Christie Aides Don’t Have to Turn Over Bridge Scandal Documents, Judge Rules

A judge appointed by a Republican says emails of public officials must be kept out of investigation.

Christie Aides Don’t Have to Turn Over Bridge Scandal Documents, Judge Rules
By KATE ZERNIKE
APRIL 9, 2014
NYT Now

In a major setback to the legislative investigation into the George Washington Bridge lane closings scandal, a New Jersey judge ruled on Wednesday that two of Gov. Chris Christie’s former aides do not have to comply with subpoenas seeking emails and other communications about the closings and attempts to cover them up.

In the ruling, Judge Mary C. Jacobson of State Superior Court in Mercer County criticized the subpoenas as “a fishing expedition” by the State Legislature, controlled by Democrats, which is investigating why Mr. Christie’s allies closed two access lanes at the bridge in September — and what the governor, a Republican, knew.

Judge Jacobson agreed with lawyers for the two aides, Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Stepien, saying the subpoenas “clearly violate” federal and state protections against self-incrimination and unlawful search and seizure. She disagreed with lawyers for the legislative panel who had argued that Ms. Kelly and Mr. Stepien were required, as public employees, to turn over their records.

“The fundamental problem with the subpoenas is that they are overbroad,” she wrote.

Judge Jacobson left open the possibility that the Legislature could compel the aides to testify by offering them immunity from prosecution. But that could significantly tie the hands of the United States attorney who is conducting a separate inquiry into the closings and allegations that emerged in the wake of the scandal — about misuse of Hurricane Sandy funds and the politicization of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the bridge.

The court’s decision is likely to renew calls, among even Democrats in the Legislature, to shut down the investigation and defer to the United States attorney, Paul J. Fishman.

Judge Jacobson, who was appointed by a Republican governor, Christie Whitman, is widely praised for her evenhandedness, and ruled against Mr. Christie last summer in a case that established a right to same-sex marriage in New Jersey. But in this case, she was harsh on the investigators in the Legislature, repeatedly emphasizing that the subpoenas had overreached.

“A blanket subpoena calling for a fishing expedition without the promise of immunity calls for a blanket response,” she wrote.

Ms. Kelly, a former deputy chief of staff to Mr. Christie, sent an email calling for “some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” the town at the end of the bridge that was gridlocked for four days as a result of the closed lanes. Mr. Stepien held the job before her, and managed Mr. Christie’s campaigns for governor.

The bipartisan investigative committee was formed in January after legislators learned that Ms. Kelly and the governor’s allies at the Port Authority had worked to shut down the lanes soon after the mayor of Fort Lee declined to endorse Mr. Christie for re-election.

Republicans have criticized the investigation as a partisan witch hunt against the governor, whose overwhelming re-election victory last year had put him among the expected leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

In recent weeks, Democrats have begun to worry they are overplaying their hand against a weakened governor — and trying the patience of taxpayers, who are paying Mr. Christie’s lawyers ($650 an hour) as well as the special legislative counsel ($350 an hour).

Mr. Christie’s popularity has dropped significantly since the scandal. He has told allies that he can rebuild his national prospects by isolating the bridge scandal as the work of rogue aides.

State Assemblyman John Wisniewski, a Democrat who is co-chairman of the legislative committee, said on Wednesday that he was confident the committee could continue its work despite the judge’s ruling.

“There is more than one method for the committee to pursue the information that it seeks,” he said. “We’re going to continue to explore all those resources to get to the fundamental question of why Bridget Kelly sent the email she did and who authorized her and how this abuse of power could have happened in the first place.”

Kevin Marino, a lawyer for Mr. Stepien, said the judge’s ruling was “a complete vindication of Bill Stepien” and called into question Mr. Christie’s decision to sever ties with him.

Ms. Kelly’s lawyer, Michael Critchley, said, “To all those naysayers who doubted our position and our desire to protect our client’s constitutional rights, I suggest Judge Jacobson’s opinion as a free tutorial on what the Fifth Amendment means.”

Court says public documents become private as soon as they are hidden by public servants

(Updated) The California Court of Appeal has found that a public servant, using a public agency's computer, on a public agency desk, while being paid by the public agency to do the agency's business, is NOT creating a public record as long as that person uses a private email account. It's ridiculous to say that an email created under such circumstances is not a public record within the meaning of the California Public Records Act.

