Text Messages / Walter Wong and others - Immediate Disclosure Request (Naomi Kelly, SF ADM)

NAOMI KELLY:

*** DO NOT DESTROY ANY RESPONSIVE RECORDS. WE WILL APPEAL EVERY WITHHOLDING OF RECORDS ***

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency and its department head.
Your initial response is required by Dec 3, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records.
Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing by specific statutory authority (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)).
- You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)).
- You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in.

Your agency must do all of the above things in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.

****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

1. all text/chat/instant messages (of any form or application, including all attachments/images, including on encrypted chat platforms) related to the conduct of public business on government or personal accounts between Naomi Kelly and any of Walter Wong, Harlan Wong, Melanie Lok, Irene Lok, Washington Wong, Florence Kong, Michael Tracy, Rudolph Dwayne Jones (Dwayne Jones), Dionjay Brookter, or Harlan Kelly Jr. for all time frames. Note that PUC initially produced unreadacted messages between Mr. Kelly and Walter Wong in a prior records request, including regarding travel, payments, etc, that also mentioned Ms. Kelly. Then, later, PUC requested to retract that production, which has been appealed as a violation of the CPRA and Sunshine Ordinance. We know records exist in some form, whether by Mr. Kelly or Ms. Kelly.

2. Every document mentioning or otherwise related to United States v. Harlan Kelly (Ms. Kelly's husband), including every subpoena, subpoena response, warrant, court document, court filing, etc.

NOTE: Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. The email address sending this request is a publicly- viewable mailbox. All of your responses (including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request (though the requester is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

Naomi Kelly must respond to the bellow records request. It was requested around 9am yesterday directly from her email *prior* to her leave of absence and Kelly remains a city employee, fully subject to CPRA and Sunshine Ordinance.

Supervisor of Records Dennis Herrera, you must order the disclosure of these public records.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

Naomi Kelly must respond to the below records request. It was requested around 9am yesterday directly from her email *prior* to her leave of absence and Kelly remains a city employee, fully subject to CPRA and Sunshine Ordinance.

I intend to litigate any failure to produce these records.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

Naomi Kelly must respond to the below records request. It was requested around 9am yesterday directly from her email *prior* to her leave of absence and Kelly remains a city employee, fully subject to CPRA and Sunshine Ordinance.

I intend to litigate any failure to produce these records.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

Let me be clear: I will immediately appeal if you "unreasonably delay" (67.21(a)) access. I am well aware of the tricks your office has used against sunshine in the past. The tribunal will determine whether your delay is unreasonable.

--Anonymous

Supervisor of Records Dennis Herrera,

Naomi Kelly refuses to comply with the below Dec 2, 2020 request - after 24 days she has failed to provide a determination and justification pursuant to Gov Code 6253(c). Unlike Nuru and her husband, Ms. Kelly does not get the excuse that she is no longer a public employee. Pursuant to SFAC 67.21(d) please determine in writing that one or more records or parts thereof are public and order their disclosure.

1. all text/chat/instant messages (of any form or application, including all attachments/images, including on encrypted chat platforms) related to the conduct of public business on government or personal accounts between Naomi Kelly and any of Walter Wong, Harlan Wong, Melanie Lok, Irene Lok, Washington Wong, Florence Kong, Michael Tracy, Rudolph Dwayne Jones (Dwayne Jones), Dionjay Brookter, or Harlan Kelly Jr. for all time frames. Note that PUC initially produced unreadacted messages between Mr. Kelly and Walter Wong in a prior records request, including regarding travel, payments, etc, that also mentioned Ms. Kelly. Then, later, PUC requested to retract that production, which has been appealed as a violation of the CPRA and Sunshine Ordinance. We know records exist in some form, whether by Mr. Kelly or Ms. Kelly.

2. Every document mentioning or otherwise related to United States v. Harlan Kelly (Ms. Kelly's husband), including every subpoena, subpoena response, warrant, court document, court filing, etc.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

SOTF,

Please file complaint Anonymous v. Naomi Kelly and Office of the City Administrator. Violations: CPRA Gov Code 6253(c) and SF Admin Code 67.21, 67.26, 67.27.

Naomi Kelly refuses to comply with the below Dec 2, 2020 request - after 24 days she and her office have failed to provide a determination and justification pursuant to Gov Code 6253(c). Unlike Nuru and her husband, Ms. Kelly does not get the excuse that she is no longer a public employee.

No lawful justification has been provided for withholding all of these records.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

Did your Office and Naomi Kelly actually conduct a search *at the time of my request* of her personal accounts? She was an employee when I made the request. Not a former employee.

This is an immediate disclosure request for all written documentation in any form (text, chat, email, letter, anything) that Naomi Kelly was asked to perform a search for the original request on this email, and all of her responses.