Request #19-5815
  Closed

DOC communications division roster please.


Received

October 8, 2019 via web


Departments

Police Department (LAPD)

Documents

Public

(loading...)

Staff

Point of Contact

LAPD Analyst Farah N5890

Request Published Public
January 16, 2020, 9:00am
External Message   Hide Public

Dear Requester,

 

The Department has received your message regarding the Department's response to your request.  The Department will evaluate your concerns and respond as soon as practicable.

 

Respectfully,

 

LAPD Discovery Section, CPRA Unit

January 3, 2020, 2:50pm by LAPD Analyst Farah N5890 (Staff)
External Message   Hide Public

Putting a copy of this email here to keep the record complete:

 

Good morning, Mr. de la Guerra. I am writing to you yet again in the hope that you might be willing to discuss some pending CPRA requests of mine in an effort to avoid unnecessary and wasteful litigation. The requests at issue today are to LAPD via NextRequest with IDs 19-5815. As you will see if you check the request, Discovery Analyst Farah Cheraghi (n5890) tells me that the personnel roster of the Division of Communication is exempt as public information and, perhaps as that claim is so patently ludicrous, she also asserts an unelaborated 6255(a) claim. Obviously much of this information has already been made public in a piecemeal fashion and so even if the exemption claim weren't so nuts it would have been waived. But the exemption claim is in fact nuts. If it's not, why not share just one public interest served at all, never mind the clearly outweighing bit, by the withholding of the names of the officers assigned to DOC. The names of the staff, for that matter. Please, Mr. de la Guerra, let me hear from someone over there by January 13 that you're willing to discuss a production schedule for these requests. If we're not discussing it by then I will proceed as if LAPD has explicitly denied me access to these essential records. Mr. Wilson, Mr. Mateljan, I understand that you don't advise LAPD on these matters, but maybe it's getting to be time to escalate the question to your boss, because we need a grownup in the room over there. Thanks!
January 2, 2020, 1:23pm by the requester
External Message Public

Sorry, make it January 13, that's a typo!

January 2, 2020, 10:47am by the requester
External Message   Hide Public

Hi LAPD. Please reconsider this exceptionally indefensible exemption claim. There's no way that Evidence Code 1040 applies to information produced by LAPD, but only to information acquired by LAPD. No LAPD division rosters in the hands of LAPD are official information with respect to LAPD.

 

That leaves you with your 6255(a) claim. Please, I am begging you, identify one single public interest in keeping the entire personnel list of the DOC secret.  Especially given that LAPD has already released a significant amount of this information in various forms. 

 

Seriously, this would be silly if it weren't so irresponsible. Let's add this one to your January 14, 2019 deadline for reconsidering before I add it to my ever-growing pile of potential petitions.

January 2, 2020, 10:43am by the requester
Request Closed Public
 Official Information-Denied.
January 2, 2020, 10:38am
External Message   Hide Public

Dear Requester,

 

Thank you for your patience. We have reviewed your request for “DOC communications division roster please.”

 

Your request was made pursuant to the California Public Records Act (the Act). The Department is cognizant of its responsibilities under the Act.  It recognizes the statutory scheme was enacted to maximize citizen access to the workings of government.  The Act does not mandate disclosure of all documents within the government’s possession.  Rather, by specific exemption and reference to other statutes, the Act recognizes that there are boundaries where the public’s right to access must be balanced against such weighty considerations as the right of privacy, a right of constitutional dimension under California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1.  The law also exempts from disclosure records that are privileged or confidential or otherwise exempt under either express provisions of the Act or pursuant to applicable federal or state law, per California Government Code Sections 6254(b); 6254(c); 6254(f); 6254(k); and 6255.

 

The Department conducted a search for DOC communications division roster and responds to your request as follows:

 

To the extent that the Department has any records responsive to your request, they are exempt from disclosure because they contain official information.  Section 6254(k) of the California Government Code exempts records that are exempt from disclosure under federal or state law, including but not limited to provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.  Evidence Code Section 1040 declares an official information privilege for information acquired in confidence by a public agency when the public interest in disclosing the information is outweighed by the public interest in keeping the information confidential.  The Department has a strong interest in maintaining the confidentiality of these records as disclosure of this information to the public could potentially endanger the Department’s operation, the safety of its officers and the public. Similarly, the Department asserts Government Code Section 6255 based on this same need to retain confidentiality of said records. Therefore, we are denying your request.

 

Thank you again for your patience. If you have any questions, please respond to this email.

 

Respectfully,

 

LAPD Discovery Section, CPRA Unit

January 2, 2020, 10:37am by LAPD Analyst Farah N5890 (Staff)
Due Date Changed Public
01/09/2020 (was 11/01/2019).
December 9, 2019, 9:45am
Due Date Changed Public
11/01/2019 (was 10/18/2019).
October 23, 2019, 12:19pm
Department Assignment Public
Police Department (LAPD)
October 8, 2019, 7:03pm
Request Opened Public
Request received via web
October 8, 2019, 7:03pm