Five Rolling Notices, No Determination Date

Case 23-009185 | Card 40 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

The City took seventy-seven days and five "additional time" notices to say whether it held one inspector's 2025 case notes, on a request for two fields. Request 26-71 [R.26-71.1], filed January 8, 2026, asked for a raw export of Paul Lovato's 2025 case notes — "Case number / case ID" [R.26-71.1] and "Note text (message/body)" [R.26-71.1]. The City's acknowledgment said it would decide "Within 10 days of processing" [R.26-71.1] whether the request sought disclosable records; on January 9 at 8:38am it wrote that the records "have already been released to the public as part of a prior City of Sacramento public records request" [R.26-71.1] and that "The case number / case ID can be found in request 25-3549 in the document titled "25-3549.pdf"" [R.26-71.1] — one of the two fields, a case index, and nothing about the note text; the requester said so at 11:24am (Card 42). Eleven days later the City wrote that it "will notify you on or before February 3, 2026 as to whether the City is in possession of non-exempt records responsive to your request" [R.26-71.1]. Then five notices with the same text — "additional time is necessary to properly respond to your request due to the volume of materials" [R.26-71.1] — each promising to "notify you on or before" [R.26-71.1] a later date whether the City had records at all: January 20 (by February 3) [R.26-71.1], February 3 (by February 17) [R.26-71.1], February 17 (by March 3) [R.26-71.1], March 3 (by March 17) [R.26-71.1], and March 17 (by April 1) [R.26-71.1] — the last a fifteen-day step.

The law gives ten days for that decision (Government Code 7922.535(a) [GC.7922.535]) and one extension by written notice that "shall not specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days" [GC.7922.535] (7922.535(b) [GC.7922.535]). On March 3, 2026, four hours after the fourth notice, the requester wrote back quoting both subdivisions, listing the four notices with their times, and asking the City to "Confirm whether the City has already made and sent its § 7922.535(a) determination for Request #26-71" [R.26-71.1]. The City's next message was the fifth notice. Then three releases — March 18, a Citizenserve report with "We are providing this list of all of the cases for Paul Lovato for 2025 along with the descriptions" [R.26-71.1]; March 25, "Accela Inspections & Parcel Conditions PLovato CY2025.xlsx" [R.26-71.1]; March 26, "PRA 26-71 - Paul Lovato Case Notes.xlsx" [R.26-71.1] — and, one minute after the last, "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-71.1] A same-class request for five other officers' notes, Request 26-1061 [R.26-1061.1], opened March 17 and closed March 25 with no extension notice (Card 4). The run has since repeated on a second request for the same inspector's records: Request 26-2490 [R.26-2490.2], received June 23, 2026 for Paul Lovato's emails on this case, drew the same paragraph on July 2, July 16, July 30, August 13 and August 27, 2026 [R.26-2490.2], the fifth notice written the morning after the City closed Request 26-3401 [R.26-3401.1] — its request for the written designation that lets the City Clerk extend the time limit at all — with "The City does not have any records that are responsive to your request." [R.26-3401.1]

On what day did the City decide that it held Paul Lovato's 2025 note text — if the day was January 9 [R.26-71.1], when it pointed to a case index for the case-number field and said nothing of the notes, why did it write on January 20 that it would tell him by February 3 whether it had records at all [R.26-71.1], say the same thing four more times [R.26-71.1] against a law that gives it ten days and one extension of at most fourteen [GC.7922.535], and answer his March 3 question naming the day [R.26-71.1] with a fifth notice saying it would tell him by April 1 [R.26-71.1]?

IN PLAIN TERMS

The Public Records Act gives a city ten days to say whether it has the records, plus one extension of up to fourteen. Handing them over can take longer, but the yes-or-no comes first. On day one the City pointed to an index of case numbers [R.26-71.1]; eleven days later it wrote that it would tell him by February 3 whether it had records [R.26-71.1], and it sent that same notice five times [R.26-71.1], the fifth one fifteen days out. When the requester asked on March 3 whether the decision had been made [R.26-71.1], the reply was notice number five [R.26-71.1]. A request for five other officers' notes closed in eight days [R.26-1061.1]. The City has since done the same on a second request for the same inspector's emails: five notices, the fifth on August 27, 2026 [R.26-2490.2], sent the morning after it wrote that it has no record giving the Clerk the power to extend [R.26-3401.1]. The question for the City: on what day did it decide it had the notes, and if that day was January 9, why did it say five more times that it had not decided?

