C( 7) 'J - sfgov.org

File No. 20079

SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST

Item No. 10

Compliance and Amendments Committee Date: June 22, 2021

d B ci Et D D D

OTHER

D D D D D D D D D

Petition/Complaint Memorandum - Deputy City Attorney Petitioner/Complainant Supporting Documents Respondent's Response Public Correspondence Order of Determination Minutes Administrator's Report No Attachments

/ C( 7) 'J

Page:_j

Page:_ 1JtJ{ Page:_\ rJ.. q,, 4'J Page:_ \ Page:_ a l y Page:_ \"' Page:_ Page:_

Completed by: __ C_. _Le~g~e_r ______ Date 6/17/21

*An asterisked item represents the cover sheet to a document that exceeds 25 pages. The complete document is in the file.

P1931

SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE

DATE DECISION ISSUED May 5, 2021

City Hall 1 Dr Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244

San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 Tel. No. (415) 554-7724

ORDER OF DETERMINATION June 15, 2021

Fax No. (415) 554-7854 TTD/TTYNo. (415) 554-5227

CASE TITLE - Shane Anderies v. Chesa Boudin and the District Attorney's Office File No. 20079

FACTS OF THE CASE

The following petition/complaint was filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (SOTF):

File No. 20079: Complaint filed by Shane Anderies against District Attorney's Office and Chesa Boudin for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 (e) failing to respond to a records request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.26 withholding kept to a minimum and 67.27 failing to provide justification for withholding responsive documents.

HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT

On March 16, 2021, the Complaint Committee acting in its capacity to hear petitions/complaints heard the matter.

Shane Anderies (Petitioner) responded to questions from the Committee. Mr. Anderies stated that he believes there is additional information that has not been provided. Mr. Anderies provided information regarding documents that should exist and be presented. Mr. Anderies noted that the request for a description of search method and terms were not provided.

David Campos, Chief of Staff (Office of the District Attorney) (Respondent), responded to questions from the Committee. Mr. Campos noted that an extension of time to respond was requested in order to consult with the Office of the City Attorney regarding whether privileged applied to emails between the District Attorney and the Office of the City Attorney. Mr. Campos confirmed that there were 5 responsive emails that were privileged and withheld. Robin Birch (Office of the City Attorney) described what categories were used to search for responsive documents and noted that no other documents were found.

P1932

Action: Moved by Chair Schmidt, seconded by Member Stein, to find that the SOTF has jurisdiction, that the records are public and referred the matter to the full SOTF for hearing. In addition, the Committee requested that the Respondent provide information regarding how their search was conducted and what search terms were used. The Committee requested the Complainant provide information regarding their rational, in this specific case, about Attorney Client Privilege and a subsequent response from the Respondent.

The motion PASSED by the following vote:

Ayes: 2 - Stein, Schmidt Noes: 1 - Forsley

The Committee referred the matter to the SOTF. On May 5, 2021, the SOTF held a hearing to review the recommendation from Committee and/or to review the merits of the petition/complaint.

Shane Anderies (Petitioner) provided a summary of the complaint and requested the Committee to find a violation. Mr. Anderies stated that on February 4, 2020, he requested all records from January 2019, and specifically requested communications from Mr. Boudin to Thomas Ostly. Mr. Anderies stated that he received a letter from Robyn Burke detailing whattranspired with the records search. Mr. Anderies stated that he would take the matter offcalendar if Ms. Burke completed a search that went back to January 2020. Mr. Anderies stated that Ms. Burke did not indicate attorney/client privilege on the five documents not provided as an issue and that there is no reason for withholding those records.

Robyn Burke (District Attorney's Office) (Respondent), provided a summary of the department's position. Ms. Burke stated that an email sent January 22, 2020, which was the result of the survey and that when initially searched was not pulled because it was an attachment to an email that was not disclosed. Ms. Burke also referred to another letter which was not produced and then was after the initial request. Ms. Burke stated that she will ask the District Attorney's IT department why these records were not searched properly.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the SOTF found that the District Attorney's Office violated Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section(s) 67.21 (e) by failing to respond to a reco.rds request in a complete and/or timely manner; 67.26 by failing to keep withholding to a minimum and 67.27 by failing to provide legal justifications for withholding.

Member Yankee moved to amend the original motion as follows.

P1933

Action: Moved by Member Yankee, seconded by Member Wong, to continue the matter to the next SOTF hearing to allow the Respondent time to conduct a Signal search for records within the next seven days. (The SOTF also requested that the matter be monitored by the Compliance and Amendments Committee after the next SOTF hearing.)

Member LaHood suggested an amendment to the second motion that the SOTF ask that in addition to requesting a continuance, a response to whether a Signal search was performed in the original request.

Action: Moved by Member La Hood, second by Member Yankee, that the SOTF request a seven-day continuance to allow the District Attorney's Office to determine if a Signal search was performed on the original request. (SOTF requested that the matter be referred to the Compliance and Amendments Committee for monitoring.)

