The City closed the inspector’s-notes request against an index holding no notes, and never answered the demand that he not control his own production.
A property owner asked the city for one inspector’s own 2025 notes — just the case numbers and what was written. R.26-71 The day after the request opened, the city said those records had “already been released” and pointed to an old file from a different request. R.26-71 R.25-3549 But that old file was only an index — a one-line summary per case, not the actual notes — so it did not contain what was asked for. R.25-3549 The owner had to write back and explain this; R.26-71 the city never took back its “already done” answer, it just started sending two-week delay notices. R.26-71 GC §7922.535 Because the records were the notes of the very inspector involved in the owner’s own case, the owner then asked the city, in writing, a plain integrity question: was that inspector being kept away from pulling and approving his own records, with a neutral person handling it instead? R.26-71 Over the next fifty-one days the city sent four more delay notices R.26-71 GC §7922.535 and a form closing letter, R.26-71 and never answered that question. All of this is visible only because the exchange happened on the city’s public records portal, which timestamps every message — the owner preserved that thread, and it is what shows the question was asked and left unanswered. R.26-71
Bottom line: the city closed a request for an inspector’s own notes by pointing to a file that did not contain them, and when the owner asked in writing whether that inspector was kept from controlling his own production, the city sent more delay notices and a form letter but never answered.Request 26-71 asked for the raw 2025 note/log entries authored by Inspector Paul Lovato — minimum fields case ID and note text. R.26-71 The day after the request opened, the City replied that the records “have already been released to the public” and pointed to “25-3549.pdf,” a file released months earlier in a different request. R.26-71 R.25-3549 Eleven days later the owner corrected the City in writing: that file is a case-list index showing one summary line per case, not the underlying note entries. R.26-71 The City did not retract the “already produced” closure; it issued the first of a series of two-week extension notices. R.26-71
Then, in a request opened specifically for the subject inspector’s own records, the owner posted a written conflict-of-interest demand — asking the City to confirm whether Lovato had been asked to search for, select, review, or control production of his own records, and that a disinterested custodian was handling it. R.26-71 Across the next fifty-one days the City sent four further rolling delay notices, R.26-71 GC §7922.535 released the note-text export, and closed the request R.26-71 — never confirming, denying, or addressing who controlled the production. The seventy-seven-day delay and the comparator disparity on this same request are the subject of Card 35.
The City must reasonably assist a requester in identifying responsive records, GC §7922.600 make a determination within ten days, GC §7922.535 and may not use the CPRA to delay or obstruct inspection or copying. GC §7922.500
Request R.26-71 defined the records by structure — “General Notes,” “General Information,” “Case Notes,” narrative entries — with fields case ID plus note text. R.26-71 The City replied that the records “have already been released … in request 25-3549 in the document titled ‘25-3549.pdf’.” R.26-71 R.25-3549 That file shows that cases exist, not what was written in them.
The owner replied that 25-3549.pdf “is a case list/index … not the underlying ‘General Notes / General Information / Case Notes’ entries,” and restated the request with explicit filter specifications. R.26-71
The City did not acknowledge or correct the prior “already produced” closure; it issued the first rolling delay notice. R.26-71 The “already produced” reply had stood unretracted for roughly eleven days on a request that ran seventy-seven elapsed days.
On the public portal, in a request opened for the subject inspector’s own records, the owner posted: “Please confirm. Whether Paul Lovato has been asked to search for, select, review, or control production of records responsive to this request, and that production and review is being handled by a disinterested custodian (not the subject of the request) with appropriate supervision.” R.26-71
The City answered with rolling extensions; R.26-71 GC §7922.535 none mentioned the disinterested-custodian question.
The City released the Accela case export (Anna Sorensen, March 25, 2026), then released “PRA 26-71 — Paul Lovato Case Notes.xlsx” (Mindy Cuppy, March 26, 2026), then closed the request with “All responsive records have been provided.” R.26-71 The closing notice does not confirm, deny, or address who handled the production — a question pending since the February demand. R.26-71
A request for one inspector’s own notes met two avoidable obstacles, both on the City’s own portal. R.26-71 First the City closed it as “already produced” against a case-list index that contained no note text, leaving the owner to re-argue an already-specified request before the City would treat it as open. R.26-71 R.25-3549 Then, when the owner asked in writing whether the subject of the records was controlling their own production, and named the specific concern — enforcement leverage from a delayed release — the City answered with four more delay notices and a form letter but never the question. R.26-71 Whether or not Lovato touched the file, the City’s silence across fifty-one days and five delay-notice opportunities, on a direct written integrity question, is the defect this card preserves. R.26-71 GC §7922.500 GC §7922.600
The City’s strongest response is that the “already produced” reply was a good-faith duty-to-assist pointer to an existing Lovato production, resolved once the owner clarified; and the CPRA does not require an agency to disclose its internal production workflow. Request R.26-71 described the records in precise terms — note text, case ID, system export. R.26-71 A case-list index with one summary line per case does not contain “note text,” and the City phrased its reply as a closure (“have already been released”), not as a clarifying question or partial pointer. R.26-71 GC §7922.600