The case file logs that the inspector “replied back to the email” and quotes a message opening “Chris,” but the City’s produced copy of that reply shows the representative’s address was not among the recipients.
A property owner’s representative sent the city a written question by email, asking whether a new violation notice cancelled the old one and its fees. M036 The city inspector wrote up his case file to say he “replied back to the email” and even pasted in his answer, which began “Chris, thank you for reaching out.” M036 But when the representative later used public-records requests to get the city’s own copy of that email, the copy showed the answer was addressed to the inspector’s two bosses and to two other email addresses — not to the representative who had asked. R.25-4711 So the file says the city answered the man who wrote in, while the city’s own email shows that answer never went to his address. The answer even told “Chris” to “reach out to the owner of the property,” an instruction that only makes sense if Chris was supposed to read it, yet his address was left off the recipients. Govt Code §7920.000 The same file also quietly changed how it labeled this email compared to an earlier one, even though the city later printed it straight out of its own Outlook system, proving the email was there all along. M035 R.25-3549
Bottom line: the city’s file says it answered the person who asked a written question, but the city’s own copy of that email shows the answer was sent to everyone but him — and that only surfaced because he forced the record out.The case file records, in a 09/11/2025 entry by inspector Paul Lovato, that he “replied back to the email” from the person who had written in, quoting his own opening: “Chris, Thank you for reaching out to the city of Sacramento.” M036 The City’s produced copy of that same message, released under CPRA Request 25-4711 and printed from Outlook by the City Clerk’s office, shows the message addressed to Bo Cosley, Douglas Pierson, [email protected], and [email protected]. R.25-4711 The representative’s own address, [email protected], which appears on the From line of the originating email sent to the City earlier that day, is not among the recipients. R.25-4711
The message that begins “Chris” and that the case note logs as a reply to Chris was directed to the inspector’s supervisors and to two addresses on the owner’s side. The same produced thread shows the inbound email was the representative’s, sent to Bo Cosley with a statement PDF attached, Card 26 and that Cosley forwarded it to Lovato and Douglas Pierson over the line, “Paul, who is this person? How is he involved?” R.25-4711 The record problem is not whether the City may communicate with the owner rather than a third-party representative. It is that the City’s own file says it replied back to the person who asked, while the City’s own Outlook print shows the reply did not include that person’s address. Govt Code §7920.000
Cosley forwarded Foley’s email to Lovato and Douglas Pierson with the line, “Paul, who is this person? How is he involved?” R.25-4711 The forward’s recipients were the inspector and Pierson only; neither [email protected] nor [email protected] was on this forward.
Lovato’s “Chris, Thank you for reaching out” message went to Bo Cosley, Douglas Pierson, [email protected], and [email protected] — not to [email protected]. R.25-4711 [email protected] and [email protected] correspond to the property owner’s side; they were not recipients of the originating email and were not recipients of the internal forward. They appear for the first time on the outgoing reply. The produced print shows the result, not the mechanism.
The 09/11/2025 entries are typed “General Case Information,” while an earlier email entry on the same case file is typed “Outlook - Email.” M035 The Outlook print from CPRA 25-4711 confirms the message lived in, and was retrievable from, the City’s Outlook system. R.25-4711 The categorization is therefore a presentation choice in the produced file, not a change in where the email lived. Card 48
The City’s strongest response is that “replied back to the email” meant only that Lovato responded in the thread or sent the answer through the owner side, and that the inspector was entitled to direct correspondence to the owner rather than a third party. That may explain a policy choice, but it does not explain the record mismatch. The note says Lovato replied back and quotes a message addressed to Chris. M036 The produced email shows Chris’s address was absent from the recipients. R.25-4711 The City closed the production of these emails as complete, making the missing delivery evidence a certified-production gap. R.25-3549 R.26-1549 If the City has a delivered copy to [email protected], it should produce it. If it does not, the public-facing case file should not be treated as reliable proof that the City answered the person who wrote in. Card 47 Card 48 Card 49 Card 50