DECISION AND ORDER OF DETERMINATIONS

Action: Moved by Member LaHood, second by Member Yankee, that the SOTF request a seven-day continuance to allow the District Attorney's Office to determine if a Signal search was performed on the original request. (SOTF requested that the matter be referred to the Compliance and Amendments Committee for monitoring.)

The motion PASSED by the following vote:

Ayes: 11 - Yankee, Wong, Neighbors, Stein, Hyland, Frazier, LaHood, Padmanabhan, Forsley, Schmidt, Wolfe

Noes: 0 - None

cc. Shane Anderies (Petitioner/Complainant) Chesa Boudin, The District Attorney's Office (Respondents)

P1934

Complainant Name (OptionaD

Date of Request:

SUNSJIINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco CA 94102

Tel. (415) 554-7724; Fax (415) 554-7854 http://www.sfgov.org/sunshine

SUNSHINE ORDINANCE COMPLAINT FORM

June 26, 2020

Please identify the City Official(s) and/or Employee(s) against wliom the complaint is being made:

SF District Attorney1s Office

Please identifyfhe Officials' and/or Employees' Board, Commission, Task Force, Department or other type of agency.

Name of the Custodian of Records tasked with providing the requested .information:

Chesa Boudin, District Attorney

D

Alleged violation of public records access Alleged failure to provide information in a timely manner in accordance with the provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance Alleged violation of a public meeting

Please indicate date of meeting if known

Sunshine Ordinance Section(s) Secs. 67.24, 67.25, 67.26; 67.27, 67.29 (If known, please cite specific provfsion(s) being violated)

Please describe the alleged violation. Use additional paper if needed. Please attach any relevant documentation which supports your complaint.

See attached complaint

Are you requesting a public hearing before the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force? 1 yes

If es, lease provide 1 or more preferred method(s) of contact:

(415) 217~8802 [XPhone:

------~

. .. . (415) 217~8803 0Fax:

~Mailing ~ddres~: 505 Montgomery Street, 11th Floor Sc::i'n Francisco, CA 941· 11 ·

. . .

Qf'..Email: [email protected]: ---------~--~

S~/t,<1~ Signature: ___ ~----------

6/26/2020 Date:_. _________ _

D no

1 NOTICE: PERSONAL JNFORMATION THAT IS PROVIDED WHEN ADDRESSING A PUBLIC POLICY BODY IS SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AND THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PERSONAL IDENTIFYING JNFORMATION, AND COMPLAINTANTS MAY REMAIN ANONYMOUS. HOWEVER, FOR PROPER NOTICING AND PROCESSING OF A HEARING REQUEST, A RELIABLE MEANS OF CONTACT IS RECOMMENDED. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SOTF ADMINISTRATOR WILL NOT REDACT ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THESE SUBMISSIONS.

11/5/2015

P1935

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint Summary

File No. 20079

Anderies v. District Attorney

Date filed with SOTF: 612912020

Contacts information (Complainant information listed first): Shane K. Anderies ([email protected]) Nicole Mitchell ([email protected]) Anderies & Gomes, 505 Montgomery Street, Floor 11, San Francisco, CA 94111; (tel. 415-217-8802; fax 415-217-8803) (Complainant) Chesa Boudin ([email protected]); the District Attorney's Office, Alex Bastian ([email protected]) (Respondents)

File No. 20079: Complaint filed by Shane Anderies against District Attorney's Office and Chesa Boudin for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 ( e) failing to. respond to a records request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67 .25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.26 withholding kept to a minimum and 67 .27 failing to provide justification for withholding responsive documents.

Administrative Summary if applicable:

Complaint Attached.

P1936

Complainant/Peti;tioner' s Document Submission

. P1937

AND ERIES &GOMES

VIAEMAlLAND USPS

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl., Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 Email: [email protected].

505 Montgomery St, Floor11 San Francisco, CA 94111

PHONE: 415-217-8S02 . FAX: 415-217-8803

June 26, 2020

420 Aviation Boulevard, Ste 201 Santa Rosa, CA 95403

PHONE: 707-837-7310 FAX: 707-837-7311

RE: San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - J?ublic Complaint

On behalf of Petitioner, Thomas Ostly, against Respondent, the Office of the District Attorney ("DA"), we hereby petition the Sunshine Task Force for a determination: 1) The requested documents are public records, and therefore must be .produced pursuant to the Sunshine Ordinance and the California Public Records Act (SF Administrative Code, § 67 .21 ( e) and Cal. Govt. C. §6250 et seq.); 2) the DA's initial and subsequent responses were untimely and therefore non-compliant with Sunshine Ordinance ("SO") §67.25; 3) the DA violated its duty to keep withholding to a minimum pursuant to SO §67.26; and 4) the DA failed to provide a legitimate justification for wlthholding responsive documents pursuant to SO §67.27.

I. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS

On February 4, 2020, Shane Anderies of Atideries & Gomes LLP, on behalf of former District Attorney, Thomas Ostly, served on the San Francisco District Attorney's Office ("District Attorney") a request for the following documents pursuant to the California Public Records Act (the "Request") (Exhibit A): ·

All communications to or from Chesa Boudin regarding Thomas Ostly, including eniails, phone records, texts, letters, memos an,d written communications, including meeting/telecom notes, whether commlmicated by public or private telephones I smartphones I computers I laptops or through other means, between January 1, 2019 and present.

