claims lodged against non-swom employees of the County District Attorney's Office, even though for more than 40 years California law has required disclosure of well-founded allegations of misconduct or where a public agency has imposed discipline. E. 9., American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 80 CalApp.3d 913, 914, 918 (1978); Bakersfield City School Dist. v. Superior Court, 118 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1047 (2004); Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist, 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1268 (2012). These many refusals by the County have spawned several other pending litigations in which the County is spending large sums of money trying to deny The Times and the public access to vital information. March 29, 2019 Page 4 to meet the ?unusual circumstances" standard set forth in Government Code Section 6253(c). Fifteen days later on January 25, 2019, past the maximum allowable time for response, the County sent emails claiming that it could not provide the records because the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs had obtained a temporary restraining order. See Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles, at al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. The County?s delays - enabling the union to file the reverse-CPFiA lawsuit that the County is barred from filing under Fiiarsky v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. 4th 219 (2002) - are the subject of litigation by The Times and Southern California Public Radio. See Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, et al., v. County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 193TCP00118. The Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs ended up losing in the trial court, and the Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court refused to issue stays stopping disclosure of the records requested by The Times. After these events, the County claimed it could not produce any records because of another case filed by the Professional Peace Officers Association to obstruct disclosure of the records requested by The Times. See Professional Peace Officers Association v. County of Los Angeles, at al., LASC Case No. Once The Times successfully negotiated dismissal of the Professional Peace Officers Association case, and the County could no longer hide behind any pending litigation brought by third parties, the County then outright denied The Times' requests, claiming on March 8, 2019 that the requests were ?too broad in scope" or that The Times failed to make requests that ?reasonably describe the identifiable record or records."2 2 The Times also requested the SB 1421 records for Mandoyan on January 8, 2019, and the County pursued the same delay tactics - granting a 14-day extension and then invoking the litigation brought by the unions. The County Sheriff?s Department still has not provided the SB 1421 records for Mandoyan, even though they cannot claim burden as to a single deputy and despite the fact that the Civil Service Commission has released SB 1421 records as to him. See The Times also made requests for information related to the Brady List on January 1, 2019, including letters sent by former Assistant Sheriff Todd Rogers to deputies informing them that Brady information had been identified in their personnel files; letters received by Capt. Greg Nelson in response to Bogers? letters; letters containing printouts of deputies? PPls; and any lists of deputies with potential Brady material in their files. On March 12, 2019, the County denied these requests, claiming that the records ?are exempt from disclosure under several authorities, including, but not limited to the following: California Constitution art. I, section 1; Government Code sections 6254 6255, Evidence Code 1043, Penal Code sections 832. 7 and 832.8, and by court order (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS 166063).? March 29, 2019 Page 5 The Times Made Requests For Identifiable Records. The Times? requests described identifiable records. The requests detailed the information that The Times was seeking, which was the information made available under SB 1421 . Courts have not countenanced similar denial claims to the ones made by the County here, finding that ?[f]eigned confusion is not grounds for denial." California First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 4th 159, 166-67 (1998). The Court of Appeal explained: Unquestionably, public records must be described clearly enough to permit the agency to determine whether writings of the type described in the request are under its control. rl'he compels an agency to provide a copy of non-exempt records upon a request ?which reasonably describes an identifiable record, or information produced However, the requirement of clarity must be tempered by the reality that a requester, having no access to agency files, may be unable to precisely identify the documents sought. Thus, writings may be described by their content. The agency must then determine whether it has such writing under its control and the applicability of any exemption. An agency is thus obligated to search for records based on criteria set forth in the search request. ld. (emphasis added). The County, therefore, having full access to the files, is required to conduct "a search for records based on criteria set forth in the search request.? See id. As in California First Amendment Coalition, 67 Cal. App. 4th at 166, the County must search for the records and information sought in the requests and has no excuse for failing to do so. The County?s claim in its March 8 letter that The Times? requests do not ?reasonably describe the identifiable record or records" also is demonstrably untrue. For example, The Times asked for all letters of discipline from January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2019 for current and former deputies and officials related to the information made disclosable by SB 1421. These requests identified records that The Times has strong reason to believe exist, as The Times has published letters of discipline in the past sent to deputies by the County Sheriff?s Department. See Likewise, The Times described identifiable records when it requested electronic records from January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2019 for current and former deputies and officials related to the information made disclosable by SB 1421. The County Sheriff?s March 29, 2019 Page 6 Department maintains a Personnel Performance Index system that tracks uses of force and/or discipline of deputies, including a description of the basis for the discipline dishonesty, improper tactics, falsifying or concealing evidence). Those are identifiable electronic records that the County must produce under SB 1421, as are the underlying records detailing the uses of force or conduct that led to the imposition of discipline. Further indication that the records are identifiable and exist comes from The Times? reporting on the Brady List, which shows that the County Sheriff?s Department has maintained a list of deputies with histories of misconduct. See The records reflecting uses of force or misconduct of those individuals on the County Sheriff Department?s Brady List fall squarely within The Times? requests for the information made disclosable by SB 1421. The CPRA does not allow for the gamesmanship practiced to date by the County. To the contrary, Section 6253.1 of the CPRA requires that the County assist the Requester by taking all of the following steps: (1) Assist the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated. (2) Describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist. (3) Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought. Here, the County has done none of those things or even explained why it cannot locate the responsive records. For all these reasons, the County?s claims that The Times? requests do not describe identifiable records are baseless. The County Cannot Establish That The Burden Of Producing SB 1421 Records Clearly Outweighs The Public Interest In Disclosure Of Records Reflecting Uses Of Force And/0r Misconduct By Deputies. The County?s claim that The Times? requests are overbroad does not provide a valid reason to deny them. Breadth is not an exemption in the CPRA. While burden may be a factor under the balancing test set forth in Government Code Section 6255, to invoke Section 6255, the County would be required to "justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.? The County has not March 29, 2019 Page 7 attempted to meet this stringent test, nor could it given the information sought in the requests. As the court stated in Cal State Univ., Fresno Ass?n v. Superior Court, 90 Cal. App. 4th 810, 831 (2001), ?[t]he burden of proof is on the proponent of nondisclosure, who must demonstrate a clear overbalance on the side of confidentiality." See also San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 3d 762, 773 (1983) ("the burden of showing that non-disclosure is justified is on the agency seeking to withhold the requested record?). To satisfy this burden, the agency cannot rely on ?speculative concerns.? Connell v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. App. 4th 601, 612 (1997). As the California Supreme Court reaffirmed in 2014, a public agency cannot meet its burden with speculative and ?vague" evidence. Long Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Long Beach, 59 Cal. 4th 59, 75 (2014). Instead, the agency must present ?evidence" demonstrating the compelling need for secrecy. New York Times v. Superior Court, 218 Cal. App. 3d 1579, 1584 (1990). See also CBS v. Superior Court, 91 Cal. App. 4th 892, 908 (2001). On the other side of the balance, the records sought pertain to the conduct of the people?s business, there is public interest in disclosure.? Citizens for a Better Environment v. Dep?t of Food Agric., 171 Cal. App. 3d 704, 715 (1985); Connell, 56 Cal. App. 4th at 616. In particular, the California Supreme Court has recognized that public access to government records helps ?to expose corruption, incompetence, inefficiency, prejudice, and favoritism." International Federation of Professional Technical Eng., Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (?lnt?l Federation"), 42 Cal. 4th 319, 328-329, 333 (2007). The Court also has credited the public?s ?legitimate interest" in the activities and conduct of law enforcement, calling the public's interest ?substantial." Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 278, 297-300 (2007) As the Court stated in requiring production of lists of names of peace officers, including Sheriff's deputies, enforcement officers carry upon their shoulders the cloak of authority to enforce the laws of the state. In order to maintain trust in its police department, the public must be kept fully informed of the activities of its peace officers." Id. at 297 (quoting New York Times v. Superior Court, 52 Cal. App. 4th 97, 104?105 (1997)). Similarly, as one court held, is indisputable that law enforcement is a primary function of local government and that the public has a great[] interest in the qualifications and conduct of law enforcement officers especially at an ?on the street? level." Games v. Fried, 136 Cal. App. 3d 924, 933 (1982). See also City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 41 Cal. App. 4th 1083 1091 (1996) (public interest would be ?better served" by disclosure of information relating to excessive force claims in the use of police dogs by the Los Angeles police than by concealment of that information). With regard to establishing a public interest in nondisclosure, California courts have imposed a high standard for establishing that a request was so overbroad that it did not require an agency to provide the requested records. ?Records requests inevitably impose some burden on government agencies. An agency is obligated to comply so long as the record can be located with reasonable effort," the court explained March 29, 2019 Page 8 in California First Amendment Coalition, 67 Cal. App. 4th at 166, citing State Bd. of Equalization v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1186 (1992). The law is clear that an ?agency may be forced to bear a tangible burden in complying with the" Connell, 56 Cal. App. 4th at 615. ?Nothing less will suffice if the underlying legislative policy of the FHA favoring disclosure is to be implemented faithfully. If the burden becomes too onerous, relief must be sought from the Legislature." Northern Cal. Police Practices Project v. Craig, 90 Cal. App. 3d 116, 124 (1979). Consequently, courts have rejected attempts by public agencies to evade the requirements of the CPBA by complaining that compliance is too burdensome. County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 170 Cal. App. 4th 1301, 1327 (2009) (giving ?little weight to the financial concerns" about cost of compliance; ?[t]here is nothing in the Public Records Act to suggest that a records request must impose burden on the government agency") (original emphasis); State Bd. of Equalization, 10 Cal. App. 4th at 1190 (rejecting agency?s complaints about ?staff inconvenience and expense? of compliance). Here, the County Sheriff?s Department?s evident distaste for the new law, SB 1421, does not make The Times' requests overbroad. Letters of Discipline published by The Times previously are three pages long. Therefore, it would be hardly onerous or overly burdensome for the County to produce five years of such letters in response to The Times? requests. See, discipline; Similarly, the County can query the system for responsive records on use of force and/or discipline in minutes, if not seconds. The County cannot withhold those records by claiming burden, either. The Legislature was aware of the burden on police agencies in having to search for underlying responsive records reflecting discipline and/or uses of force and still enacted SB 1421 requiring that agencies disclose them. The County, like other public agencies, must live up to its obligations and produce the requested records to The Times. Even assuming arguendo the County could demonstrate that the requests involved some burden, the County cannot show that any such burden clearly outweighs the manifest public interest in access to records on uses of force by police and/or discipline for misconduct such as dishonesty, sexual abuse or the like. California courts repeatedly have recognized the overwhelming public interest in the behavior and actions of law enforcement. As the Court stated, a law enforcement officer ?possesses both the authority and the ability to exercise force. Misuse of [this] authority can result in significant deprivation of constitutional rights and personal freedoms, not to mention bodily injury and financial loss." POST, 42 Cal. 4th at 300. Given the extraordinary 3 Other police agencies are not claiming that they do not have to produce any records because SB 1421 is too broad. Instead, they are producing information including other agencies within the County, such as the Civil Service Commission, which produced records on the investigation into Mandoyan. See March 29, 2019 Page 9 authority with which they are entrusted, the need for transparency, accountability and public access to information is particularly acute when the information sought involves the conduct of police officers. Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. Sup. Ct, 240 Cal.App.4th 268, 283 (2015). The Legislature itself acknowledged the tremendous public interest in records about shootings, uses of force, and/or discipline for misconduct. The Legislature stated in SB 1421, he public has a right to know all about serious police misconduct, as well as about officer-involved shootings and other serious uses of force. Concealing crucial public safety matters such as officer violations of civilians? rights, or inquiries into deadly use of force incidents, undercuts the public?s faith in the legitimacy of law enforcement, makes it harder for tens of thousands of hardworking peace officers to do theirjobs, and endangers public safety.? See SB 1421 Given this language, the County cannot show that any burden in responding to The Times? requests for SB 1421 information clearly outweighs the acknowledged public interest in inspecting these records on police misconduct and/or uses of force. Conclusion SB 1421 was enacted specifically to allow access to the very information sought in The Times? CPRA Requests. The Legislature passed SB 1421 to lift the cloud of secrecy that has so long obscured issues of serious police misconduct, officer-involved shootings, and other uses of force by law enforcement officers in California. The County?s continued obstruction and delays and its refusal to disclose these important records violates both the and the express intent of SB 1421. Therefore, if by 5 pm. on Wednesday, April 3, 2019, the County does not rescind its denials and agree to provide access to these important records without further delay, The Times will have no choice but to compel the County in Los Angeles Superior Court to produce the wrongly withheld SB 1421 records. 4 The County?s claim that the records The Times has requested relating to the Brady List are exempt from disclosure is similarly without merit. SB 1421 mandates the disclosure of all records related to four specific categories of information relating to sexual assault, dishonesty, or uses of force, notwithstanding any other law. Therefore, no law can prohibit the disclosure of these records, and the Legislature has made available under SB 1421 any of the requested records that fall within these categories. While the County has not provided a copy of the court order it claims prevents disclosure of these records, the case the County relies on was filed and decided well before SB 1421 was enacted. Therefore, any order in that case cannot prohibit the disclosure of records that the Legislature expressly made disclosable after January 1, 2019. March 29, 2019 Page 10 Please give me a call (213-237-7077) or email me at jeff.glasser@latimes.com to discuss these issues further. Sincerely, MM Jeff Glasser General Counsel Los Angeles Times cc: Mark FiidIey-Thomas Sheila Kuehl Hilda Solis Janice Hahn Barger Norman Pearlstine Scott Kraft Shelby Grad Jack Leonard Flichard Martin Maya Lau Ben Poston Geoffrey Sheldon Kelly Aviles Exhibit From: Lau, Maya [mailto:Maya.Lau@latimes.com] Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 3:53 PM To: Johnson, Scott E. Subject: Followup on our call today, re your letter dated 4/5/19 Hi Cmdr. Johnson, Thanks so much for talking with me on the phone today. Just so that it’s in writing, here are the names I just discussed with you that are the priorities among the list of named individuals I already sent. • • • • • • • • • • Alexandro (a.k.a. Alex or Alejandro) Villanueva #246296 Robert Olmsted Tim Murakami LaJuana Haselrig Eliezer Vera Lawrence Del Mese Pat Jordan Robin Limon Maria Gutierrez Daniel Morris #436075 In your letter dated Apr. 5, 2019, you said you’d begin releasing the records on a rolling basis, so I’d like you to start with these first. Let me know when you’d like the next batch of priority names. Thank you so much for your help, Maya 213-221-5754 Maya Lau Staff Writer Los Angeles Times Maya.Lau@latimes.com @mayalau Exhibit OFFICE (OF: SHERIFF- COUNTY OF L05 ANGELES Hence? (JETS 1?1ch . ALEX VILLANUEVA, SHERIFF July 9, 2019 Maya Lau Los Angeles Times Editorial/Metro 3rd Floor 202 West First Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Mava.Lau@1atimes.com Dear Ms. Lau: This letter is in response to your request for records under the California Public Records Act dated and received by the Los Angeles County Sheriff?s Department Discovery Unit on January 1, 2019. In your request, you are seeking ?for the following current and former Los Angeles County Sheriff?s deputies, any and all letters of discipline relating to reports, investigations, or findings of: . Incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; . Incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; 0 Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; 0 Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence.? On April 16, 2019, you amended your request of approximately 500 named personnel to include the priority names