The Twenty-Two-Minute No-Records Closure
The City Clerk's office released a Case 23-009185 email under R.25-4711 E3. Eight days later, the same office closed a follow-up request on the same case, R.26-39, with: "The City does not have any records that are responsive to your request" R.26-39. The portal record shows the follow-up was submitted at 12:08 PM and closed at 12:30 PM, twenty-two minutes later R.26-39.
The follow-up did not ask the City to reproduce the email. It identified a recipient discrepancy: the case log stated that Paul "replied back to the email," while the produced Outlook print showed four other recipients and did not list christophertf@gmail.com M036 E3. The request first asked for existing delivery headers, message traces, or logs showing the requester's address as a recipient. In the alternative, it asked for written confirmation that no such record existed and that the case-log line should be corrected R.26-39.
The CPRA does not require the City to create the written confirmation or correction sought in the alternative GC.7922.530. The first request, however, sought existing records: a delivery header, trace, or log showing the email reached the requester. The same office had just released an Outlook printout of Paul's email E3 R.25-4711.2, then closed the follow-up without describing any search or stating a basis for the no-records determination R.26-39. If the City withheld any existing responsive record, GC.7922.540 would require a written denial identifying the responsible persons and withholding basis.
IN PLAIN TERMS
The City's case log described an inspector's email as a reply to the requester. When the City produced that email, the requester's address was not on it. The requester then asked for any existing record showing the email had been delivered to him. Twenty-two minutes after that request was filed, the City closed it and stated it had no responsive records. The closure did not describe any search.
RECORD CHAIN
- The rule. The CPRA requires production of disclosable public records, a determination within ten days and prompt notice of the determination and reasons, and, when records are withheld or access is denied, identification of the responsible official and the basis GC.7922.530 GC.7922.535 GC.7922.540.
- The City produced the case email. Under
R.25-4711, the City released the inspector's Case 23-009185 email E3. The local release notice stated that the City had collected documents that appeared responsive and uploaded one named PDF, "Re_ 4880 T Street Jackie's House - 25-3549.pdf" R.25-4711.2. - The follow-up identified a specific discrepancy. Request R.26-39 cited the mismatch between the produced email's recipient list and the case-log entry, then asked for delivery records or, in the alternative, for written confirmation and correction R.26-39.
- The City answered with nonexistence. The City responded, "The City does not have any records that are responsive to your request," and closed the request the same minute, twenty-two minutes after filing R.26-39.
- The same mailbox appears in both records. The produced email's page header reflects Jena R. Swafford's Outlook context, and Swafford signed both the release and the no-records closure E3
R.25-4711R.26-39 Card 46.
FULL CIRCLE
The City may argue that R.26-39 asked for proof that did not exist, so "no records responsive" was an accurate answer.
That may answer the alternative request for written confirmation or correction, because the CPRA does not require the City to create a new record GC.7922.530. It does not answer the first request, which sought existing delivery records. The City had just produced the email E3, the requester identified a specific recipient-list mismatch, and the closure describes no search R.26-39. This card's finding concerns the first request.
The produced record contains no delivery header, message trace, or audit log reconciling the 09/11/2025 case-log "replied back" entry with the produced email's recipient list, and the closure identifies no searched system, responsible custodian, or withholding basis E3 R.26-39. That gap concerns existing records; it is distinct from the alternative request that the City create a correction.
GC.7923.000 supplies the enforcement mechanism for an inadequate CPRA response. This card's finding is narrower: the portal record shows a twenty-two-minute no-records closure of a delivery-proof request, with no account of any search and no stated basis for the nonexistence determination.
APPLICABLE LAW
- GC.7922.530: Duty to produce disclosable public records.
- GC.7922.535: Ten-day determination and prompt-notice requirement.
- GC.7922.540: Written denial or withholding must identify the responsible official and basis.
- GC.7923.000: CPRA enforcement mechanism for inadequate responses.
SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD
- E3 - Paul's September 2, 2025 Case 23-009185 email, produced under
R.25-4711; requester not listed as a recipient. Public provenance: https://cityofsacramentoca.nextrequest.com/requests/25-4711. - M036 - Page 36 of
M; 09/11/2025 case-log entry stating Paul "replied back to the email" and quoting the "Chris" message. - R.25-4711.2 - Local release notice for Request 25-4711; confirms the uploaded PDF filename and release context for E3.
- R.26-39 - Request 26-39 portal record and closure thread; documents the delivery-proof request, 12:08 PM filing, 12:30 PM no-records closure, and closure language. Public provenance: https://cityofsacramentoca.nextrequest.com/requests/26-39.