On February 18, 2020, the District Attorney invoked a 14-day extension, changing the date for compliance to February 29, 2020. (Exhibit B.) On Maxch 3, 2020 the District Attorney responded no documents exist but invoking the contradictory assertion of attorney-client privilege regarding at least five apparently responsive emails. (Exhibit C.)

II. CITY DEPARTMENT TO WHICH REQUEST WAS MADE

San Francisco District Attorney- Chesa Boudin, District Attorney

June,19, 2020 Page2

III. HOW THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S ACTION/INACTION VIOLATES THE SUNSHINE ORDINANCE

A. The DA Failed to Respond Timely(§ 67.25 -Immediacy of Response)

The DA was required to respond to Ostly's February 4. 2020 complaint by February 14, 2020. The DA' s February 18, 2020 initial response invoking a 14-day extension pursuant to Govt. Code§ 6253(c) was due February 28, 2020, and noted a response would likely be provided, "wellbefore that time period." Instead, the DA' s· subsequent March 3, 20'.2.0 response was also late and provided nothirig of substance. ·

.B. Even if Some Withholding is Justified, The DA Violated its Duty to Keep Withholding to a Minimum(§ 67.26 Withholding Kept to a Minimum)

The DA failed to explain how it is possible non-privileged, responsive documents do not exist regarding Mr. Ostly' s six years of employment as a District Attorney or regarding Mr. Boudin' s decision to terminate his employment or their communications· and dealings leading up to and regarding same.

C. The DA Failed to Provide a Legitimate Justificatfon for Withholding . Responsive Documents (§67.27 - Justification of Withholding)

The DA failed to explain how the responsive emails identified· are subject to attorneyclient privilege or why they cannot be provided in redacted form.

Contact Information for the Reguestor:

Shane Anderies of Anderies & Gomes LLP, 505 Montgomery Street, Floor 11, San Francisco, CA 94111, (415) 217-8802, [email protected] .

. Very truly yours,

ANDERlES & GOMES LLP

Shane K. Anderies

P1939

INDEX OF EXHIBITS .

Exhibit A: The February 4, 2020 Request

June 19, 2020 Page 3

Exhibit B: District Attorney's February 18, 2020 letter invoking 14Mday extension to_

respond under Govt. C. §6253(c)

Exhibit C: District Attorney's March 3, 2020 denying production of documents

P1940

ANDERlES &GOMES 601 Montgo111ery St, Ste 888

San Francisco, CA 94111

PHOME: 41 Sc217-8802 FAX: 415-217-8803 .

February 4, 2020

VIA EMAIL & USPS

San Francisco District Attorney's Office 850 Bryant Street, Room 322 San Francisco, CA 94103 Email: [email protected]

Dear Custodian of Records:

PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST


PHONE: 707-837-7310 FAX: 707-837-7311

l. Pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 67, you are requested to produce for inspection and copying the documents or media described in each request made below. True and complete evidentiary images of the requested documents or media may be produced with the responsive documents to this request, but in any event shall be provided within 10 days after these requests are served on you. These requests for production are directed to you and to your employees, and agents, including all persons acting on your behalf

2. Electronic media should be produced in its native format (e.g., Word documents and Excel spreadsheets produced with .doc and .xls extensions and email produced in .pst files if Outlook is the email client). Pictures of hard copy documents (TIFF, PDF, etc.) should only be created and produced after consultation with the undersigned attorney. ·

3. These requests for public documents include the original media and all copies that differ from ·the original in any respect; such as notations made on the copy. These requests are also intended to include all media of any nature that are now or have at any time been within your care, c;ustody or control. If a document or media is no longer in your care, custody or control, identify its disposHion.

4. Any withholding of information shall be justified, in -vVriting, as follows:

a) A withholding under a specific permissive exemption.in the California Public Records Act, or elsewhere, which permissive exemption is not forbidden to be asserted by this ordinance, shall cite that authority.

b) A withholding on the basis that disclosure is prohibited by law shall cite the specific statutory authority in the Public Records Act or elsewhere.

P1942

February 4, 2020 Page 2

c) A withholding on the basis that disclosure would incur civil or criminal liability shall cite any specific statutory or case law, or any other public agency's litigation experience, supporting that position.

d) When a record being requested contains information, most of which is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act and this Article, the custodian shall inform the requester of the nature and extent of the nonexempt information and suggest alternative sources for the information requested, if available.

DEFINITIONS

The following are definitions of the terms used in these interrogatories and requests for production. Please read these definitions carefully as some of the words used in these discovery requests may be more expansive than those terms are given in common usage.