indicated below and agreed to receive 2 1 1 WEST TEMPLE STREET, Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 CM 9:.th (y (9091417le .?'ncp 1am Maya Lau -2- July 9, 2019 the remaining records pursuant to your request on an incremental basis: Alexandro Alex or Alejandro) Villanueva, Robert Olmsted, Tim Murakami, LaJuana Haselrig, Eliezer Vera, Lawrence Del Mese, Pat Jordan, Robin Limon, . Maria Gutierrez, 0. Daniel Morris, 1. Giancarlo Scotti. Response to Request #5 and There are no records responsive to your request. Response to Request and #10: Attached are responsive records regarding your request for records pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code section 6250, et Response to Request #11: The records you seek are part of an ongoing and active criminal investigation and are, therefore, exempt from disclosure under Government Code section 62546); County of Orange V. Superior Court (2000) 79 0a1.App.4th 759, 764 (?Evidence gathered by police as part of an ongoing criminal investigation is by its nature confidential. This notion finds expression in both case and statutory see also Williams V. Superior Court (1995) 5 Cal.4th 557, 561-62; Raekauckas V. Superior Court (2002) 1041 Cal.App.4th 169. Should you have any questions, please contact Lieutenant Norman of the Discovery Unit at (525) 890-5000. Sincerely, ALEX VILLANUEVA, 1 berly . Unland, Captain Risk Management Bureau Exhibit COUNTY OF Los ANGELES ALEXVILLANUEVA, SHERIFF September 1 20 9 Maya Lau Los Angeles Times 455 8. Spring St., Ste. 508 Los Angeles, CA 90015 Mava.Lau@latimes .ccm Dear Ms. Lau: This letter is in response to your request for records under the California Public Records Act dated and received by the Los Angeles County Sheriff?s Department Discovery Unit on January 1, 2019. In your request, you are seeking ?for the following current and former Los Angeles County Sheriff?s deputies, any and all letters of discipline relating to reports, investigations, or findings of: - Incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; 0 Incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; . Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; 0 Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial o?icer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence.? 2 1 1 WEST TEMPLE STREET, Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 97me yin/mice 1-, [fl/.1108 Mir) Maya Lau September 1'7, 2019 Per your telephonic and email conversations with Commander Scott Johnson on April 8, 2019 and April 16, 2019, respectively, you amended your request of approximately 500 named personnel, the LASD organization chart you provided, deputies with potential Brady material, and any deputies with three or more shootings or three or more serious uses of force. Duringthese conversations with Commander Johnson, you requested that 1 Department personnel be prioritized. On July 9, 2019, we provided a response as to the named Department personnel on your priority list. We will continue to provide non-exempt responsive records to you on a rolling basis. Below are the named Department personnel with the last name beginning with the letter Ables, Renard - Abrego, 0 Acton, Jeffrey . Adragna, Faye . Aldama, Samuel 0 Alexander, Donald . Alfred, Derrick 0 Allen, Marco Allende, Victor - Aloma, Sergio #265555 Alvarez, Gabriela Ament, Joseph 0 Anderson, Ronald Anguiano, Jesus . Antrim, Marc Apolinar, Daniel Arellano, Carlos Armalin, Rodrick Armes, Andrew Ascolese, Michael Asmus, Warren 0 Ault, Alicia 0 Avila, David 0 Avila, Otoniel . Ayala, Sussie Response: Attached are responsive records regarding your request for records pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, 6250, et We are unable to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records Maya Lau -3- September 17, 2019 concerning Armes, Andrew and certain personnel pursuant to Government Code section 6255(a). For all other named LASD personnel with the last name beginning with the letter there are no records responsive to your request. Please note that with regards to ?all deputies listed on any department list of officers who have been involved in 5 or more shootings or 5 or more uses of serious force,? the Department does not keep information in the manner requested. However, in an effort to assist you, we were able to search for deputy personnel with three or more shootings and those responsive documents have been included with your request. Also, please be advised that your request pertaining to ?all of the deputies listed on any department list of officers with potential Brady material,? these records are not being released to you because they are exempt from disclosure under several authorities, including, but not limited to the following: California Constitution, article I, section 1; Government Code sections 6254 and 6255(a); Evidence Code sections 1040, 1045, and 1045, Penal Code sections 832.? and 852.8; Pitchess V. Superior Court (1974) 1 Ca1.5d 551; Copley Press V. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272; and the recent California Supreme Court decision in Association for Los Angeies Deputy Sheriffs V. Superior Court (Aug. 26, 2019, 8245855) P.5d [2019 WL 4009133]. Should you have any questions, please contact Lieutenant Norman of the Discovery Unit at (525) 890-5000. Sincerely, ALEX VILLANU EVA, SHERIFF (WM. Albert M. Maldonado, Captain Risk Management Bureau Exhibit C) rom: SB1421 Request Group Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 6:07 AM To: Tchekmedyian, Alene Subject: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department SB-1421 Request ID: 5269 EXTERNAL SOURCE Request ID: 5269 Request Target: JOUZI, DAVID 7-25-19 Dear Maya Lau , We are writing to provide you an update on the status of your pending SB-1421 related California Public Records Act request. As you may be aware, SB-1421, which amended the California Penal Code to allow for certain previously confidential peace officer personnel records to be released to the public, took effect on January 1, 2019. Since that time the Department has received thousands of SB-1421 related public records requests. Moreover, in early 2019, SB 1421 was challenged in court, which issued stays that prohibited the Department from releasing records until they were lifted. This letter is to advise you that the Department is still processing your request, which includes determining if there are any responsive records, locating those records, and applying legally mandated redactions to the records. Although the Department has responded to approximately 25% of the pending requests, there still remains a backlog. To address the backlog, last year the Department quadrupled the number of personnel assigned to process SB-1421 related requests and has invested in deploying technology to streamline its processes. Because of these improvements, we have now assigned your request the above-captioned Request ID number to better track your request. The Department is committed to being transparent with the communities it serves. Should you have any specific questions, please contact us at SB1421@lasd.org and reference Request ID: 5269. We thank you for your continued patience. SB-1421 Request Processing Unit Phone: (323) 307-8361 Email: SB1421@lasd.org Business Hours: Monday thru Friday 9am – 3pm Exhibit From: Tchekmedyian, Alene Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 6:47 PM To: Norman, Alise Subject: Re: LA Times PRA requests Hi Lt, yes we got Morris, thank you. Yes they are still a priority. Alene -Alene Tchekmedyian Reporter Los Angeles Times o: (213) 237-3138 c: (714) 928-9311 From: Norman, Alise Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 6:35 PM To: Tchekmedyian, Alene Subject: RE: LA Times PRA requests EXTERNAL SOURCE Good evening Ms. Tchekmedyian, As previously identified as a priority by Maya Lau, the entire file for Daniel Morris was mailed on February 25, 2020, see attached. Unfortunately, due to the voluminous documents requested, we are unable to always email responsive documents. The Discovery Unit is continuing to complete a variety of requested PRA and SB1421 requests submitted by LA Times in the prioritized order stated below: 1. Morris’ entire file LASD response February 25, 2020; 2. The remainder of the 11 priority names I gave you (this may be complete now?) LASD response July 9, 2019; 3. The remainder of the 335 names I gave you 4. Any other pending PRA requests Please let us know if the remaining PRA and SB1421 requests remain a priority. Thank you, Alise Norman, Lieutenant Risk Management Bureau 4900 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 102 Commerce CA 90040 (323) 890-5000 From: Tchekmedyian, Alene [mailto:Alene.Tchekmedyian@latimes.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 4:33 PM To: Norman, Alise Subject: Re: LA Times PRA requests Hi Lt. Norman, can you notify me by email about any of these requests being fulfilled? I am working from home so I am not getting mail. I'll figure out how to get it if I know something has arrived. Thank you Alene -Alene Tchekmedyian Reporter Los Angeles Times o: (213) 237-3138 c: (714) 928-9311 From: Norman, Alise Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 6:11 PM To: Tchekmedyian, Alene Cc: Johnson, Scott E. Subject: RE: LA Times PRA requests EXTERNAL SOURCE Good evening Ms. Tchekmedyian, I attempted to reach you via telephone and left a voice. I am also following up at the request of Commander Scott Johnson. Currently, LASD Discovery Unit has received and accepted more than 361 Public Records Act and Senate Bill 1421 requests from the L.A. Times during 2019. Based on the last request from Maya Lau, she requested the following priorities: 1. 2. 3. 4. Morris’ entire file The remainder of the 11 priority names I gave you (this may be complete now?) The remainder of the 335 names I gave you Any other pending PRA requests Please let me know if the above requests remain a priority? Thank you, Alise Norman, Lieutenant 4900 S. Eastern Avenue Commerce, CA 90040 (323) 890-5000 From: Tchekmedyian, Alene [mailto:Alene.Tchekmedyian@latimes.