RECORD CHAIN

  1. The rule. Government Code 7922.535(a) [GC.7922.535]: a determination within ten days, and prompt notice of the determination and the reasons for it. 7922.535(b) [GC.7922.535]: one extension by written notice, which "shall not specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days" [GC.7922.535]. Government Code 7922.500 [GC.7922.500]: the Act may not be used to delay or obstruct inspection or copying.
  2. January 8 – 9, 2026 — the request, and "already been released". Filed January 8 at 11:45am [R.26-71.1]; acknowledged the same minute with "Within 10 days of processing, we will determine whether your request seeks disclosable records" [R.26-71.1]. January 9, 8:38am: the records "have already been released" [R.26-71.1] under 25-3549, with the pointer "The case number / case ID can be found in request 25-3549 in the document titled "25-3549.pdf"" [R.26-71.1] — the case-number field only, a case index, not the notes, as the requester answered at 11:24am (Card 42). The City's next message on the thread is the January 20 notice.
  3. January 20 – March 17, 2026 — five notices, one text. January 20, 9:09am, notify by February 3 [R.26-71.1]; February 3, 8:58am, by February 17 [R.26-71.1]; February 17, 8:53am, by March 3 [R.26-71.1]; March 3, 8:51am, by March 17 [R.26-71.1]; March 17, 8:33am, by April 1 [R.26-71.1]. Each: "We will notify you on or before" [R.26-71.1] the date "as to whether the City is in possession of non-exempt records responsive to your request" [R.26-71.1] — the decision itself, not a delivery estimate.
  4. March 3, 2026, 12:40pm — the requester asks for the day. "The problem is that this language keeps moving the City's "determination" date." [R.26-71.1] He quoted (a) and (b), listed the four notices with their times, and asked the City to confirm whether it had made the determination and, if so, on what date — and, if not, "please cite the specific basis for extending it further under § 7922.535(b), and provide the determination" [R.26-71.1].
  5. March 17 – 26, 2026 — a fifth notice, three releases, closure one minute later. March 17, 8:33am: the fifth notice, by April 1. March 18, 11:39am: "CitizenserveReport (1).xlsx" [R.26-71.1], with "If there are specific cases you are seeking additional information on, please provide us with the specific case numbers" [R.26-71.1]. March 25, 10:54am: the Accela CY2025 sheet. March 26, 3:26pm: the case-notes sheet; 3:27pm: "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-71.1] No message on the thread states a determination or the day it was made.
  6. March 17 – 25, 2026 — the same class of request, eight days. Request 26-1061 [R.26-1061.1], a note export for five other officers, opened March 17, 2026 and closed March 25 [R.26-1061.1] with five redacted officer files [R.26-1061.1] and no extension notice.
  7. June 23 – August 27, 2026 — the same five notices on a second request for the same inspector's records. Request 26-2490 [R.26-2490.2], received June 23, 2026 for Paul Lovato's emails on this case, was acknowledged with "Within 10 days of processing, we will determine whether your request seeks disclosable records" [R.26-2490.2]. Then the same paragraph five times — "the volume of materials required to be searched, collected, and examined for responsiveness (permitted under Government Code 7922.535 (c)(2))" [R.26-2490.2] — July 2, 10:24am, by July 16 [R.26-2490.2]; July 16, 9:20am, by July 30 [R.26-2490.2]; July 30, 11:02am, by August 13 [R.26-2490.2]; August 13, 9:15am, by August 27 [R.26-2490.2]; and August 27, 10:26am, by September 10 [R.26-2490.2], each over the name "Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk" [R.26-2490.2]. On August 24 at 11:51am the requester wrote that a fifth notice reciting the same paragraph would not be a determination [R.26-2490.2] and asked for the written designation by which the City Clerk is authorized to extend the time limit; the City's next message was the fifth notice: "We will notify you on or before Thursday, September 10th 2026 as to whether the City is in possession of non-exempt records responsive to your request" [R.26-2490.2]. At the August 27 capture the request is open with no record released [R.26-2490.2], on day 65 of a request the statute gives ten days and one extension of at most fourteen.
  8. August 18 – 27, 2026 — the City's answer on who may extend. 7922.535(b) [GC.7922.535] places the extension in a written notice "by the head of the agency or their designee" [GC.7922.535]. Request 26-3401 [R.26-3401.1], received August 18, 2026, asked for "The written designation, delegation, administrative order, resolution, policy, or other instrument by which the City Clerk, or any Office of the City Clerk staff member, is authorized to extend Public Records Act determination deadlines on behalf of the City of Sacramento" [R.26-3401.1] and for "All records reflecting who authorized each of the four extension notices issued on Request 26-2490" [R.26-3401.1]. August 26, 3:08pm: "The City does not have any records that are responsive to your request." [R.26-3401.1] Closed the same minute: "The City does not have any records responsive to this request." [R.26-3401.1] The next morning, August 27 at 10:26am, the fifth notice on 26-2490 went out over the same name [R.26-2490.2].
  9. August 28, 2026 — the request for the extension record draws the extension paragraph. Request 26-3402 [R.26-3402.1], received August 18, 2026, asked for the records of the search behind Request 26-2490 and for the City's own record of the extension notices it issued in 2026. On August 28 at 12:03pm, the tenth day, the City answered with the paragraph itself — "additional time is necessary to properly respond to your request due to the volume of materials required to be searched, collected, and examined for responsiveness (permitted under Government Code 7922.535 (c)(2))" [R.26-3402.1] — and "We will notify you on or before Friday, September 11th 2026 as to whether the City is in possession of non-exempt records responsive to your request" [R.26-3402.1], over the name "Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk" [R.26-3402.1]. One notice, inside the fourteen days the statute allows; the paragraph is the one this card is about.