1. . "Document" or "media" means recorded material in any form, including the original and all non-identical copies (whether different from the originals by reason of any notation made on-such copies or otherwise), including, without limitation, correspondence, text messages, memoranda, notes, desk calendar, diaries, statistics, letters, telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, invoices, statements, receipts, returns, warranties, guaranties, summaries, pamphlets, books, interoffice and intraoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of conversations, telephone calls, voice mails, chat rooms, meetings or other communications, bulletins, bulletin boards, magazines, publications, printed matter, photographs, video, computer stored or generated information, teletypes, telefax, invoices, worksheets and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes and amendments of any of the foregoing, tapes, tape recording transcripts, graphic or aural records or representations of any kind, of which you have knowledge or which are or were formally in your actual or constructive possession, custody, or control.

2. "Possession, custody or control" includes the joint or several possession, custody or control not only by the person to whom these interrogatories and requests are addressed, but also the joint or several possession, custody or control by each or any other person or entity acting or purporting to act on behalf of the person, whether as employee, attorney, accountant, agent, sponsor, spokesman or otherwise.

3. The term "pertaining to" is used in the broadest sense and mean to refer to, discuss, involve, reflect, deal with, consist of, represent, constitute, emanate from, directed at, support, evidence, describe or mention. "Pertaining to" Thomas Ostly includes documents referring to him by moniker, niclmame, or misspellings i.e. "Ostly".

4. "Electronic data" means all inforn1ation stored in a digital fonnat. Electronic data includes, but is not limited to, electronic mail messages ab.d attachments, contacts, joUm.al entries, calendar entries, word processing documents, spreadsheets, databases including all records and fielqs and structural information, charts, graphs, and any and all miscellaneous files

P1943

February 4, 2020 Page3

responsive to the following requests. The responding party is expected to search for any and all information stored on hard disks, floppy disks, CDs, DVDs, USB devices, Smart Phones and Personal Digital Assistants (such as Palm Pilots, Blackberrys and iPhones); and in a11y other vehicle for digital data storage and/or transmittal. The term electronic data also includes the file, folder tabs and/or containers and labels appended to, or.associated with, any physical storage device associated with the information described above.

5. "Evidentiary Image" means a true bit-stream copy of the data requested. "Deleted File" means ai1y electronic data file that has been erased .or deleted from the elecirnnic media on which it resided.

6. Throughout these discovery requests language should be read in light of the context in which it is used. Consequently, the singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular, where appropriate. Furthermore, the masculine is intended to also refer to the feminine, where appropriate. and vice versa. ·

RECORDS REQUESTED

All communications to or from Chesa Boudin regarding Thomas Ostly, including emails, phone records, texts, letters, memos .and written commqnications, including meeting/telecom notes, whether communicated by public or private telephones/smaiiphones/computers/laptops or through other means, between January 1, 2019 and present.

Very truly yours,

ANDERIES & GOMES LLP

Shane K. Anderies

.SKA/nsm

P1944

EXHIBIT B

P1945

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Chesa Boudin · District Attorney

February 18, 2020

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Shane Anderies . Anderies and Gomes Employment Law Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]>

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

Re: Your Public Records Request received. February 4, 2020

Dear Mr. Anderies,

This letter is in response to your public records request received on J?ebruary 4, 2020.

"All communications to or from Chesa Boudin regarding Thomas Ost/y1 including emails1

phone records, texts1 letters, memos·and written communications, including . meeting/te/ecom notes, whether communicated by public or private telephones/smartphones/computers/laptops or through other means, between January 1, 2019 and present. "

Please see. the response to your request bdow:

Under the Public Records Act and the Sunshine Ordinance, a "public record'; is broadly defined to include "anywriting·containing information relating to the conduct of the publi~'s business prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency, regardless of the physical form or characteristics." Cal. Govt. Code §6252(e). If the department has no records responsive to the speCific request, the department has no duty to create or recreate one.

The office i~ currently consulting with another agency having a substantif.~1 interest in the · determination of your request. In an effort to conduct a comprehensive search for all relevant records .and protected information, we are -invoking a 14-day extension at this time per Cal. Govt. Code§ 6253(c), hµ.t are hope~ to.have a response for you well before that time period.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

~·· #. -~\ (~ .· . . . .~ \ ji M?rr7o ... ~U&J(-{ R;;:yr, !3uJ: . .

Ex.ecD~Assistant

j

350 RHODE ISLAND, SUITE 400N. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94103

RECEPTION: (628) 652-4r - - ~- ~sr:rvrrrn: (628) 652-4001

P1946

EXlflil811T C

CITY AND Cou:NTI OF SAN FRANCISCO

Chesa Boudin District Attorney

March 3, 2020

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Shane Anderies Anderies and Gomes Empl9yment Law Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]>

OFFICE OF Tf,[E DISTRICT ATIORNEY

Re: Your Public Records Request received February 4, 2020

Dear Mr. Anderies,

This letter is in response to your public records request received on February4, 2020.

"All communications to or from Chesa Boudin regarding Thomas Ost/y1 inch;ding emails, phone records; texts, fetters, memos and written communications) including meeting/telecom notes, whether communicated by public or privctte tef ephones/smartphones/computers/laptops or through other means, between January 1, 2019 and present. "

· Please see the response to your request below:

Under the Public Records Act and the Sunshine Ordinance, a "public record" is broadly defined · to include "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 the physical form or characteristics." Cal: Govt. Code §6252( e ). If the department has no records responsive to the specific request, the department has no duty to create or recreate one.