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 2:56 PM To: Norman, Alise Subject: LA Times PRA requests Hi Lt. Norman, hope you’re well. I’m a reporter with the LA Times replacing Maya Lau in covering the Sheriff’s Department for the paper. Checking in because I sent in a few PRA requests in recent weeks but had not heard anything back even though the deadline to respond has passed for some of them. Could you help me figure out the status of them? Thank you, Alene -Alene Tchekmedyian Reporter Los Angeles Times (213) 237-3138 (714) 928-9311 Exhibit 453 S. Spring St. Ste. 308 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Lt. Alise Norman Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Discovery Unit Via Email: prarequests@lasd.org April 9, 2019 Re: Public records request – Danilo Martinez Dear Lt. Norman, or her designee: Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Section 6250 et seq. of the Government Code and the California state Constitution, as amended by Proposition 59, and all other applicable laws, including Penal Code Section 832.7(b), I am asking to review records in the possession of your agency. Specifically, I would like to review: • For LASD Employee Danilo Martinez #535779, any and all letters of discipline and any and all case files (inc. multimedia, videos, photos, audio, etc.), reports, investigations, or findings from: o o o o Incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; Incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Please respond to this request promptly. Please provide the records via email, to the extent possible. As you probably know, the following legal rules apply to this request. Prompt Disclosure: Government Code Section 6253 (b), (d) Records not exempt from disclosure are to be made “promptly available.” No provision of the CPRA, including the response periods noted below, “shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.” Deadlines: Government Code Section 6253 (c) You are required “promptly” and in no case more than 10 calendar days from the date of this request, to determine, and inform me in writing, whether you are going to decline all or part of the request, and the law(s) that you are relying on, unless within that period you notify me in writing that you intend to take up to an additional 14 days to make the determination because of your need: · · · · to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request; to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request; for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein; or to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data. Your notice must set forth “the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched.” If you determine that any of the records I have requested are disclosable, your written notice must “state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available.” Constitutional Rule of Interpretation: Article I, Section 3 (b) The California Constitution requires that the Public Records Act “shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.” This rule must be heeded in interpreting any exemptions from disclosure you believe to be applicable. To the extent that a portion of the information I have requested is exempt by express provisions of law, the public records act additionally requires segregation and deletion of that material in order that the remainder of the information may be provided in satisfaction of my request. If you determine that an express provision of law exists to exempt from disclosure all or a portion of the information I have requested, please respond to me in writing, via email, citing the specific portion of the law that allows for the exemption. In addition, the act requires government agencies to “provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.” Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about my request. I can be reached at (213) 2215754 and maya.lau@latimes.com. Sincerely, Maya Lau Los Angeles Times Staff Writer 453 S. Spring St. Ste. 308 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Lt. Alise Norman Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Discovery Unit Via Email: prarequests@lasd.org April 9, 2019 Re: Public records request – David Parker Dear Lt. Norman, or her designee: Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Section 6250 et seq. of the Government Code and the California state Constitution, as amended by Proposition 59, and all other applicable laws, including Penal Code Section 832.7(b), I am asking to review records in the possession of your agency. Specifically, I would like to review: • For LASD Custody Asst. David Parker, any and all letters of discipline and any and all case files (inc. multimedia, videos, photos, audio, etc.), reports, investigations, or findings from: o o o o Incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; Incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence. Please respond to this request promptly. Please provide the records via email, to the extent possible. As you probably know, the following legal rules apply to this request. Prompt Disclosure: Government Code Section 6253 (b), (d) Records not exempt from disclosure are to be made “promptly available.” No provision of the CPRA, including the response periods noted below, “shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.” Deadlines: Government Code Section 6253 (c) You are required “promptly” and in no case more than 10 calendar days from the date of this request, to determine, and inform me in writing, whether you are going to decline all or part of the request, and the law(s) that you are relying on, unless within that period you notify me in writing that you intend to take up to an additional 14 days to make the determination because of your need: · · · · to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request; to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request; for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein; or to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data. Your notice must set forth “the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched.” If you determine that any of the records I have requested are disclosable, your written notice must “state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available.” Constitutional Rule of Interpretation: Article I, Section 3 (b) The California Constitution requires that the Public Records Act “shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.” This rule must be heeded in interpreting any exemptions from disclosure you believe to be applicable. To the extent that a portion of the information I have requested is exempt by express provisions of law, the public records act additionally requires segregation and deletion of that material in order that the remainder of the information may be provided in satisfaction of my request. If you determine that an express provision of law exists to exempt from disclosure all or a portion of the information I have requested, please respond to me in writing, via email, citing the specific portion of the law that allows for the exemption. In addition, the act requires government agencies to “provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.” Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about my request. I can be reached at (213) 2215754 and maya.lau@latimes.com. Sincerely, Maya Lau Los Angeles Times Staff Writer Exhibit DFYrCE OF' l~HE SHERIF_F Cot,T:";"I'Y OF Los A,.~GELES ~H~'L_,©F i)\r~TICE ALEX VILL~::SUEV:A, SHERIFF April 12, 2019 Maya Lau Maya.Lau@latimes.com Dear Ms. Lau: This letter is in response to your request for records under the California Public Records Act dated and received by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) Discovery Unit on April 9, 2019. In your request, you are seeking the following: "For LABD Employee Danilo Martinez #636779, any and all letters of discipline and any and all case files (inc. multimedia, videos, photos, audio, etc.), reports, investigations, or findings from:" • "Incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; " • "Incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury;" • "Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public;" • "Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence." 211 WEST TEMPLE STREET, Los ANGELES, GALffORNIA 90012 vi .-!hadrlion o/ ,%,,~ice "- //1,i,cr 1,1.;fl - ~ Maya Lau -2 - April 12, 2019 Response: Unfortunately, we are unable to assist you with your request. Danilo Martinez was never employed as a peace officer by the LASD. Therefore, LASD has no records responsive to your request. If you have any questions, please contact Lieutenant Norman of the Discovery Unit at (323) 890-5000. Sincerely, ALEX VILLANUEVA, SHERIFF ±7.:~~m Risk Management Bureau O'F:F:rCE (JF. ~HE $HERIF_F 1 Cor='-'I'Y OF Los A.."'-'GELES ~Hw~-,pF ifysTICE ALEX VILLAXUEV.A, SHERIFF April 12, 2019 Maya Lau Maya.Lau@latimes.com Dear Ms. Lau: This letter is in response to your request for records under the California Public Records Act dated and received by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) Discovery Unit on April 9, 2019. In your request, you are seeking the following: "For LASD Custody Asst. David Parker, any and all letters of discipline and any and all case files (inc. multimedia, videos, photos, audio, etc.), r eports, investigations, or findings from:" • Incidents involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; • Incidents in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great bodily injury; • Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; • Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime , or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying , or concealing of evidence . 211 WEST TEMPLE STREET, Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 .Yi f!hadt'/ion o/ .