But I guess this decision makes it easy to figure out why public officials and employees use private email to do public business.

Why don't they use their work email accounts? The answer seems obvious: to skirt the laws regarding public records. And now the California Court of Appeal has given its stamp of approval to this practice.

Public servants who want to keep their actions secret breathed a sigh of relief when the California Court of Appeal made it easy for them to conceal documents regarding public issues.

The law says that “‘Public records’ includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics."

Clearly, when a "state or local agency" prepares a document, it is an actual human being, an official or employee or contract worker who is preparing it, not a disembodied "public agency".

The law doesn't say that the document must be prepared AND retained by the agency in order to be a public record. It says the documents must be prepared OR retained by that agency. If a public servant is being paid by the taxpayers to work on a public issue, then his or her writing about that issue is a public record.

Yet San Jose attorney Rick Doyle says that documents that "aren't retained or held by the public agency" aren't public records. Public servants simply have to hide public documents in order for those documents to become private! And the Court of Appeal agreed with him.

The California Court of Appeal basically found in the San Jose emails case that if a document is not in the possession of the public entity, then it isn't public. Would this also apply to paper documents? Logic would seem to require that it would.


These shredded documents survived a burning spree in a parking lot at San Ysidro School District

Apparently, a document can be switched at will from public to private. In the San Jose case, all that is needed is to send it using a private email account rather than a public email account. So why is the FBI investigating Manuel Paul of San Ysidro School District for burning documents?

Perhaps public officials aren't off the hook quite yet. An agency may not have to turn over documents that have been converted from public to private, but the court has NOT found that the act of conversion itself is legal. Obviously, it would be extremely difficult to turn over a document that had been incinerated. (Manuel Paul was a client of Dan Shinoff (below), who applauded the Court of Appeal decision.)


Richard Doyle

Attorney James McManis says, "When you think about it -- it's just nuts. If they can hide stuff by using their private devices, that's no way to run a railroad."


James McManis

I have to agree with him. The decision is clearly a gift from the Court of Appeal to those who want to circumvent the California Public Records Act.

San Diego school attorney Dan Shinoff, who is known for working hard to keep secret the actions of school officials, spoke for many when he applauded the California Court of Appeal for protecting public servants who prepare, use and retain written information about public business in their private email accounts.


Dan Shinoff of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz

Mr. Shinoff, who represents 40 of the county's 42 school districts, applauded the judge's ruling: “It's my opinion that the Court of Appeal correctly recognized that the reach of the California Public Records Act is limited by the Legislature to records kept by the agency and not private communications."

In my case, Maura Larkins v. Richard Werlin, Mr. Shinoff made copies of documents created by employees at Chula Vista Elementary School District, and then told those employees to keep the originals in their homes. Later Mr. Shinoff and his partner Ray Artiano said in a deposition that the records couldn't be found at their law office. Since Mr. Shinoff represents 40 of the 42 districts in San Diego County, I'm guessing that there are a lot of public documents stashed away in private homes in the county. This makes me wonder if Mr. Shinoff is keeping evidence from my case squirreled away at his house.

The San Jose decision concludes:

We conclude that the language of the CPRA does not afford a construction that imposes on the City an affirmative duty to produce messages stored on personal electronic devices and accounts that are inaccessible to the agency, or to search those devices and accounts of its employees and officials upon a CPRA request for messages relating to City business.

Whether such a duty better serves public policy is a matter for the Legislature, not the courts, to decide. In addition, it is within the province of the agency to devise its own rules for disclosure of communications related to public business.

The obstacles noted by petitioners and the League—the legal and practical impediments attendant to the extra task of policing private devices and accounts would also be addressed more appropriately by the Legislature or the agency, not the courts.

I certainly agree that it is burdensome for public agencies to search for public records in someone's private email account. So why do those agencies allow officials and employees to use personal accounts for public business?

We clearly need a law forbidding public servants from using private email for public business and from using private storage for public records. Until then, I expect that ethically questionable transactions will take place through private email--and there won't be much reason to request public emails. The important information won't be there. The California Public Records Act won't be worth much.

