The Unproduced Paul Email Category

RECORD CHAIN

1. The rule. Public agencies must promptly make disclosable records available GC.7922.530. In City of San Jose v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that a city employee's writings about public business are not excluded from the CPRA because they are sent, received, or stored in a personal account CALSC.SanJose.2Cal5th608.
2. The CPRA scope on this case. Request 25-3549 expressly asked for Paul's "emails, text messages, memos, or attachments he wrote or received about Code Enforcement cases" and "Communications between Code Enforcement management and Paul [source misspelled surname] about inspections, enforcement decisions, or cases," for 01/01/2020 through 09/19/2025 R.25-3549.
3. The City's representation. The City closed Request 25-3549 with "All responsive records have been provided" R.25-3549. The portal record shows releases of case-file PDFs and a 311 export; the later Request 25-4711 production shows a responsive Paul email outside that closure R.25-3549 E3 R.25-4711.2 R.25-4711.
4. The off-case-file Paul correspondence is documented in three source groups.

• Karin Owens's phone — 2025 and 2026 Paul email and text screenshots, on topics including amendment fees, the $1,400 Notice and Order fee, power shutoff, permit scope, supervisor involvement, and a text exchange with "Paul" S5 S3 S4 S6.
• Owner-side April 2023 accounts — Paul emails covering the complaint narrative, backyard access and verification, the card left at the door, and whether penalties should be assessed E1 E1.2 E1.3 E1.5.
• Jena R. Swafford's City Outlook print — the 09/02/2025 Paul Case 23-009185 email she printed at 3:25 PM on 12/29/2025 and released under Request 25-4711, with the City's release notice tied to the same request E3 R.25-4711.2 R.25-4711.

5. The contradiction. The City closed Request 25-3549 as complete R.25-3549; the record documents Paul Case 23-009185 correspondence within that request's scope through owner-side copies and a City Outlook print E1 E1.2 S5 S3 S4 S6 E3. Under San Jose, an employee's public-business writings are not excluded from the CPRA by where they are stored CALSC.SanJose.2Cal5th608.
6. One City-side copy was printed and released. A City Clerk's office staff member printed a Paul Case 23-009185 email from her own Outlook account and released it under Request 25-4711 E3 R.25-4711.2 R.25-4711. The PDF page header reads "12/29/25, 3:25 PM ... Jena R. Swafford - Outlook," and the release notice carries the same date E3 R.25-4711.2. The produced file shows the email header: From Paul, Date Tue 9/2/2025 2:43 PM, To Bo Cosley, Douglas Pierson, kowensfoley@gmail.com, baritelljm@gmail.com, Subject "Re: 4880 T Street Jackie's House" E3. Two recipients are City staff and two are owner-side Gmail addresses; a separate source group holds Karin Owens's 2025 and 2026 Paul email and text screenshots S5 S3 S4 S6.
7. The case file carries a paraphrase, not the email. The 09/11/2025 Paul case note states "I replied back to the email stating: Chris, Thank you for reaching out to the city of Sacramento with your concerns of the property at 4880 T street…" M036. The case file describes the email but does not contain it as a record; the email surfaced only when a City Clerk officer printed it from Outlook under a separate request E3.

FULL CIRCLE

The expected City response is that third-party screenshots and owner-side email packets are not City-controlled repositories, and that San Jose does not make every private copy of a public-business exchange a City record. This card does not rest on those repositories. The outside copies show that Paul-authored case correspondence existed; the City's own Outlook release shows that at least one City-side copy could be located and produced as a public record E3 R.25-4711.2; and Request 25-3549 covered that category of correspondence before the City closed it as complete R.25-3549.

The produced materials do not identify the email accounts, staff Outlook repositories, or employee-retained repositories searched for Request 25-3549; they do not include Paul's Case 23-009185 emails as a visible category; and they do not explain why the Swafford Outlook email later released under Request 25-4711 was not produced under the earlier request. Card 4 supplies the broader completeness baseline, and Card 46 carries the single-officer sequence. This card's finding is the category gap: documented Paul case correspondence existed outside the Case File, one City Outlook copy was later released, and the request that covered Paul's emails was closed as complete without a produced account of the City-side repositories searched.