%,mce - //}i,cr 1,1.;o -=- Maya Lau -2 - April 12, 2019 Response: Unfortunately, we are unable to assist you with your request. Custody Assistant David Parker was never employed as a peace officer by the LASD. Therefore, LASD has no records responsive to your request. If you have any questions, please contact Lieutenant Norman of the Discovery Unit at (323) 890-5000 . Sincerely, ALEX VILLANUEVA, SHERIFF ~£.ti~ Kimberly L. Unland, Captain Risk Management Bureau Monday, June 29, 2020 at 23:18:13 Mountain Daylight Time Subject: RE: PRA Request - Mar0nez Date: Monday, April 15, 2019 at 4:10:52 PM Mountain Daylight Time From: Lau, Maya To: Unland, Kimberly L., Minguillan, Lallie E., Norman, Alise, Diggs, Floryence L. ADachments: image001.jpg Hi Capt. Unland, Thanks. Where specifically does it say what the defini0on of a “custodial officer” is? Custody assistants are not sworn peace officers, correct? Nowhere in my request does it say I’m only asking for records under SB 1421. Given that custody assistants are not sworn, I don’t believe there are the same protec0ons on their personnel files as there are on peace officers. (I’ve been given access to custody assistant files in the past) Could you send me any leaers of imposi0on against Danilo Mar0nez? Thank you, Maya Maya Lau Staff Writer Los Angeles Times Maya.Lau@la0mes.com @mayalau From: Unland, Kimberly L. [mailto:KLUnland@lasd.org] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 2:59 PM To: Lau, Maya; Minguillan, Lallie E.; Norman, Alise; Diggs, Floryence L. Subject: RE: PRA Request - Martinez EXTERNAL SOURCE Hello Maya, Danilo Mar0nez is a custody assistant. To fall under SB 1421, LASD personnel need to be a sworn peace officer. Since a custody assistant is not a sworn officer, then Custody Assistant Danilo Mar0nez does not fall under SB 1421. A “custody assistant” is not the same as a “custodial officer” as stated in the SB 1421 language. Thank you! Kim Kimberly L. Unland, Captain Risk Management Bureau 4900 S. Eastern Avenue Commerce, CA 90040 Page 1 of 3 (323) 890-5381 office (213) 332-3320 cell From: Unland, Kimberly L. Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 4:41 PM To: Lau, Maya ; Minguillan, Lallie E. ; Norman, Alise ; Diggs, Floryence L. <fldiggs@lasd.org> Subject: RE: PRA Request - Mar0nez Hello! I will inquire with our PRA team and let you know the beginning of next week. Enjoy your weekend. Kim From: Lau, Maya [mailto:Maya.Lau@la0mes.com] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 4:30 PM To: Minguillan, Lallie E. ; Unland, Kimberly L. ; Norman, Alise Subject: RE: PRA Request - Mar0nez Hi Capt. Unland, Was Danilo Mar0nez ever a custody assistant for LASD? If so, wouldn’t that apply under my request? Thank you. Maya Maya Lau Staff Writer Los Angeles Times Maya.Lau@la0mes.com @mayalau From: Minguillan, Lallie E. [mailto:lemingui@lasd.org] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 4:08 PM To: Lau, Maya Subject: PRA Request - Martinez EXTERNAL SOURCE Aaached is LASD’s response regarding your request for records pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Please respond to this e-mail confirming that you received this. Page 2 of 3 Thank youL01 ling/a County Sheriffs nep?ftme?t Page 3 of 3 Monday, June 29, 2020 at 23:18:13 Mountain Daylight Time Subject: RE: PRA Request - Mar0nez Date: Monday, April 15, 2019 at 4:10:52 PM Mountain Daylight Time From: Lau, Maya To: Unland, Kimberly L., Minguillan, Lallie E., Norman, Alise, Diggs, Floryence L. ADachments: image001.jpg Hi Capt. Unland, Thanks. Where specifically does it say what the defini0on of a “custodial officer” is? Custody assistants are not sworn peace officers, correct? Nowhere in my request does it say I’m only asking for records under SB 1421. Given that custody assistants are not sworn, I don’t believe there are the same protec0ons on their personnel files as there are on peace officers. (I’ve been given access to custody assistant files in the past) Could you send me any leaers of imposi0on against Danilo Mar0nez? Thank you, Maya Maya Lau Staff Writer Los Angeles Times Maya.Lau@la0mes.com @mayalau From: Unland, Kimberly L. [mailto:KLUnland@lasd.org] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 2:59 PM To: Lau, Maya; Minguillan, Lallie E.; Norman, Alise; Diggs, Floryence L. Subject: RE: PRA Request - Martinez EXTERNAL SOURCE Hello Maya, Danilo Mar0nez is a custody assistant. To fall under SB 1421, LASD personnel need to be a sworn peace officer. Since a custody assistant is not a sworn officer, then Custody Assistant Danilo Mar0nez does not fall under SB 1421. A “custody assistant” is not the same as a “custodial officer” as stated in the SB 1421 language. Thank you! Kim Kimberly L. Unland, Captain Risk Management Bureau 4900 S. Eastern Avenue Commerce, CA 90040 Page 1 of 3 (323) 890-5381 office (213) 332-3320 cell From: Unland, Kimberly L. Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 4:41 PM To: Lau, Maya ; Minguillan, Lallie E. ; Norman, Alise ; Diggs, Floryence L. <fldiggs@lasd.org> Subject: RE: PRA Request - Mar0nez Hello! I will inquire with our PRA team and let you know the beginning of next week. Enjoy your weekend. Kim From: Lau, Maya [mailto:Maya.Lau@la0mes.com] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 4:30 PM To: Minguillan, Lallie E. ; Unland, Kimberly L. ; Norman, Alise Subject: RE: PRA Request - Mar0nez Hi Capt. Unland, Was Danilo Mar0nez ever a custody assistant for LASD? If so, wouldn’t that apply under my request? Thank you. Maya Maya Lau Staff Writer Los Angeles Times Maya.Lau@la0mes.com @mayalau From: Minguillan, Lallie E. [mailto:lemingui@lasd.org] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 4:08 PM To: Lau, Maya Subject: PRA Request - Martinez EXTERNAL SOURCE Aaached is LASD’s response regarding your request for records pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Please respond to this e-mail confirming that you received this. Page 2 of 3 Thank youL01 ling/a County Sheriffs nep?ftme?t Page 3 of 3 Exhibit tins Augeles aims April 30, 2019 2300 E. Imperial Highway El Segundo, CA 90245 (218) 237-7077 jeil.glasser@latimes.com Jeff Glasser General Counsel Via Email U.S. Mail Sheriff Alex Villanueva Los Angeles County Sheriff?s Department Hall of Justice 211 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 avillan @lasd.org Mary Wickham County Counsel Los Angeles County 500 W. Temple Street Suite 648 Los Angeles, CA 90012 mwickham@counsel.lacountv.qov Dear Sheriff Villanueva and County Counsel Wickham: I represent the Los Angeles Times and reporter Maya Lau ("The Times"). As the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (the ?County") is well aware, the County has been required for more than 40 years to disclose records reflecting misconduct by non-swom public employees where the allegations against them are true or well founded, or discipline is imposed. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Regents of the University of California, 80 Cal. App. 3d 913, 918 (1978).1 This long-standing rule requires public agencies to produce records reflecting the complaint, the discipline, and the information upon which it was based. Id. The County's Sheriff?s Department once again appears to be flouting California law as part of refusing to disclose the disciplinary records for employees such as David Parker and Danilo Martinez. The County employs Parker and 1 Accord Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist, 202 Cal. App. 4th 1250, 1268 (2012); Inc. v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 4th 742, 759 (2006); Bakersfield City Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court, 118 Cal. App. 4th 1041, 1047 (2004). Sheriff Villanueva County Counsel Wickham Page 2 Martinez despite prior imposition of discipline or well-founded accusations of misconduct against them. Under the controlling case law, the County must disclose to The Times records reflecting the complaints, underlying facts, and the outcomes of any investigation involving Parker and/or Martinez where the allegations were true or well-founded, or discipline was imposed. As custody assistants, Parker and Martinez are entrusted with helping to ensure the safe administration of the jails and inmate care, which only heightens the public interest in access to records reflecting on any well-founded allegations of misconduct or discipline imposed by the County against them. Should the County continue to deny The Times and the public access to the records, and The Times be forced to file another lawsuit compelling the County to live up to its obligations under the California Public Records Act, The Times will recover its attorneys? fees and costs for the County?s continued intransigence and repeated improper withholding of public records. See Gov?t Code 6259. The Times? Requests And The County?s Responses. On April 9, 2019, Ms. Lau of The Times made CPRA requests for letters of discipline and underlying case files, reports, investigations or findings involving LASD Employees Danilo Martinez and David Parker. On April 12, Capt. Kimberly Unland responded, claiming the County had no responsive records to either CPRA request because neither one was employed as a peace officer. On April 12, 15 and 16, the parties exchanged emails, and Ms. Lau of The Times made clear that if the County was taking the position that Martinez and Parker were custody assistants and not sworn peace officers, then the Pitchess statutes had no application, and the records reflecting discipline or well-founded allegations of misconduct have to be disclosed. Ms. Lau stated that she had been given access to disciplinary records of custody assistants in the past. On April 26, Captain Unland responded, ?Upon further review, the Department will not release the requested personnel records for its custody assistants based on Government Code sections 6254(0) and The Times reiterates that it is requesting all records of any well-founded allegations of misconduct or discipline imposed on Martinez or Parker. The County must produce the underlying records reflecting the complaints, underlying facts, and the outcomes of any investigation involving Parker and/or Martinez where allegations were well-founded, or discipline was imposed. The Times is also requesting the dates of hire for Martinez and Parker. Sheriff Villanueva County Counsel Wickham Page 3 The CPRA Mandates Broad Disclosures Of Public Records. The is based on the premise that "access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state." Gov't Code 6250. In 2004, the voters of California elevated the CPRA to the California Constitution. Article I, 3(b) of the California Constitution mandates that ?