San Jose court: Government workers can keep messages from personal devices private
By Mike Rosenberg
Mercury News
03/27/2014

SAN JOSE -- In a decision that draws a line on public access to government records, an appeals court ruled Thursday that government workers in San Jose and beyond can keep their communications private if they send them on a personal device like a cell phone.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal decision directly affects South Bay counties and sets legal precedent in California that could influence judges in other parts of the state, although the issue is likely to remain unsettled until the California Supreme Court weighs in.

Last year, open records advocates had defeated San Jose City Hall in the lower courts in a case over whether the city's 5,500 workers had to make public messages sent on their private devices. Typically, for instance, emails sent or received on a city's system would be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. But it was not clear whether the same employee could keep a government-related message sent from a personal Gmail account private.

Media groups and open government activists argued officials could skirt the spirit of the landmark 1968 Public Records Act by texting, calling or emailing about government business with their personal devices. But city officials, aided in court by the California League of Cities, said they have no control over the employees' personal accounts and it would be costly and unwieldy to compile the records.

The city emerged victorious Thursday in the 6th District following a hearing in San Jose earlier this month. In a 3-0 ruling, justices Franklin Elia, Conrad Rushing and Eugene Premo said it should be up to the California Legislature to determine which records are public -- not the courts.

The decision reversed a March 2013 ruling from a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge who said "a public agency could easily shield information from public disclosure simply by storing it on equipment it does not technically own."

But James McManis -- the attorney for activist Ted Smith, who first sued to get access to the records -- said "they haven't heard the last from us." His group will petition the state's highest court for a final review, but it's up to California Supreme Court justices to decide whether to accept the case.

"When you think about it -- it's just nuts," McManis said. "If they can hide stuff by using their private devices, that's no way to run a railroad."

City Attorney Rick Doyle said the California records law, passed in an age well before texting or email, "never contemplated" that private devices would be subject to records requests.

"These aren't retained or held by the public agency and individuals aren't the public agencies," Doyle said. "They may work for the public agency, but it's not the same thing."

Doyle said San Jose has among the best sunshine ordinances in the state. Ironically, he noted, the city in 2010 approved a policy that makes messages about public business sent on private devices public, but it only applies to the City Council and their staff. But even then, the rule is tough to enforce.

"They're on the honor system on that," Doyle said. "They're supposed to turn (the records) over."

Ruling favors secret Gmail for officials
Appeal court says cities can't be required to disclose personal accounts
By Ashly McGlone
SDUT
March 28, 2014

A court ruling out of San Jose involving emails of public officials could have implications in San Diego and across the state.

A three-judge appeals panel struck down a March 2013 decision by Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James P. Kleinberg, who had found that the emails and texts of public officials using their personal accounts or devices become public records if they are discussing government business.

“Politicians read into the law what they want to read into the law in order to keep their secrets secret,” said San Diego attorney Cory Briggs, who has filed a similar lawsuit here. “Gmail is going to get a lot busier with politicians’ communications in light of this ruling. Good day to buy stock in Google, and it’s a sad day for open government and democracy.”

The ruling reversed Kleinberg’s order for the City of San Jose to turn certain messages over to resident Ted Smith, who sought them in a public records request.

The appeals court found that a public official’s Gmail or Yahoo account is not in possession of the city, and therefore can’t be considered public.

“Any control the city has over its employees' behavior is not equivalent to control over, or even access to, the text messages and e-mail sent to and from its employees' private devices and accounts,” Associate Justice Franklin D. Elia wrote. “That city council members may conceal their communications on public issues by sending and receiving them on their private devices from private accounts is a serious concern; but such conduct is for our lawmakers to deter with appropriate legislation.”

San Jose City Attorney Rick Doyle said of the victory, “I think the court recognizes privacy interests of individuals, including public officials,” adding that the earlier ruling “was too broad and the Legislature hasn’t gone there yet.”

“It’s the reality of technology getting beyond what the law is,” said Doyle, who has served as city attorney for more than 14 years. “Judge Kleinberg was equating ‘you are a public official,’ ‘you are the city’ and that’s just not true.”

Attorney Dan Shinoff, who represents 40 of the county’s 42 school districts, applauded the judge’s ruling.