FULL CIRCLE

The City's first available answer is volume: a year of one inspector's notes, and 7922.535(c)(2) [GC.7922.535] names volume as an unusual circumstance.

The statute answers volume with one extension, capped at fourteen days; it does not let the cap restart. The fifth notice ran fifteen. And the same office closed a five-officer export of the same kind in eight days [R.26-1061.1].

The City's second available answer is that the decision was made and communicated by the releases of March 18, 25 and 26.

Those are productions on days 69, 76 and 77. 7922.535(a) [GC.7922.535] asks for the decision within ten days and notice of it with reasons; none of the three release messages says a decision had been made or when. And the City's own last word on the question, written two weeks after it was asked, was that it would "notify you on or before April 1, 2026 as to whether the City is in possession of non-exempt records" [R.26-71.1] — in its own words, still undecided on March 17.

The City's third available answer is that January 9 was the determination, on day one: the notes were already public in 25-3549, and the later notices were status updates on a re-search the requester asked for after disputing that answer.

The January 9 message pointed to one field, "The case number / case ID can be found in request 25-3549" [R.26-71.1], and named no record holding the note text; the requester rejected it as an index at 11:24am (Card 42). The City's own next message answers the rest. On January 20 it wrote that it "will notify you on or before February 3, 2026 as to whether the City is in possession of non-exempt records responsive to your request" [R.26-71.1] — the City itself treated the possession question as still open eleven days after January 9, and said so four more times, the last on March 17. A status update on delivery would speak of delivery; each of the five speaks of "whether the City is in possession" [R.26-71.1]. And a determination made on January 9 would have made the March 3 question a one-line answer; the City's answer was a fifth notice [R.26-71.1].

The City's fourth available answer is that Request 26-71 [R.26-71.1] was one request, and one request is not a practice.

Request 26-2490 [R.26-2490.2] is the second request for the same inspector's records, and it drew the same paragraph five times between July 2 and August 27, 2026. The statute puts the extension in a notice "by the head of the agency or their designee" [GC.7922.535]; asked for that designation, the City answered on August 26 that it "does not have any records that are responsive" [R.26-3401.1] and sent the fifth notice the next morning. Twice now, on the same inspector's records, the fourteen-day cap has restarted — the second time from an office that had written, the day before, that it holds no designation to extend at all. And on August 28, 2026 the request for the City's own record of those extensions, Request 26-3402 [R.26-3402.1], drew the same paragraph.

What would defeat this card is a City message on the 26-71 thread, dated within ten days of January 8, 2026 or within one fourteen-day extension of it, stating that the City held the 2025 note entries requested — not the 25-3549 case index the requester rejected on January 9 at 11:24am (Card 42). The thread [R.26-71.1] holds none; the City closed the request with "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-71.1] Card 4 is the completeness baseline (what the file the City produced means, and does not mean).

APPLICABLE LAW

SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD

CARD REFERENCES