[t]he people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people?s business," and guarantees that ?writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny." In recognition of that right, the Constitution orders that any statute ?that furthers the people?s right of access" such as the - ?shall be broadly construed,? while any statute ?that limits the right of access" must be ?narrowly construed.? ld. See also City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 5th 608, 617 (2017) (recognizing that the ?standard approach to statutory interpretation is augmented by a constitutional imperative"). The California Supreme Court has explained that "[g]iven the strong public policy of the people?s right to information concerning the people's business (Gov't Code 6250), and the constitutional mandate to construe statutes limiting the right of access narrowly (Cal. Const., art. I, 3, subd. ?all public records are subject to disclosure unless the Legislature has expressly provided to the contrary.? Sierra Club v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 4th 157, 166 (2013) (emphasis in original). Accord ACLU v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 1032, 1039 (2017) (recognizing ?[t]he state Constitution implemented this right of access with the general directive" to narrowly construe exemptions from disclosure). An agency seeking to withhold records from disclosure bears the burden of demonstrating that records are exempt from disclosure. lnt?l Federation 01' Prof. Tech. Engineers Local2l v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 319, 337 (?lnt?l Federation"); Cal State Univ., Fresno Ass?n v. Superior Court, 90 Cal. App. 4th 810, 831 (2001) burden of proof is on the proponent of nondisclosure, who must demonstrate a clear overbalance on the side of confidentiality"); New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.3d 1579, 1584 (1990); Braun v. City of Taft,154 Cal.App.3d 332, 345 (1984). lmportantly, ?public records" are defined broadly under the As Section 6252 makes clear, the applies to any record "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.? S92 Gov?t Code 6252(9) (??Writing? means transmitting by electronic mail and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored"). Courts long have recognized that the ?is intended to cover every conceivable kind of record that is involved in the governmental process and will pertain to any new form of record-keeping instrument Sheriff Villanueva County Counsel Wickham Page 4 as it is developed.? San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 3d 762, 774 (1983). In San Gabriel Tribune, the court observed that the definition of public record encompasses everything except for documents reflecting ?purely personal information unrelated to the conduct of the people?s business," such as a public officials grocery ?shopping list." ld. Accord Sander v. State Bar of Calif., 58 Cal. 4th 300, 323 (2013) (noting the ?establishes a presumptive right of access to any record created or maintained by a public agency that relates in any way to the business of the public agency Here, the records sought by The Times are "public records? within the meaning of the Accordingly, the County may withhold these records only if it can satisfy its burden of establishing an exemption from disclosure. As explained below, no such exemption applies. The Privacy Exemption Does Not Apply To The Records Requested Here of True 0r Well-Founded Allegations Against Sheriff's Department Employees. The County invokes Government Code 6254(c) to withhold the requested records, but that Section exempts from disclosure only medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.? (Emphasis added.) The final clause of subsection is critical; as courts have recognized, this exemption protects only highly personal information contained in government files, and even then, only if its disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. San Gabriel Tribune, 143 Cal. App. 3d at 777 (emphasis supplied). Thus, courts have held that Section 6254(c) shields only ?sensitive personal information which individuals must submit to government." Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers, lnc. v. County of Orange, 158 Cal. App. 3d 893, 905 (1984), or records of a highly intimate nature, such as marital status or family disputes. Braun, 154 Cal. App. 3d at 343-344. Even when that predicate is established, the court still must engage in a balancing of interests to determine if the agency is justified in withholding the record.2 2 In Braun, 154 Cal. App. 3d at 345, the court explained that ?the weighing process under section 6254, subdivision (0) to determine whether disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy requires consideration of almost exactly the same elements that should be considered under section 6255.? After determining that the records at issue in that case ?are not exempt under section 6254, subdivision (0) because they do not constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy," the court concluded that ?it follows that the public interest asserted by [the] City under section 6255" privacy - ?would not clearly outweigh the public interest served by disclosure." Accord CBS v. Block, 42 Cal. 3d 648, 656 (1986) weighing process mandated by Evidence Code section 1040 [as applied to the CPRA through Government Code 6254(k)] requires review of the same elements that must be considered under section 6255?); Cal. State Univ., Fresno Ass'n, 90 Sheriff Villanueva County Counsel Wickham Page 5 This balancing test imposes a heavy burden on a public agency trying to defeat public access. Courts have made clear that ?the burden of showing that non- disclosure is justified is on the agency seeking to withhold the requested San Gabriel Tribune, 143 Cal. App. 3d at 773; accord ACLU v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 1032, 1043 (2018) (stating that ?burden of proof [is] on the pr0ponent of nondisclosure to demonstrate a clear overbalance on the side of confidentiality"). To satisfy this burden, the agency cannot rely on ?speculative concerns.? Connell v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. App. 4th 601, 612 (1997). Instead, the agency must present ?evidence" demonstrating a compelling need for secrecy that ?clearly outweighs" the public interest in disclosure. New York Times Co., 218 Cal. App. 3d at 1579; see also Long Beach Police Officers Ass?n v. City of Long Beach, 59 Cal. 4th 59, 75 (2014) (CPFIA requires evidence to withhold public records, not vague generalities); CBS v. Superior Court, 91 Cal. App. 4th 892, 908 (2001). Under a well-established body of law going back to before the establishment of the the public has a right of access to government employee disciplinary records when the ?charges are found true, or discipline is imposed.? AFSCME, 80 Cal. App. 3d at 914, 918?; accord Marken, 202 Cal. App. 4th at 1268; lnc., 143 Cal. App. 4th at 759); Bakersfield City Sch. Dist, 118 Cal. App. 4th at 1047. In such cases, ?the strong public policy against disclosure vanishes," and ?a member of the public is entitled to information about the complaint, the discipline, and the ?information upon which it was based.? AFSCME, 80 Cal. App. 3d at 918 (quoting Chronicle Publ?g Co, 54 Cal. 2d at 575). California courts have found that ?disclosure of a complaint against a public employee is justified if the complaint is of a substantial nature and there is reasonable cause to believe the complaint or charge of misconduct is well founded." Bakersfield City School Dist, 118 Cal. App. 4th at 1044, 1046. The court held that ?neither the imposition of discipline nor a finding that the charge is true is a prerequisite to Id. The standard mandating disclosure when ?discipline is imposed" or allegations are well-founded had its genesis in the pre~CPFtA case Chronicle Publishing, where the court examined California State Bar procedures, in which ?complaints are confidential unless they result in disciplinary action taken against the attorney." 54 Cal.2d at 567. The court in 1960 deemed this system a ?safety valve? that allows for complaints but maintains confidentiality where charges are ?completely without foundation." Id. at 567. However, for the charges that actually lead to discipline, the Court held that ?strong public policy? requires disclosure of both publicly and privately issued sanctions. Id. at 572, 574. The court focused on the veracity of the charges, not the severity, in deveIOping the disclosure rules. Relying on imposition of discipline weeds out ?unfounded? charges and allegations Cal. App. 4th at 832 (because court addressed agency?s Section 6255 exemption, it need not separately address agency?s privacy arguments). Sheriff Villanueva County Counsel Wickham Page 6 ?without foundation." However, when discipline is imposed or charges are well founded, the public interest supports disclosure of allegations of even less serious misconduct, which furthers the purpose of our access laws to provide ?access to information concerning the conduct of the people?s business." Gov't Code 6250. In the 1978 case, AFSCME, the court sought to reconcile the ?the people?s right to information? with the right to privacy provided by the state Constitution. 80 Cal. App. 3d at 914. When it comes to the disclosure of public employees? disciplinary records, the Court held that the balance of interests weighs against disclosure when the charges are ?trivial or groundless," but ?where the charges are found true, or discipline is imposed, the strong public policy against disclosure vanishes." Id. at 918. The court thus ordered disclosure of an audit report detailing claims of financial irregularities by a University of California, San Francisco employee against two superiors. ?[W]here there is reasonable cause to believe the complaint to be well founded, the right of public access to related public records exists," the court concluded. Id. The 2004 case, Bakersfield City School Dist, involved a school official accused of sexual type conduct and threats of violence. The Court held that language that the public right to know outweighs employee privacy when the charges are found true does not impose an actual truth requirement as a prerequisite to disclosure. 