“It’s my opinion that the Court of Appeal correctly recognized that the reach of the California Public Records Act is limited by the Legislature to records kept by the agency and not private communications,” Shinoff said.

Members of the plaintiff’s legal team said they would seek a review from the state Supreme Court in hopes of appealing the decision that Attorney James McManis calls “dead wrong.”

“We are supposed to have transparency and this is prompting secrecy,” McManis said. “Now they have the green light to put this stuff on private devices with the comfort that no one is ever going to find out.”

“They are supposed to be serving the people and are not supposed to be conducting business behind closed doors and emails.” McManis said, “If they don’t want people looking at their emails then they shouldn’t use private emails. That’s a real simple choice for them to make.”

State public records law says in part, “‘Public records’ includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.”

Donna Frye, president of the nonprofit Californians Aware and a former San Diego city councilwoman, said the ruling doesn’t comport with a plain reading of state public records law and opens the door to additional legal problems.

“They can essentially conduct full meetings in full view of the public. They can sit up there and form collective concurrences and violate not only the Public Records Act, but the Brown Act,” Frye said. “Just because technology allows people to communicate in different ways, it doesn’t mean the intention about what is a public record has changed… I hope the Legislature will act so that it’s statewide, so that it doesn’t have to be done on a city-by-city or county-by-county basis.”

In the meantime though, Frye’s group is still working with San Diego council members David Alvarez and Marti Emerald to get a city charter amendment onto the November ballot that would require city officials to copy a city email on city-related communications sent from a personal account, require emails to be kept for two years and deem certain records of city contractors public.

The Court of Appeal ruling may buttress the position the city of San Diego has taken in two lawsuits by Briggs seeking personal emails of public officials discussing government business. The City Attorney’s Office has taken the position that the emails are not public. Officials there declined to comment on the ruling. A hearing is scheduled for April 11.

See related post at San Diego Education Report blog.

Update Mar. 31, 2014: "We are not hiding anything."

I couldn't help thinking of the public agencies in California whose officials and employees use private emails to conduct business when I saw another story about authorities who don't want to release information--but insist that they're not trying to hide information from the public.

Perhaps the Malaysian government gave a wrong quote because one of their lawyers took the recording--and the transcript--home for safe keeping. I think the philosophy might be pretty much the same in both places: keep the truth secret because it might contradict the story we come up with.

MH370: New last words from cockpit: 'Good night Malaysian three seven zero'
By Catherine E. Shoichet, Faith Karimi and KJ Kwon, CNN
March 31, 2014
Source: CNN

They were words heard around the world as investigators searched for the missing Malaysia Airlines plane.

Weeks ago, Malaysian authorities said the last message from the airplane cockpit was, "All right, good night."

The sign-off to air traffic controllers, which investigators said was spoken by the plane's copilot, was among the few concrete details officials released in a mystery that's baffled investigators and drawn global attention since the Boeing 777 disappeared with 239 people aboard mid-flight on March 8.

There's only one problem. It turns out, it wasn't true.

On Monday, Malaysia's Transport Ministry said the final voice transmission from the cockpit of Flight 370 was actually "Good night Malaysian three seven zero."

And authorities are still trying to determine whether it was the plane's pilot or copilot who said them.

The new language is routine and is not a sign that anything untoward occurred aboard the flight, said CNN aviation analyst Mary Schiavo.

But the change in wording weeks into the search for the missing plane raises questions about how Malaysian officials have handled the investigation.

"It speaks to credibility issues, unfortunately," Schiavo said.

"We haven't had a straight, clear word that we can have a lot of fidelity in," said Michael Goldfarb, former chief of staff at the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. "We have the tragedy of the crash, we have the tragedy of an investigation gone awry and then we have questions about where we go from here."

No matter what the pilots' last words were, it's hard to understand what they mean without more details from authorities about what they said and how they said it, CNN aviation analyst Miles O'Brien told "The Lead with Jake Tapper" on Monday.

"Without the preceding information ... either the transcript or the recordings themselves, it's difficult to know what any of that really means," he said. "And that's the problem with this investigation, which has been so opaque."

Malaysian authorities have defended their handling of the situation.

Acting Transportation Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said Monday that authorities were not hiding anything by declining to release some details of the missing flight. Some details are part of ongoing investigations into what happened to the plane, he said.