After a thorough search ·Of records maintained by the San Francisco DistrictAttoniey' s office we ·do not have any respons.ive documents that we are able to turn over. We are withholding five emails under the attorney client communication privilege Cal. Govt. Code§§ 6254(k), 6276.04.

For records maintained by other departments, you will need to reach out to them directly to obtain any responsive documents they might have.

Sincerely,

Alex Bastian

A/J j, . ' . "'° /flpr/~ r

Deputy Chief of Staff

356RR0DE ISLAND, SUITE400N · SAN FRANcisco, CAIJFORNIA 94103

RECEPTION: (628) 652-4r'"" · l'li._csIMILE: (628).652-4001

P1 9'48

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

I (BOS)

Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]> Wednesday, December 9, 2020 2:42 PM SOTF, (BOS) [email protected] FW: SOTF - Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 20079

H-~This messaf)e·is-from·outside-the City email system.- Do not·~pen links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Good afternoon,

We have not received a notice of hearing on this matter as of today's date. Could you please provide the hearing date, and if none has been set, please provide us with an estimate of when we should be receiving one so that we may continue to monitor this matter? ·

Thank you!!

Nicole Mitchell, Senior Paralegal (415) 858-6431 ht1;ps://avanan.url-protection.cornlvl/url?o=www.andgolaw.com&g=NDNk0Tg3ZDg3N2ZkMjcl OQ==&h=MDliZTg2MDVkZj BhNzMzOTixMTgxMjQ20TB1YzM1MWM5ZjRlcZTE5NjU4MzZ1YjMOOWEOYTZlNGEwYjg40DE3YQ== &p=YXAzOnNmZHQyOmF2YW5hbjpvZmZp Y2UzNjV:fZWlha WxzX2VtYWlsOjBjOGE2NmEzMmZkOGJ iZDQ4NTTIMDUxMjI4NTNjNmM1 OriYx

From: Bastian, Alex (DAT) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 10:06 AM To: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>; Boudin, Chesa (DAT) <[email protected]> Cc: Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Marshall, Rachel _(DAT) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: SOTF - Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 20079

Dear Sunshine Ordinance Tasl< Force,

I write on behalf of District Attorney Chesa Boudin to respond to the Complaint filed by Shane Andedes, File No. 20079.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The Sunshine request that Mr. Anderies submitted to the DA on February 4, 2020, that is the subject of his complaint is as follows:

All communications to or from Chesa Boudin regarding Thomas Ostly, including emails, phone records, texts, letters, memos and written communications, including meeting/telecom notes, whether communicated by public or private telephones/ smartphones I computers/ laptops or through other means, between January 1, 2019 and present..

P1949

After invoking a 14-day extension under the Sunshine Ordinance, the DA provided a response on March 3, 2020, that stated as follows:

We do not have any responsive documents that we are able to turn over. We are withholding five e-mails under the attorney client communication privilege Cal. Got. Code section 6254k, 6276.04

For records maintained by other departments you will need to reach out to them directly to obtain any responsive documents they might have.

RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

Mr. Anderies argues that the DA's response to its request was both untimely and inadequate. While it is correct that the DA's initial and ultimate responses were each 4 days late, this delay was minor and likely resulted from a simple error in· the DA's deadline calculation. The DA's response complied with the law in ail other respects.

1. Untimeliness

The DA's initial response invoking a 14-day extension was provided to Mr. Anderies on February 18, 2020, 14 days after his request was submitted. The DA's ultimate response was provided 14 days later on March 3, 2020. It appears that the responder in the DA's office may have erroneously calculated the initial response period as 14 days ratherthan 10, resulting in a 4-day delay in responding to Mr. Anderies. This minor delay appears to be based on a simple error in the DA's office, occurring during a time of significant transition in the office. The request was made withi·n the first month of

·a new administration, when staff roles and workloads were somewhat in flux.

2. Adequacy of Respo.nse

Mr. Anderies argues that the DA failed to J<eep withholding to a minimum in violation of Adm in Code 67.26, and that the DA failed to provide a legitimate basis for withholding in violation of Admin Code 67.27. Both arguments fail.

In responding to the request, the DA conducted a search in the DA's internal databases. The DA's search located five responsive documents, which were all emails between the DA's office and the City Attorney, in which the DA sought and the City Attorney provided legal advice. As such, the DA properly determined that these five records were protected in their entirety·by the attorney-client privi.lege. The DA's withholding of the emails was therefore consistent with its obligation under Adm in Code 67.26 to keep withholding to a minimum. Contrary to Mr. Anderies' arguments, this obligation to keep withholding to a minimum does not require that the DA '.'explain how it is possible non~prlvileged responsive documents do not exist regarding Mr. Ostly's six years of employment as a District Attorney or regarding Mr. Boudin's decision to terminate his employment _or their communications and dealings leading up to and regarding same." The DA's response stated a legitimate basis for withholding the five responsive documents it identified, and further notified the requestor that any requests for documents in the custody of other city departments should be directed to those other departments.