118 Cal. App. 4th at 1046. Instead, the ?strong policy for disclosure of true charges" is satisfied if courts examine the records ?to determine whether they reveal sufficient indicia of reliability to support a reasonable conclusion that the complaint was well founded." Id. at 1046-47. The court underscored the importance of veracity rather than severity in Bakersfield City School Dist. Even when an agency has not imposed discipline, the court stated, ?where complaints of a public employee?s wrongdoing and resulting disciplinary investigation reveal allegations of a substantial nature, as distinct from baseless or trivial, and there is reasonable cause to believe the complaint is well founded, public employee privacy must give way to the public?s right to know." 118 Cal. App. 4th at 1046.3 Two years later, in BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court, 143 Cal. App. 4th 742, 758- 759 (2006), the court required disclosure of records reflecting an investigation of a high-level official, a superintendent of schools. The court stated: "Without doubt, the public has a significant interest in the professional competence and conduct of a school district superintendent and high school principal." Id. The superintendent's 3 The court defined ?substantial? to mean not "baseless or trivial,? which tracks the dictionary definition of "real; actual; true; not imaginary." Webster's New World Dictionary (1984). Similarly, ?baseless" is defined as ?having no basis in fact; unfounded," while "trivial" is defined as "trifling,? which is a synonym for ?frivolous.? Id.; see also Black?s Law Dictionary (Second Pocket Edition 2001). The case law and the dictionaries agree that a ?substantial" allegation is one that is not false or frivolous, not one that is severe. Sheriff Villanueva County Counsel Wickham Page 7 status as a high-level public official lessened his expectation of privacy, the court stated. ld. Even as to charges against a top official that may be unreliable, ?the public?s interest in understanding why [the official] was exonerated and how the [agency] treated the accusations outweighs [the official's] interest in keeping the allegations confidential,? the court concluded. The court explained that ?members of the public were greatly concerned about the behavior of the city's only high school superintendent and his governing elected board in responding to their complaints. Indeed, from the public's viewpoint, the District appeared to have entered into a ?sweetheart deal' to buy out the superintendent from his employment without having to respond to the public accusations of misconduct. The public?s interest in judging how the elected board treated this situation far outweighed the Board's or Morris's interest in keeping the matter quiet.? Id. In the 2013 Marken case, a teacher disciplined by a school district for sexual harassment tried and failed to overturn the California doctrine requiring disclosure of disciplinary cases where discipline is imposed, or charges are well founded or true. The court stated that ?although disclosure is mandated if there has been a true finding by the agency, even without such a finding, it the information in the agency?s files is reliable, and, based on that information, the court can determine the complaint is well founded and substantial, it must be disclosed.? 202 Cal. App. 4th at 1275. The school?s disciplining of the teacher for violating sexual harassment policy was sufficient, even if the teacher characterized the discipline as a minor reprimand. ?Marken occupies a position of trust and responsibility as a classroom teacher, and the public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether and how the District enforces its sexual harassment policy," the court stated. Id. at 1275-1276. Chronicle Publ. 00., AFSCME, Bakersfield, Inc., and Marken" establish firmly that the public has a right to access disciplinary records of non-sworn County employees and officials where the charges are well founded or true, or discipline is imposed. These cases reflect the diminished expectation of privacy that public employees can expect when disciplined or when an inquiry is substantiated. Here, any privacy interests in records reflecting discipline or well-founded charges against the County employees cannot clearly outweigh the public?s profound interest in verifying how the County adjudicated and resolved the misconduct allegations against Parker or Martinez. See Connell, 56 Cal. App. 4th at 617 (rejecting public officials argument that one should accept her word that "she is performing her task properly is akin to asking that we allow her ?to exercise absolute discretion, shielded from public accountability? in the Operations of her However, the public interest demands the ability to verify?) (emphasis added); 088 v. Block, 42 Cal.3d 646, 651-652 (1986) (?In order to verify accountability, individuals must These cases apply to all public employees of the County subject to discipline or well-founded allegations of misconduct. See AFSCME, 80 Cal. App. 3d at 917 (low? level employee represented by a union): Marken, 202 Cal. App. 4th at 1275-1276 Oeachen. Sheriff Villanueva County Counsel Wickham Page 8 have access to government files. Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in the political process?). Here, the custody assistants occupy positions of trust and authority in the Sheriff?s Department. They help to maintain order and security in custody detention, station jail, or a court lockup facility. They supervise recreational and work activities of inmates, monitor inmate movements and control exit and entry to detention facilities, and participate in the classification process. See Their important roles in our courts and detention system favor transparency concerning well-founded allegations of misconduct or discipline imposed by the County. The County Sheriff Department's employment of the two custody assistants despite previous imposition of discipline or well-founded allegations of misconduct against them only magnifies the public interest in access to these records. The public has a right to know the bases of the prior claims against Parker or Martinez, the processes followed by the County in adjudicating them, and the resulting punishments or other resolutions. The Times Will Recover Fees From The County If Forced To File Another Lawsuit. If the County continues to withhold the requested records, and The Times is required to obtain a court order compelling their disclosure, The Times will recover its attorneys? fees and costs under Government Code 6259. See Filarsky v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. 4th 419, 431 (2002) (noting that the attorney-fee ?provision contemplates that the public agency always will pay any costs and attorney fees should the plaintiff prevail?) (emphasis added); Los Angeles Times Communications LLC v. Alameda Corridor Transp. Auth., 88 Cal. App. 4th 1381, 1390 (2001) (prevailing party must be awarded fees under Section 6259(d)). If you would like to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (213) 237-7077 or email me at ieff.olasser@latimes.com. Very truly yours, 9%ng Jeff Glasser General Counsel Los Angeles Times cc: Kimberly Unland Scott Johnson (seiohnso@lasd.org) Kelly Aviles Shelby Grad Carla Flivera Flichard Martin Sheriff Villanueva County Counsel Wickham Page 9 Jack Leonard Maya Lau Ben Poston Exhibit Subject: LA Times PRA request Date: Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:07:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Tchekmedyian, Alene To: Discovery Unit PRA Requests Hi, this is a Public Records Act request for the following informaKon: - An Excel spreadsheet of all promoKons within LASD to the rank of captain and above since December 1, 2018, including name, prior rank and assignment and current rank and assignment - Sheriff Villanueva’s daily schedule since he took office - An Excel spreadsheet of in-custody jail deaths since Jan 1, 2009, including the categories: name, facility, date, cause of death - All public records requests sent to LASD from 12-1-18 to present/PRA log or spreadsheets kept by LASD to track requests, including the requestor, request, date received and status of the request Please acknowledge receipt of this request. Thank you, Alene -Alene Tchekmedyian Reporter Los Angeles Times o: (213) 237-3138 c: (714) 928-9311 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit From: Discovery Unit PRA Requests Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 8:10 PM To: Tchekmedyian, Alene Subject: RE: PRA Request #19-1693 EXTERNAL SOURCE Alene Tchekmedyian alene.tchekmedyian@latimes.com Dear Ms. Tchekmedyian: We have attached your Public Records request to this email in order to better reference #19-1693below. We are continuing to gather records to review. Once we have determined what records are responsive to your request, we will review them to determine if some of the records are exempt from disclosure. Not having reviewed all of the records, we cannot specify all the applicable authorities upon which records would be withheld or redactions would be required. The authorities may include, but are not limited to, the following: California Constitution, article I, section 1; matters protected by the attorney-client, official information, and deliberative process privileges; matters relating to pending litigation, personnel matters, investigations, or where the particular facts and circumstances warrant nondisclosure of the information. (Government Code §§ 6254 (a), (b), (c), (f), (k), and 6255(a).) If you no longer require documentation related to your original request, please let us know by emailing us the word “cancel” along with your reference number to discoveryunitprarequests@lasd.org. Reference number: 19-1693. Otherwise, we are hoping to complete the acquisition and review process in the near future. When the process is completed, we will advise you as to the availability of the non-exempt records. If you have any questions, please contact Lieutenant Norman of the Discovery Unit at (323) 890-5000. Thank you, Exhibit