"We are not hiding anything," he said. "We are just following the procedure that is being set."...

A culture of silence?? The following article talks about "corporate culture". But I think we're talking about human nature. Reflexive dishonesty seems to be rampant. GM will pay, but I doubt that it will significantly change its corporate culture. Consumers will continue to be in danger.

Why did GM take so long to respond to deadly defect? Corporate culture may hold answer.
By Michael A. Fletcher and Steven Mufson
Washington Post
March 30,2014

The part costs less than $10 wholesale. The fix takes less than an hour. A mechanic removes a few screws and connectors, takes off a plastic shroud, pops in the new switch, and the customer is back on the road.

It’s relatively cheap and easy to replace the flawed ignition switch that has been blamed for at least 13 deaths, including a fatal June 2013 crash in Quebec newly linked to the defect. Yet General Motors waited more than a decade before recalling 2.6 million Chevrolet Cobalts and other small cars.

GM’s failure to alert customers sooner could end up costing the automaker hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and much more in reputational damage. It has already cost the lives of the drivers, who perished at least in part because the faulty switches suddenly shut off their cars, stiffening brakes and power steering and disabling air bags.

With so much at stake, why didn’t GM act sooner?

The answer, according to many people familiar with the automaker, is a corporate culture reluctant to pass along bad news...

Officials are working hard keeping secrets in San Diego's public schools

UPDATE: March 27, 2014 ruling from the Court of Appeal in a San Jose public records case.

Paper’s ‘sunshine week’ project seeking private-account emails on public business is mostly cloudy
By Terry Carter
ABA Journal
Mar 24, 2014

The San Diego Union-Tribune got very practical with its celebration of the recent national Sunshine Week—itself the brainchild of the American Society of News Editors for educating the public on the need for more openness and less secrecy in government.

The U-T published a lengthy feature based on its request for certain email records from more than 100 government administrators across the region. The newspaper asked to see samples of personal emails discussing the public’s business—emails sent from workers' Gmail, Yahoo or other personal accounts.

The effort did not stuff the newspaper's inbox. Samples came back from just two of the more than 100 administrators queried: Grossmont Healthcare District and the city of Lemon Grove.

[Maura Larkins' comment: In my experience, Lemon Grove is one of the most ethical public entities in San Diego county.}

Some responded that they had no such records, some said the emails are not for public viewing and others simply did not respond.

The San Diego law firm Stutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz represents 40 of San Diego County 42 school districts, and told the newspaper that emails in private accounts don’t fall under the California Public Records Act “because the district does not have actual or constructive possession over any such private account.”

The firm pointed to a California appeals court decision in 2012 concerning the City of Selma in Fresno County, which said that an agency has constructive possession of records “if it has the right to control the records, either directly or through another person.”

But the U-T also asked for emails sent to and from the top executive of each local government agency. In March 2013, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge ruled in a case involving San Jose officials that government business done through private email accounts “reasonably falls within the definition of a record ‘retained' by the city.”

San Jose is appealing.

“My sense is that many local governments haven’t updated their policies to cover what happens with personal email,” Jodi Cleesattle, a San Diego lawyer and member of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Freedom of Information Committee.

New Supreme Court case expands access rights, unlocks government data--including California Bar Association records

New Supreme Court case expands access rights, unlocks government data
Peter Scheer, Executive Director
First Amendment Coaltion

Dec. 2013 The First Amendment Coalition won a major victory last week in a test case about government transparency and public access to government data. I'm writing to share the good news and to use the occasion to ask you to make a year-end donation to FAC.

The California Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, established that no agency of government can exempt itself from the public's right to know. The State Bar—an arm of the judiciary that regulates lawyers—had argued that, since it is not covered by California's FOIA law, it has no obligation to make its records available for public review. The Court's answer: Sorry, but you do!

The Court said the Bar's records--specifically, Bar admissions data needed for academic research on affirmative action---are subject to a “common law” right of access. This right is not limited to records of official actions or records in court cases, but extends to any government records whose “disclosure would contribute significantly to public understanding of government activities,” the Court held.

This revived common law right of access could have a far-reaching impact, potentially providing an alternate remedy whenever state FOIA laws, for a variety of reasons, are of no avail.