The DA's response to Mr. Anderies' request satisfied the DA's obligation to provide a legitimate b·asis for withholding responsive documents under Admin Code 67.27 by stating that responsive documents were being withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The Sunshine Ordinance impo'ses no obligation on the DA to provide a detailed privilege Jog, to create new records, or to otherwise "explain" the absence of responsive records subject to disclosure.

* * *

Hope these responses help and I hope everyone is staying safe and healthy,

Alex

·P19SO

From: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 10:04 AM To: Bastian, Alex (DAT) <[email protected]>; Boudin, Chesa (DAT) <[email protected]> Cc: Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: SOTF - Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 20079

Good Morning:

The District Attorney's Office has been named as a Respondent in the attached complaint filed·with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please respond to the attached complaint/request within five business days.

The Respondent is required to submit a written response to the allegations including any and ·all supporting documents, recordings, electronic media, etc., to the Task Force within five (5) business days of receipt of this notice. This is yom opportunity to provide a full explanation to allow the Task Force to.be fully informed in considering yom response prior its meeting.

Please include the following information in yom response if applicable:

1. List all relevant records with descriptions that have been provided pmsuant to the Complainant request.

2. Date the relevant records were provided to the Complainant. 3. Description of the method used, along with any relevant search terms used, to search for the relevant

. records. · 4. Statement/declaration that all relevant documents have been provided, does not exist, or has been

excluded. · 5. Copy of the original request for records (if applicable).

Please refer to the File Number when submitting any new information arid/or supporting documents pertaining to this complaint.

The Complainant alleges: Complaint Attached.

Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724

© f!l.;,;;, Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and.the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal inf9rmation provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All Writf:eri or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

P1951


Cheryl,·

I (BOS)

Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]> Wednesday, December 9, 2020 3:21 PM SOTF, (BOS) [email protected]. RE: SOTF - Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 20079

We totally understand and no pressure. We will mark our calendar to check back early March and see if we have an April date scheduled.

Thank you and enjoy your holidays!

Nicole Mitchell, Senior Paralegal (415) 858-6431 https://avanan.url-protection.comJvl/url?o=www.andgolaw.com&g=OTRmNGUxZWNm YTc3YzQ4Zg=&h=ZmE1 YzNmZDY OZjNlZGQOOGE4Njl5MzdiY2.M~NzY3NTQOOTNmNDk4N2U30GUxZmNkMz YwMm V1NzFlM2FiMm Yw NQ==&p=YXAzO:n1'-hi1ZHQyOmF2YW5hbjpvZmZpY2UzNjVfZWlhaWxzX2VtYWlsOjI1ZjBmYWU3YmV hOGVhM2Yl YTE2ZrnZhM2U3NGExNzMwOn Yx

From: SOTF, (BOS) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 3:09 PM To: Nic;ole Mitchell <[email protected]> Subject: RE: SOTF - ComplainUiled with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 20079

.Nicole: 1 do not have a hearing date scheduled now. I am hoping to do so for April, 2021, but I can't guarantee.

Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors [email protected]. Tel: 415-554-7724 Fax: 415-554-5163 www.sfbos.org

(ff! il!ff.t';i Click here to complete a' Board of supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.


Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identijying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these ·submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar Information that a member of the public elects to subml.tto the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documen.ts that members of the public moy inspect or copy. ·

P1952

From: Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 2:42 PM TO: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: FW: SOTF - Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 20079

This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Good afternoon,

We have not received a notice of hearing on this matter as of today's date. Could you please provide the hearing date, and if none has been set, please provide us with an estimate of when we should be receiving one so that we may continue to monitor this matter?

Thank you!!

Nicole Milchell, Secioi Paralegal (415) 858-6431 https://avanan.url- . protection.com/v1/url?o=www.andgolaw.com&g=NDNkOTg3ZDg3N2ZkMjclOQ=~&h=MDliZTg2MDVkZj BhNzMzOTixMTgxMjQ20TBIYzMlMWM5ZjRkZTE5NjU4MzZ1YjMOOWEOYTZINGEwYjg40DE3YQ='

. &p=YXAzOnNmZHQyOmF2YW5hbipvZmZp Y2UzNjVfZWlha WxzX2VtYWls0jBjOGE2NmEzMmZkOGJ iZDQ4NTJlMDUxMjI4NTNjNmM1 On Yx

From: Bastian, Alex (DAT) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesd<ly, July 8, 2020 10:06 AM To: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>; Boudin, Chesa (DAT) <[email protected]> Cc: Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Marshall, Rachel (DAT) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: SOTF- Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - FOe No. 20079

Dear Sunshine Ordinance Task Force,

I write on behalf of District Attorney Chesa Boudin to respond to the Complaintfiled by Shane Anderies, File No. 20079.


The. Sunshine request that Mr. Anderies submitted to the DA on February 4, 2020, that is the subject of his complaint is as follows:

All communications to or from Chesa Boudin regarding Thomas Ostly, including emails, phone records, texts, letters, memos and written communications, including meeting/telecom notes, whether communicated by public or private telephones/ smartphones /computers/ laptops or through other means, between January 1, 2019 and present.

