Local rendering of NextRequest request 26-2490

Request received via web

Office of the City Clerk Attn: Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk City of Sacramento Re: Public Records Request 26-2490 (filed June 23, 2026) — all Paul Lovato emails concerning Case 23-009185 / 4880 T Street This request is, today, in its 62nd day. No determination has been made. No records have been produced. No exemption has been claimed. This letter is written notice of the record as it stands and of what the statute requires of the City on or before August 27, 2026. 1. The City's four notices The City has sent four extension notices on this request. Their operative paragraph is word-for-word identical in all four: "The City is researching and identifying records that may be responsive to your request and 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))." Notice date | New date promised | Signed July 2, 2026 | July 16, 2026 | Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk July 16, 2026 | July 30, 2026 | Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk July 30, 2026 | August 13, 2026 | Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk August 13, 2026 | August 27, 2026 | Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk Each notice was sent on the exact day the prior notice had promised a determination. In every instance, the City's answer to its own deadline was another copy of the same paragraph. 2. What the statute permits Government Code section 7922.535(a) requires a determination within 10 days of receipt. For a June 23, 2026 request, that date was July 3, 2026. Section 7922.535(b) permits the deadline to be extended "in unusual circumstances," by written notice "by the head of the agency or their designee," "setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched," and provides that "a notice shall not specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days." Section 7922.535(c)(2) — the only provision any of the four notices cites — is not a grant of authority. It is a definition. It defines one of the four categories of "unusual circumstances" that may justify the single extension authorized by subdivision (b), and it applies "only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request." Citing (c)(2) four times does not create four extensions. There is one. The single permitted 14-day extension ran to July 16-17, 2026 — the date the City's own first notice set. The notices of July 30, August 13, and any notice issued on August 27 are extensions the statute does not authorize. As of today the request is 39 days past the maximum lawful determination date. On August 27 it will be 42 days past. 3. The stated reason is not a reason Subdivision (b) requires the notice to set forth "the reasons for the extension." The City's paragraph is boilerplate. The identical text, citing the identical subdivision, was sent on Requests 26-2491 and 26-2493 — requests of entirely different scope, one of which the City ultimately closed with "no records responsive," meaning the volume that allegedly required extension was zero. A sentence that is reused verbatim across unrelated requests and remains true of a request with no responsive records is not a statement of reasons for this request. If the volume of material is in fact what has consumed 62 days, the City is in possession of the facts that would show it. Accordingly, if the City issues any further communication on this request other than a determination, that communication must state: - (a) the number of custodians whose accounts have been searched, and the number identified but not yet searched; - (b) the search terms, date ranges, and systems used (Microsoft 365 / Purview eDiscovery, journaling or archive tier, backup media, mobile device management, and any non-City account or device used for City business); - (c) the number of documents returned by that search, the number reviewed to date, and the review rate; - (d) the date the search was first run; - (e) the name and title of the person who determined the request to be voluminous. The City has claimed volume four times. It can either quantify it or it cannot. 4. Delegated authority Subdivision (b) vests the extension power in "the head of the agency or their designee." All four notices are signed by the City Clerk. Please identify and produce the written designation, delegation, or administrative order by which the City Clerk is authorized to extend determination deadlines on behalf of the City of Sacramento, and the date it took effect. If no such written designation exists, all four notices were issued without the authority the statute requires on their face. 5. Partial and rolling production is required now Government Code section 7922.530(a) requires that records be made "promptly available." Nothing in section 7922.535 permits an agency to withhold records it has already located while it continues to search for others. If any responsive email has been identified in 62 days, it is due now. The City is directed to commence rolling production immediately rather than continuing to hold the entire request pending a single future date. 6. "No records" is foreclosed on this request Request 25-4711, closed December 29, 2025, produced a Paul Lovato email concerning this property — the September 2, 2025 thread "Re: 4880 T Street - Jackie's House." The City has already located and produced a responsive record within the scope of this request. A closure stating that no responsive records exist would be contradicted by the City's own prior production. 7. Preservation This is written notice to preserve, and to instruct all custodians to preserve, all email, calendar items, attachments, message metadata, journaling and archive copies, backup media, mobile-device data, and any account or device used for City business, belonging to Paul Lovato, Douglas Pierson, Bo Cosley, and any City Clerk staff who processed this request, for the period January 1, 2023 to the present. Suspend any retention or auto-deletion rule that would otherwise operate on those records. This notice is effective on receipt and continues until the City is advised in writing that it is lifted. 8. What August 27 requires On or before August 27, 2026, the City must dispatch a determination under section 7922.535(a): whether the request seeks disclosable public records in the City's possession, the reasons for that determination, and, if disclosable records exist, "the estimated date and time when the records will be made available." A fifth notice reciting the same paragraph is not a determination and will be treated as a continuing violation. The requester reserves all rights under Government Code sections 7923.100 and 7923.115, including proceedings for injunctive or declaratory relief or a writ of mandate, and the award of court costs available to a prevailing plaintiff. Christopher T. Foley Property Representative, 4880 T Street