The 311 complaint that opened Case 23-009185 surfaced in CPRA production only after a March 20 export filter was challenged in writing.
This case started with a neighbor complaint phoned in through the city’s 311 line. M001 When the owner’s side asked for that originating complaint through public-records requests, R.25-3549 the city handed over a spreadsheet of 311 tickets — but it was filtered to start on March 20, three days after the complaint that actually opened the case came in on March 17. R.25-3549 So the one record that triggered everything fell just outside the date window the city used to pull the report. M001 The owner’s representative caught the cutoff in writing, named the exact ticket (#230317-1609966), and asked the city to rerun the search without the date filter and to say which systems it was even searching; R.25-3549 the city then posted another export and closed the request. R.25-3549 Meanwhile, the file held onto later, more colorful neighbor complaints from 2026 the whole time — M011–M012 a neighbor’s fence and dumped-appliance complaints from January 2026, M039 — while the original intake had to be pried loose by pointing out the filter. This sequence only became visible because someone read the export closely enough to notice the start date — the city never flagged that its own filter sat on the wrong side of the complaint.
Bottom line: the complaint that opened the case landed just outside the city’s own search filter, and it only came forward after the owner’s side caught the cutoff in writing and demanded a broader search.The City’s own File Detail Report carries an “Open Date” of 03/18/2023, and its earliest Activity Log entries — INITIAL COMPLAINT and INITIAL INSPECTION — are dated 03/20/2023; no Activity Log entry bearing the 03/17/2023 complaint date appears anywhere in the produced case file. M001 When the City produced a 311 export through the CPRA request that asked for the originating complaint, R.25-3549 that export’s “Date/Time Opened” filter began on March 20, 2023. The requester identified that cutoff in writing R.25-3549 and pointed out that it would exclude the very complaint the case file says triggered the case — the requester naming the originating ticket number (#230317-1609966), the November 2023 follow-up ticket number (#231107-2094683), and asking the City to identify “which systems and custodians are being searched.” R.25-3549 The City thereafter released a further 311 export and closed the request. R.25-3549
The produced file kept later neighbor-characterization content throughout — an 01/09/2026 caller relaying late-night unpermitted work and “illegal wiring is a fire hazard,” M011–M012 an 03/26/2026 caller naming the resident and describing him “terrorizing the neighborhood with construction noise,” M011–M012 and an 01/27/2026 inspector’s own note recording a neighbor’s fence and dumped-appliance complaints. M039 The contrast frames the gap: the later complaint content stayed in the file, while the export that should have carried the originating intake was keyed to a date that fell on the far side of the complaint.
The City’s own File Detail Report records “Open Date: 03/18/2023”; its earliest Activity Log entries — INITIAL COMPLAINT and INITIAL INSPECTION — are dated 03/20/2023; no log entry on 03/17/2023 appears anywhere in the produced case file. M001
The 311 export the City produced in response to Request 25-3549 was filtered to begin on March 20, 2023 — placing the originating March 17 complaint outside the search window. R.25-3549
The requester identified the cutoff in writing on the dated portal thread, named the originating ticket (#230317-1609966) and follow-up ticket (#231107-2094683), demanded an unfiltered rerun, and asked the City to identify “which systems and custodians are being searched.” R.25-3549
The City released a further 311 export and closed the request, with Anna Sorensen declaring “All responsive records have been provided” on November 7, 2025. R.25-3549
The produced file carried the later neighbor-characterization entries the entire time — the 01/09/2026 “illegal wiring is a fire hazard” note, M011–M012 the 03/26/2026 “terrorizing the neighborhood” note, M011–M012 and the 01/27/2026 fence/dumped-appliance note M039 — while the originating intake required a corrected search to surface. R.25-3549
The 311 complaint is the legal predicate of Case 23-009185 M001 R.25-3549, and on the City’s own production it fell on the wrong side of the City’s own export filter: a March 17 complaint, a March 20 cutoff, and an export that did not carry the originating intake until the requester caught the cutoff in writing and demanded a broader search. R.25-3549 The file retained the later neighbor-characterization entries the whole time M011–M012 M039 — a hearing officer could read the 2026 complaint content while the originating intake had to be drawn out by a corrected search.
The strongest realistic City response: 311 intake is a separate system not held by Code Enforcement; the March 20 case-open date in the case-management system is a distinct administrative step from the complaint date; and the initial export reasonably keyed to the case-open date. Answer: The CPRA obligation runs to all records the agency holds or controls, and a department that opens an enforcement case on a 311 complaint is obligated to identify and produce the predicate complaint or coordinate with the City unit that holds it, under the duty to assist. GC §7922.600 A complaint-date/case-open-date distinction — if real — should have been disclosed in the CPRA response, not left for the requester to discover by reading the export’s start date. R.25-3549