·After invoking a 14-day extension under the Sunshine Ordinance, the DA provided a response on March 3, 2020, that stated as follows:

P1953

We do not have any responsive documents that we are able to turn over. We are withholding five e-mails under the attorney client communication privilege Cal. Got. Code section 62541<, 6276.04

For re.cords maintained by other departments you will need to reach out to them directly to obtain any responsive documents they might have. ·


Mr. Anderies argues that the DA's response to its request was both untimely and inadequate. While it is correct that the DA's initial and ultimate responses were each 4 days late, this delay was minor and likely r'esulted from a simple error in the DA's deadline calculation. The DA's response complied with the law in all other respects.

1. Untimeliness

The DA's initial response invoking a 14-day extension was provided to Mr. Anderies on February 18, 2020, 14 days after his request was.submitted. The DA's ultimate response was provided 14 days later on March 3, 2020. It appears that the responder in the bA's office may have erroneously calculated the initial response period as 14 days rather than 10, resulting in a 4-day delay in responding to Mr. Anderies. This minor delay appears to be based on a simple error in the DA's office, occurring .during a time of significant transition in the office. The request was made within the first month of a new administration, when staff roles and workloads were somewhat in flux.

2. Adequacy of Response

Mr. Anderies argues that the DA failed to keep withholding to a minimum in violation of Admin Code 67.26, and that the DA failed to provide a legitimate basis for withholding in violation of Admin Code 67.27. Both arguments fail.

In responding to the request, the DA conducted a search in the DA's internal databases. The DA's search located five responsive documents, which were all emails between the DA's office and the City Attorney, in which the DA sought and the City Attorney provided legal advice. As such, the DA properly determined that these five records were protected in their entirety by the attorney-client privilege. The DA's withholding of the emails was therefore consistent with its obligation under Admin Code 67.26 to keep withholding to a minimum. Contrary to Mr. Anderies' arguments, this obligation to keep withholding to a minimum does not require that the DA "exp'lain how it is· possible non-privileged responsive documents do not exist regarding Mr. Ostly's six years of employment as a District Attorney or regarding Mr. Boudin's decision to terminate his employment or their communications and dealings leading up to and. regarding same." The DA's response stated a legitimate basis for withholding the fiveresponsive documents it identified, and further notified the requestor that any requests for documents in the custody of other city departments should be directed to those other departments.

The DA's response to Mr. Anderies' request satisfied the DA's obligation to provide a legitimate basis for withholding responsive documents under Admin Code 67.27 by stating that responsive documents were being withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The Sunshine Ordinance imposes no obligation on the DA to provide a detailed privilege log, to create new records, or to otherwise "explain" the absence of respqnsive records subject to disclosure.

* * *

Hope these responses help and I hope everyone is staying safe and healthy,

Alex

From: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 10:04 AM

P1954

To: Bastian, Alex (DAT) <[email protected]>; Boudin, Ch~sa (DAT) <[email protected]> Cc: Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: SOTF - Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 20079

Good Morning:

The District Attorney's Office has been named as a Respondent in the attached complaint filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please respond to the attached complaint/request within five business days.

The Respondent is required to submit a written response to the allegations including any and all supporting documents, recordings, electronic media, etc., to the Task Force within five (5) business days of receipt of this notice. This is your opportunity to provide a full explanation to allow the Task Force to be fully informed in considering your response prior its meeting.

Please include the following information in your response if applicable:

1. List all relevant records with descriptions that have been provided pursuant to the Complainant request.

2. Date the relevant records were provided to the Complainant. 3. Description of the method used, along with· any relevant search terrns used, to search for the relevant ~~. .

4. Statement/declaration that all relevant documents have been provided, does not exist, or has been excluded. .

5. Copy of the original request for records (if applicable).

Please refer to the File Number when submitting any new information and/or supporting documents pertaining to this complaint.



®. /!K:~ Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.


Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communlcations to the Board of Supervisors· is subject to disclosure under the Co/lfornla ·Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Persona/ information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board· of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for lnspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

P1955

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)


Attachments:

[email protected] Wednesday, May 5, 2021 3:17 PM SFDA Public Records; Nicole Mitchell SOTF, (BOS) RE: SOTF - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 05/05/21 Meeting - Agenda and Packet Online 01.17.20 Preservation Letter to DA.pdf


Ms. Burke,

Thank you for your letter. Mr. Ostly is inclined to accept the SFDA's response and take today's hearing off calendar if you can confirm your search included employees' use of the Signal App and went at least as far back as January 17, 2020 when I sent the attached notice to preserve evidence. Spealdng of which, I assumed the SFDA would have at least produced the attached communication since it references Mr. Ostly, was sent by email, and is not covered by the (lttomey-client privilege.

Shane K. Anderies, Esq. (415) 458-2738 www.andgolaw.com

This e-mail is intended for the use of the person or persons to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt .from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or employee or agent responsible for delivering the mess<ige to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is sti"ictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in en-or, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the listed e-mail address. Tirnnl<: you.