From: Tchekmedyian, Alene Sent: Monday, October 7, 2019 2:03 PM To: prarequests@lasd.org Subject: LA Times CPRA request Hi, this is a Public Records Act request for any and all of the disciplinary records for DepuKes Carrie Esmeralda Robles-Placencia and Vincent Moran available under SB 1421. I am making this request as a journalist and I believe the release of this informaKon would enhance the public’s understanding of the jusKce system. Please acknowledge receipt of this request. Thank you, Alene -Alene Tchekmedyian Reporter Los Angeles Times o: (213) 237-3138 c: (714) 928-9311 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit From: Tchekmedyian, Alene Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 3:33 PM To: 'prarequests@lasd.org' Subject: LA Times PRA request Hi, this is a Public Records Act request for any and all disciplinary records of Dep. Fernando Quintero, serial number 516569. I am making this request as a journalist and I believe the release of this informaKon would enhance the public’s understanding of the jusKce system. Please acknowledge receipt of this request. Thank you, Alene -Alene Tchekmedyian Reporter Los Angeles Times o: (213) 237-3138 c: (714) 928-9311 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit From: Tchekmedyian, Alene Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 1:37 PM To: 'prarequests@lasd.org' Subject: LA Times CPRA Hi, this is a Public Records Act request for all of the internal audits conducted within LASD since Dec. 1, 2018. Thank you, Alene -Alene Tchekmedyian Reporter Los Angeles Times o: (213) 237-3138 c: (714) 928-9311 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit Subject: LA Times CPRA Date: Thursday, January 9, 2020 at 12:19:31 PM Pacific Standard Time From: Tchekmedyian, Alene To: Discovery Unit PRA Requests Hi, This is a public records act request for the following informaEon: - All LASD/ProbaEon Dept. emails and records returned as a result of a Jan. 25 2019 search warrant prepared by Sgt. Richard Biddle (warrant number: 82189) - All records returned as a result of an April 3 2019 search warrant prepared by Sgt. Richard Biddle for ScoY Budnick’s Google account info (warrant number: 84191) - Any and all reports or memos or documents or communicaEons concerning ScoY Budnick being banned from/not allowed into LA County jails, from Dec. 1 2018 to the date this request is fulfilled - Any and all emails sent to or received by Alex Villanueva that contain any of the following words: “ScoY” “ScoY Budnick” “Budnick” “AnE Recidivism CoaliEon” or “ARC,” from Dec. 1 2018 to the date this request is fulfilled - Emails sent to or received by Alex Villanueva from the following email addresses: scoYarcla@gmail.com and comm.private@gmail.com, from Dec. 1 2018 to the date this request is fulfilled Thank you, Alene -Alene Tchekmedyian Reporter Los Angeles Times o: (213) 237-3138 c: (714) 928-9311 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit From: Discovery Unit PRA Requests Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 3:06 PM To: Tchekmedyian, Alene Subject: RE: LA Times CPRA EXTERNAL SOURCE Dear Ms. Tchekmedyian: We are continuing to gather records to review. Once we have determined what records are responsive to your request, we will review them to determine if some of the records are exempt from disclosure. Not having reviewed all of the records, we cannot specify all the applicable authorities upon which records would be withheld or redactions would be required. The authorities may include, but are not limited to, the following: California Constitution, article I, section 1; matters protected by the attorney-client, official information, and deliberative process privileges; matters relating to pending litigation, personnel matters, investigations, or where the particular facts and circumstances warrant nondisclosure of the information. (Government Code §§ 6254 (a), (b), (c), (f), (k), and 6255(a).) If you no longer require documentation related to your original request, please let us know by emailing us the word “cancel” along with your reference number to discoveryunitprarequests@lasd.org. Reference number: 20-30. Otherwise, we are hoping to complete the acquisition and review process in the near future. When the process is completed, we will advise you as to the availability of the non-exempt records. If you have any questions, please contact Lieutenant Morsi of the Discovery Unit at (323) 8905000. Thank you, From: Tchekmedyian, Alene [mailto:Alene.Tchekmedyian@latimes.com] Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 12:20 PM To: Discovery Unit PRA Requests Subject: LA Times CPRA Hi, This is a public records act request for the following information: - All LASD/Probation Dept. emails and records returned as a result of a Jan. 25 2019 search warrant prepared by Sgt. Richard Biddle (warrant number: 82189) - All records returned as a result of an April 3 2019 search warrant prepared by Sgt. Richard Biddle for Scott Budnick’s Google account info (warrant number: 84191) - Any and all reports or memos or documents or communications concerning Scott Budnick being banned from/not allowed into LA County jails, from Dec. 1 2018 to the date this request is fulfilled - Any and all emails sent to or received by Alex Villanueva that contain any of the following words: “Scott” “Scott Budnick” “Budnick” “Anti Recidivism Coalition” or “ARC,” from Dec. 1 2018 to the date this request is fulfilled - Emails sent to or received by Alex Villanueva from the following email addresses: scottarcla@gmail.com and comm.private@gmail.com, from Dec. 1 2018 to the date this request is fulfilled Thank you, Alene -Alene Tchekmedyian Reporter Los Angeles Times o: (213) 237-3138 c: (714) 928-9311 Exhibit AA From: Tchekmedyian, Alene Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 3:18 PM To: prarequests@lasd.org Subject: LA Times CPRA Hi, this is a Public Records Act request. The sheriff menMoned at a recent presser that of 276 promoMons to sergeant and above, 41% employees are LaMno, 36% white, 18% female and 15% African American and 4.5% Asian. I'm requesMng a further breakdown of these numbers. I'm requesMng a spreadsheet of promoMons to sergeant and above from the day the sheriff took office, Dec. 3, 2018, to the date this request is fulfilled. The list should include: name, prior rank/assignment, current rank/assignment, ethnicity and gender. I am requesMng the same spreadsheet for new deputy hires from Dec. 3, 2018 to the date this request is fulfilled. That spreadsheet should also include date of hire. Thank you, Alene Tchekmedyian Page 1 of 1 Exhibit BB From: Tchekmedyian, Alene Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 9:24 PM To: prarequests@lasd.org Subject: LA Times CPRA This is a Public Records Act request for the following information: • • • • Any and all communications -- including but not limited to text messages, emails, reports, complaints, memos and voicemails -- that reference the taking and/or sharing of Kobe Bryant helicopter crash photos by Sheriff's Department employees. These emails would have been sent or received by employees assigned to the Lost Hills station, including trainees and reserves, and/or any members of the LASD command staff, including Sheriff Villanueva, and possibly others. The search should include communications sent or received between Jan. 26, 2020 and the date this request is fulfilled. The search could include, but would not be limited to, the following terms: "photos," "photo," "pictures," "picture," "images," "image," "crash," "Kobe," "helicopter." We ask that you search all files and baskets, including those for deleted items and drafts, and all drives. Please include all attachments with the emails you produce. We ask that any electronic records be produced in their original electronic form. A record of all calls to the internal affairs bureau from Jan. 26, 2020 to Feb. 25, 2020 Recordings of all voice messages left with the internal affairs bureau from Jan. 26, 2020 to Feb. 25, 2020 A list of Sheriff's Department personnel who responded to the Kobe Bryant helicopter crash Because this concerns a timely matter of significant public interest, we ask that records be produced as soon as they are located, including in piecemeal form, as the search for more records continues. Please let us know as soon as possible if there is anything we can do to speed production of the records. Thank you, Alene -Alene Tchekmedyian Reporter Los Angeles Times o: (213) 237-3138 c: (714) 928-9311 Exhibit CC From: Tchekmedyian, Alene Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 1:03 PM To: kloquet@auditor.lacounty.gov Subject: LA Times CPRA Hi Karen, this is a Public Records Act request for the daily time sheet of every Sheriff's Department employee who worked at the Lost Hills Station on Jan. 26, 2020. Thank you, Alene -Alene Tchekmedyian Reporter Los Angeles Times o: (213) 237-3138 c: (714) 928-9311 Exhibit DD Cf {if HE SHERIFF COUNTY OF Los ANGELES HALL OF JUSTICE ALEXVILLANUEVA, SHERIFF March 12, 2020 Alene Tchekmedyian LA Times Alene.Tchekmed;m .com Dear Ms. Tchekmedyian: This letter is in response to your request for records under the California Public Records Act dated and received by the Los Angeles County Sheriff?s Department (LASD) Discovery Unit on March 9, 2020. In your request, you are seeking the following: "Daily time sheet of every Sheriff ?8 Department employee who worked at the Lost Hills Station on Jan. 26, 2020.? Response: Unfortunately, we are unable to assist you with your request. The records are considered part of an employee?s personnel records. These records are con?dential and protected by Penal Code 832.? and 832.8 and are exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act under Government Code 6254(0). The records requested are also exempt from disclosure under the California Constitution, article 1, section 1 and Government Code section 6255(a). If you have any questions, please contact Lieutenant Norman of the Discovery Unit at (323) 890-5000. Sincerely, ALEX VILLANUEVA, SHERIFF Albert M. Maldonado, Captain Risk Management Bureau 2 1 1 WEST TEMPLE STREET, Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 {61300.47th 0/ - [Ra?