The Image-Only Copy of the Searchable Case File

Case 23-009185 | Card 47 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

The City hand-printed its own case file to an image-only PDF on April 20, 2026, after producing the same file with a text layer five months earlier. Request 26-1549 [R.26-1549.1], received that day, asked for "The current Citizenserve/Accela Print Report for Case No. 23-009185 as of the date this request is processed" [R.26-1549.1] and said what it needed was "only a fresh system export, updated and current" [R.26-1549.1]. The City released "23-009185_Redacted.pdf" [R.26-1549.1] at 6:05pm [R.26-1549.1] and closed the request at 6:06pm [R.26-1549.1]: "The City has collected all documents that appear to be responsive to your request. The documents have been uploaded to the portal" [R.26-1549.1], signed Mindy Cuppy. The file's own metadata (A.meta): Title "Print Report _ Citizenserve" [A.meta], Author "Melanie Haage" [A.meta], Producer "Microsoft: Print To PDF" [A.meta], created Mon Apr 20 13:46:33 2026 PDT [A.meta], 636 pages [A.meta], 218448538 bytes [A.meta]. Its text layer measures zero bytes [R.26-2487.6] — every page an image. The request's point of contact is Melanie Haage [R.26-1549.1].

The November 6, 2025 production of the same case under Request 25-3549 — "new 23-009185_Redacted.pdf" [R.25-3549.1], 590 pages, 52,451,642 bytes [I2] — carried its text as a Citizenserve native text-layer extraction [I2] (Card 52); its own metadata reads Title "File Report | Citizenserve", Creator wkhtmltopdf 0.12.6, Producer Qt 4.8.7, no Author, created November 5, 2025 and modified November 6 [R.26-2487.6], with 1,496,647 bytes of extractable text [R.26-2487.6]; the May 22, 2026 production carried text again (wkhtmltopdf 0.12.6, 631 pages, 1,633,440 bytes of text [R.26-2487.6]). The Act asks for electronic information in "any electronic format in which it holds the information" [GC.7922.570] (Government Code 7922.570 [GC.7922.570]). On April 24 the requester put the change on the thread — the file was "manually generated using "Microsoft Print to PDF" on April 20, 2026, at 1:46:33 PM" [R.26-1549.1] — and the captured timeline shows no City entry after it [R.26-1549.1] (Card 49). On June 23, 2026 the City printed to PDF again — 30 pages and 7 pages, zero bytes of text [R.26-2487.6] — on Request 26-2487 [R.26-2487.5], an inspection-report request asking for its records in "Native electronic format as held" [R.26-2487.5], while Request 26-2488 [R.26-2488.2], the case-file request whose format clause read "not a flattened, image-only, or "Print to PDF" output" [R.26-2488.2], was closed at 9:30am as a duplicate [R.26-2488.2] (Card 48 carries the April file's redactions; Card 4 the closures).

The City's own Citizenserve export of this case carries a text layer in November 2025 [R.26-2487.6] and May 2026 [R.26-2487.6]; on April 20, 2026, with a request in hand for "a fresh system export" [R.26-1549.1] of the "Print Report" [R.26-1549.1], what step at the City turned that same report into 636 pages [A.meta] of pictures by "Microsoft: Print To PDF" [A.meta] under the name of the request's point of contact [R.26-1549.1] — and where on the Request 26-1549 thread [R.26-1549.1] or in the file the City produced in May 2026 under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] is that step written down?

IN PLAIN TERMS

A searchable PDF lets you search names and copy text. An image-only PDF is a stack of pictures. In November 2025 the City produced this case file searchable [I2]. In April 2026 it produced the same file as pictures [A.meta] — the file's own metadata says it was printed to PDF from the case system at 1:46 PM by the same person who is the contact on the request — and released it that evening, closing the request a minute later. Asked about it four days later, the City entered nothing [R.26-1549.1]. A month after that, the next export had text again [R.26-2487.6]. The question for the City: the case system's own export of this report comes out searchable, before and after; what step on April 20 turned it into pictures instead, and where is that step written down?