But there's more . . .

The Court also held that government data can’t be withheld on privacy grounds as long as the data are “de-identified” by stripping out identifiers, controlling data cell sizes, and other steps that have become standard in professional research. The Court’s reasoning: There is no conflict between privacy rights and public access rights when the disclosed data can’t be linked to identifiable individuals.

This aspect of the Court's decision settles a central issue in debates over public access to, and use of, government data that pertain to private individuals---an issue that comes up in many contexts. The Court's holding is a powerful tool for unlocking government databases.

Our victory comes after a long battle with the State Bar—a battle that may drag on, unfortunately, if the Bar chooses to contest the procedures proposed by FAC and our co-plaintiff, UCLA Professor Richard Sander, for de-identifying the Bar's admissions data.

Lawyers investigated in Detroit $8.4-million whistle-blower lawsuit settlement secret agreement

City attorney cleared of wrongdoing in Free Press records request
BY DAVID ASHENFELTER
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
October 28, 2008


City of Detroit lawyer Ellen Ha won’t face professional misconduct charges for her handling of Free Press’s public records requests that revealed the existence of a secret side agreement to last year’s $8.4-million settlement of a police whistle-blower lawsuit and eventually brought down Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

“The Attorney Grievance Commission determined that the evidence reviewed did not warrant further action by the commission,” it said in a one-page letter dated Monday to Ha. She received the letter today.

...Ha told the Free Press and a Wayne County judge after last year’s $8.4-million whistle-blower lawsuit settlement that she was unaware of any secret agreement. But documents the judge later released in a Free Press freedom of information lawsuit showed the mayor’s lawyers had created a secret side agreement to conceal the existence of text messages showing that Kilpatrick and his former chief of staff, Christine Beatty, had lied at the whistle-blower trial.

Ha later testified at Kilpatrick’s removal hearing that she had been kept in the dark about the confidential agreement and said such agreements are improper because the public is entitled to know the details of settlements involving public funds.


Deputy State Treasurer Valdemar Washington, then a Flint lawyer who was called in to help facilitate a settlement of the whistle-blower suit, was cleared in the grievance commission investigation in September.


The commission is investigating other lawyers involved in the secret settlement and its aftermath. They are Kilpatrick, who was a lawyer until he surrendered his law license when he pled guilty to obstruction of justice charges; Samuel McCargo, who represented Kilpatrick in the whistle-blower suit; Assistant City Attorney Valerie Colbert-Osamuede, who represented the city; John Johnson, then-head of the Law Department; Wilson Colepand II of Detroit, a private lawyer who represented the city; William Mitchell III of Southfield, who went to the city’s text messaging provider to find out why the messages hadn’t been destroyed; and Michael Stefani and law partner Frank Rivers, of Royal Oak, who represented the cops.

Interpreting the California Public Records Act

Vooice of San Diego
No Response on E-Mail Request

I just got word from Julie Dubick, Mayor Jerry Sanders' policy director, that the Mayor's Office won't be responding today to our challenging of their interpretation of the California Public Records Act.

Dubick had originally told me she would have a response today.

Some background: A wrongful termination suit filed this month alleges that a former top city official was fired for reporting inappropriate behavior by mayoral spokesman Fred Sainz. One of those accusations centered on an e-mail flagged by the city's computer system from Sainz to local newspaper editorial writer Bob Kittle that allegedly contained inappropriate language.

I requested that e-mail through the Public Records Act. The Mayor's Office refused to release the e-mail Monday, saying it was protected by an exemption in the law. While it didn't cite the exemption, we're assuming it's the pending litigation exemption.

Since then, we've been contacted by a bevy of attorneys (some offering to file a lawsuit pro bono on our behalf) who argue that the mayor's interpretation of the exemption is wrong.

The exemption only protects documents specifically prepared for a lawsuit, not any document that happens to be mentioned in a lawsuit, they argue. If the e-mail was public record before the lawsuit, it should be public record now, they say.

Stay tuned. Dubick didn't give me a precise date as to when the Mayor's Office might respond. I'm writing her back right now.


-- ANDREW DONOHUE
Wednesday, April 30 -- 5:49 pm

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/05/01/this_just_in/208noresponse043008.txt