The Inconsistent Complainant Redactions

Case 23-009185 | Card 48 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

The file the City released on April 20, 2026 carries the same March 26, 2026 complaint entry twice — with the caller's identity blacked out on page 11 [A011] and in the clear on page 39 [A039] — under a closure that named "Identification of complainants" as what it had withheld. The closure of Request 26-1549 [R.26-1549.1], 6:06pm: "The City has collected all documents that appear to be responsive to your request." [R.26-1549.1] and, among the records "specifically exempted from disclosure" [R.26-1549.1], "Identification of complainants (Government Code Section(s) 7922.000) and victims Government Code 7930.100." [R.26-1549.1] The file released a minute earlier: the January 9, 2026 entry with the caller's first name and telephone number in the clear on page 10 [A010], three times on page 11 [A011], and page 38 [A038]; the March 26, 2026 entry on page 11 [A011] with the City's black boxes where the caller lives and who the caller is, and on page 39 [A039] with none — where the caller lives, the caller's relationship to the property, and the name and number, all in the clear. (The extracts hosted here mask the caller's name, number and location in red; the City's release carries them unmasked.) Card 47 carries the same file's format.

The City's own procedure lists "complainant information" among the "Examples of records that may be exempt from disclosure" and "personal phone numbers" among what it redacts; its 311 page tells callers "You may remain anonymous when submitting your service request to 311 Customer Service." and "Your contact information will only be shared with the City department working on your request." The case file the City produced a month later, on May 22, 2026, carries the same March 26 entry on page 11 [M011] and page 40 [M040] with the gap after "CALLER LIVES" blank, and the January 9 entry ending at "FIRE HAZARD. CP" [M011] — the identifiers withheld. That file went out under a different request, Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1], closed the same minute with "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1] and nothing about the April file. The 26-1549 thread carries no corrected production and no notice of one [R.26-1549.1]; the 26-1965 thread does not name the April 20 file [R.26-1965.1] (Card 49; Card 4).

Where, on the 26-1549 thread [R.26-1549.1] or the 26-1965 thread [R.26-1965.1], is the City's word that the file it released on April 20, 2026 carried the caller's name, telephone number and location in the clear on page 39 [A039] — a minute before its closure named "Identification of complainants" [R.26-1549.1] as withheld, and after its own 311 page told callers their contact information "will only be shared with the City department working on your request" — when the file it produced on May 22, 2026 blanks those words [M040] under a closure that says only "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1]?

IN PLAIN TERMS

The City closed its April 2026 case-file release with a letter saying it had held back the identity of complainants [R.26-1549.1]. The file it released in the same minute names a caller and gives the caller's phone number on four [A010] different [A011] pages [A038], and handles one March 26 entry two ways — blacked out on page 11 [A011], in the clear on page 39 [A039]. The City's own 311 page promises callers their details stay with the department handling the request. A month later the City produced the file again, under a different request, with those details removed [M040], and said nothing about the first [R.26-1965.1]. The question for the City: where on either request is its word that the April file went out in the clear?

RECORD CHAIN

  1. The City's own rules. Public Records Act Requests Procedure: "Examples of records that may be exempt from disclosure include but are not limited to:" … "complainant information"; among information redacted, "personal phone numbers". 311 FAQ: "You may remain anonymous when submitting your service request to 311 Customer Service."; "Your contact information will only be shared with the City department working on your request."
  2. April 20, 2026, 6:05pm – 6:06pm — the file, then the closure that names the withholding. "23-009185_Redacted.pdf" [R.26-1549.1] released 6:05pm; closure 6:06pm, signed Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk [R.26-1549.1]: "The City has collected all documents that appear to be responsive to your request." [R.26-1549.1] … "Identification of complainants (Government Code Section(s) 7922.000) and victims Government Code 7930.100." [R.26-1549.1] … "This closes your public record request." [R.26-1549.1]
  3. The file, page against page. Page 10 [A010]: the 01/09/2026 MEMO/NOTE ends with the caller's first name and telephone number. Page 11 [A011]: the same entry three times, name and number each time; then the 03/26/2026 entry twice, with black boxes after "CALLER LIVES", after "CALLER IS", and at the end. Page 38 [A038]: the 01/09/2026 General Case Information entry, name and number in the clear. Page 39 [A039]: the 03/26/2026 General Case Information entry, nothing withheld — where the caller lives, the caller's relationship to the property, and the name and number at the end, all in the clear. Red boxes on the hosted extracts are this site's (name, number and location); the black boxes are the City's.
  4. May 22, 2026 — the same entries, withheld. The May production (Request 26-1965): page 11 [M011] carries the 03/26/2026 entry with the gap after "CALLER LIVES" blank and the 01/09/2026 entry ending "FIRE HAZARD. CP"; page 40 [M040] carries the 03/26/2026 entry with both gaps blank. No complainant name or number appears in those entries on either page; page 11 [M011] still prints the words after "CALLER IS" [M011] in the clear where page 40 [M040] blanks them. The 26-1965 closure, May 22, 2026, 1:29pm [R.26-1965.1]: "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1] — no mention of the April 20 file [R.26-1965.1].
  5. April 24, 2026 onward — what the thread holds. The requester's April 24 notice on the same file (Card 49), and no City entry after it [R.26-1549.1]: no corrected April production, no notice that one was made. The captured 26-1965 thread [R.26-1965.1] holds no entry recalling the April 20 file or telling the caller it went out in the clear. The later requests were closed by pointing back to this file (Card 4).

FULL CIRCLE

The City's first available answer is that page 11 [A011] is the withholding the closure described, that the rest was an inadvertent miss in a hand-redacted export, that the closure letter states what was exempted "Without limiting other arguments against disclosure that may exist" [R.26-1549.1], not that every instance was caught, and that the May 22, 2026 file under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] already withholds those words.

The letter and the file went out a minute apart, and the letter names complainant identification as the thing withheld. What the file carries is not one miss: the caller's name and number on four pages, and the one entry the City did redact, printed again unredacted twenty-eight pages later. The 311 page is the City's own promise to the caller. The May 22, 2026 file is not a correction of the April one: it was produced under a different request, Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1], closed with "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1]; the 26-1549 thread [R.26-1549.1] does not mention it; and nothing on either thread recalls the April 20 file or tells the caller it went out in the clear. The April release stands as the City's closed production of that file.

The City's second available answer is that case notes must record what callers report, and that export settings can produce page-to-page differences.

The same entry in the same file, black on one page and clear on another, is not an export setting; the May production shows the City withholding exactly those words when it chose to — and, on its own page 11 [M011], printing the words after "CALLER IS" [M011] in the clear again.

What would defeat this card is a City entry, on either thread, recalling the April 20, 2026 file or notifying the complainant that it went out in the clear. The captured 26-1549 thread [R.26-1549.1] and the captured 26-1965 thread [R.26-1965.1] hold neither; the City closed the first with "This closes your public record request." [R.26-1549.1] and the second with "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1] 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