RECORD CHAIN

  1. The rule. Government Code 7922.570 [GC.7922.570]: an agency that holds information in electronic form makes it available in an electronic format — any format in which it holds the information — and, on request, a format it has used to make copies for itself or another agency.
  2. November 6, 2025 — the searchable export. "new 23-009185_Redacted.pdf" [R.25-3549.1], released under Request 25-3549; 590 pages, 52,451,642 bytes, SHA-256 eb324451… [I2]; text measured as a Citizenserve native text-layer extraction [I2] without OCR. The file's own metadata (measured with the same method [R.26-2487.6]): "File Report | Citizenserve" [R.26-2487.6], Creator "wkhtmltopdf 0.12.6", Producer "Qt 4.8.7", no Author field, CreationDate Nov 5, 2025 13:58:03 PST, ModDate Nov 6, 2025 12:00:07 PST, pdftotext 1,496,647 bytes. The change from wkhtmltopdf to "Microsoft: Print To PDF" is written in the two files themselves.
  3. April 20, 2026, 1:46:33 PM – 6:06pm — the print. Request received, asking for "The current Citizenserve/Accela Print Report for Case No. 23-009185" [R.26-1549.1] as "only a fresh system export, updated and current" [R.26-1549.1]; the file created at 13:46:33 [A.meta] — "Print Report _ Citizenserve" [A.meta], Author "Melanie Haage" [A.meta], Producer "Microsoft: Print To PDF" [A.meta], 636 pages [A.meta], 218448538 bytes [A.meta] (SHA-256 ff6c8354… [I2]); pdftotext bytes: 636 (0 excluding form feeds and whitespace) [R.26-2487.6]. Released 6:05pm [R.26-1549.1], closed 6:06pm [R.26-1549.1], Mindy Cuppy; point of contact Melanie Haage [R.26-1549.1]. OCR later recovered 1,177,598 characters [I2] from the images.
  4. April 24, 2026, 11:13am — the notice, and nothing after it. "manually generated using "Microsoft Print to PDF" on April 20, 2026, at 1:46:33 PM" [R.26-1549.1], with both files' hashes. The captured timeline for Request 26-1549 carries no City entry after the notice [R.26-1549.1] (Card 49).
  5. May 22, 2026 — the next export has text again. Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1], received May 17, 2026 [R.26-1965.1] ("Please do not send a flattened PDF, a print report, screenshots, scanned pages, or a stack of images" [R.26-1965.1]), closed May 22 with "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1]: "23-009185_Redacted.pdf", Producer Qt 4.8.7, Creator wkhtmltopdf 0.12.6, 631 pages, 1,633,440 bytes of text [R.26-2487.6] (the file [R.26-1965.2]).
  6. June 23, 2026 — Print To PDF again, on requests naming the format. Request 26-2487 [R.26-2487.5] (inspection reports, "Native electronic format as held (Gov. Code sections 7922.535 and 7922.570)" [R.26-2487.5]): "Case #23-009185 Summary_Redacted.pdf" [R.26-2487.5] (the file [R.26-2487.2]) and "Case #23-009185 05.17-06.23.2026.pdf" [R.26-2487.5] (the file [R.26-2487.3]), both "Producer: Microsoft: Print To PDF" [R.26-2487.6], 30 and 7 bytes of text, 0 excluding form feeds [R.26-2487.6]; the one text-bearing file, the permit inspection history [R.26-2487.4], came from Crystal Reports [R.26-2487.6]. Request 26-2488 [R.26-2488.2] (the case file, "Native electronic format as held (Gov. Code sections 7922.535 and 7922.570) — not a flattened, image-only, or "Print to PDF" output" [R.26-2488.2]) was closed 9:30am, "DUPLICATE REQUEST OF 26-2487" [R.26-2488.2].

FULL CIRCLE

The City's first available answer is that Request 26-1549 asked, in its own words, for "The current Citizenserve/Accela Print Report for Case No. 23-009185" [R.26-1549.1]; a "Print Report _ Citizenserve" [A.meta] is what was released; a PDF is an electronic format; and Government Code 7922.570 [GC.7922.570] subdivision (b)(2) turns on the "format requested" [GC.7922.570], which the April request did not name.

The statute's first measure is not the format requested but the format held: "any electronic format in which it holds the information" [GC.7922.570]. The City holds this case in Citizenserve, and that system's own export of this same report — titled "File Report | Citizenserve" [R.26-2487.6] — carried a text layer in November 2025 [R.26-2487.6] and again in May 2026 [R.26-2487.6]; the April file's title says it is that report ("Print Report _ Citizenserve" [A.meta]) and its producer says it was printed ("Microsoft: Print To PDF" [A.meta]). The request had asked for "only a fresh system export, updated and current" [R.26-1549.1]. A screen printed to pictures is not a format the City holds the report in; the export it does hold the report in had been used for this case before and was used for it again.

The City's second available answer is that the May 22, 2026 production cured it: when the requester asked on May 17 for a searchable file ("Please do not send a flattened PDF, a print report, screenshots, scanned pages, or a stack of images" [R.26-1965.1]), the City produced the searchable export five days later and closed with "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1]

The May file is a different export — 631 pages [R.26-2487.6] to April's 636 [R.26-2487.6] — made for a different request; no re-issue of the April file with a text layer appears on the Request 26-1549 thread [R.26-1549.1], which ends with the April 24 notice; and the May production shows the text-bearing export was there to be used, which returns the question to April 20. On June 23 the City printed to PDF again, closing as a duplicate the one request whose text had ruled out a flattened, image-only, or Print-to-PDF output [R.26-2488.2].

What would defeat this card is an entry on the Request 26-1549 thread, or a page in the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1], stating why the April 20 report was printed and that no text-bearing export of the case was available that day. The captured thread [R.26-1549.1] holds none; the City closed the request with "This closes your public record request." [R.26-1549.1] 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