From: SFDA Public Records <[email protected]> Sen.t: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 4:58 PM

To: [email protected]; Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]> Cc: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: SOTF - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 05/05/21 Meeting - Agenda and Packet Online '

Dear Mr. Anderies, Attached please find our amended response to your California Public Records Act Request received on February 4, 2020

detailing our search process.

Thank you.

Best, Robyn Burke

From: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 30, 202111:52:46 AM

To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Henderson, Paul (DPA) <[email protected]>; Rosenstein, Diana (DPA) <[email protected]>; Wargo-Wilson, Stephanie (DPA)

<[email protected]>; Polk, Mary {DPA} <[email protected]>; Maunder, Sara {DPA} <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Lin-Wilson, Tiffany {REC} <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]>; Boudin, Chesa {DAT} <[email protected]>; Marshall, Rachel (DAT) <[email protected]>; Campos, David (DAT) <[email protected]>; San Francisco Living Wage <[email protected]> Subject: SOTF - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 05/05/21 Meeting - Agenda and Pack~t Online

Good Morning:

The agenda and packet for the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force May 5, 20214:00 p.m. meeting is on line at the following link:

https://sfgov.org/sunshine/sites/default/files/sotf 050521 agenda.pdf

The packet material is linked to each item listed on the agenda marked with an "attachment". Click anywhere on the title of the item to open the link to the pdf of the packet material in question.

Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors [email protected] Tel: 415-554-7724 Fax: 415-554-5163 www.sfbos.org

Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.


Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents thOt members of the public may inspect or copy.

AND ERIES &tGOMES 601 Montgomery St, Ste 888

San Francisco, CA 94111

PHO~IE: 415-217-8802 FAX: 415-217-8803

January 17, 2020

VIA EMAIL

Chesa Boudin San Francisco District Attorney's Office 850 Bryant Street, Room 322 San Francisco, CA 94103 Email: [email protected]

Re Thomas Ostly

Dear Mr. Boudin:


PHONE: 707-837-7310 FAX: 707-837-7311

I represent Thomas Ostly regarding his potential claims for retaliation and wrongful termination against your office. The purpose of this letter is to notify the San Francisco District Attorney's Office (SFDA), not to destroy, conceal, or alter any information stored in electronic form or generated by its computer systems or electronic devices that in any way relates to Thomas Ostly' s employment or termination of employment or related staff changes and firings in the SFDA's office. This information may be relevant to the above matter and be unavailable from any other source. As you may know, such electronic info1mation can easily be inadvertently destroyed, and the failure to take reasonable measures to preserve it pending the completion of discovery can result in sanctions being imposed against you or your office. See, e.g., Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v Superior Court (1998) 18 C4th l; Zubulake v UBS Warburg LLC (SD NY 2003) 220 FRD 212, 216.

In order to comply with the discovery requests that we will make in this matter, SFDA will need to provide electronic evidence in its native format. SFDA will also need to provide electronic documents, along with the metadata or infonnation about data that is contained in those electronic documents. Even when a paper copy of a document or file exists, we will also seek the documents or files in their electronic format so that we also receive the information in the metadata. Our discovery requests will include certain data on your office computers' hard drives, floppy disks, and backup files, and will include data not usually available to the ordinary computer user, such as deleted files and file fragments.

Thus, the electronic data and the storage devices in which they are kept that you and SFDA are obligated to maintain and preserve during the pendency of discovery in this case include all of the following data and devices:

1. Your office's desktop computers, laptop computers, home personal computers, and the backup media used for each;

P1958

January 17, 2020 Page 2

2. E-mail, text messages, social media posts and/or feeds, both sent and received, internally or externally;

3. Telephone files and logs such as voicemail and universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS) data;

4. Word processing files, including drafts and revisions;

5. Spreadsheets, including drafts and revisions;

6. Presentation data or slide shows, such as PowerPoint;

7. Data generated by calendaring, task management, and personal information management software, such as Microsoft Outlook;

8. Electronic files in portable storage devices, such as floppy disks, compact disks, digital video disks, ZIP drives, thumb drives, or pen drives;

9. Data created with the use of tablet, personal digital assistant, or smartphone;

10. Internet and web-browser-generated history files, caches, and "cookies" files generated at the workstation of each employee in your office's employ and on any and all backup storage media;

This letter shall also confirm our representation of Thomas Ostly and request that all communications be directed to my office. Enclosed you will find an electronic service agreement. Please review same to be executed and returned to me. Thank you for your attention to this letter.

Very truly yours,

Shane K. Anderies SKA/nsm

P1959

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)


Attachments:

[email protected] Wednesday, May 5, 2021 4:51 PM SFDA Public Records; Nicole Mitchell SOTF, (BOS)

RE: SOTF - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 05/05/21 Meeting - Agenda and Packet Online Letter re Ostly Invoices


Sorry, Ms. Burke, but as I'm sitting here waiting for our matter to be called and flipping through the file again, I'm also wondering why the attached was not produced. It's an email from Mr. Campos-who attended the last hearing-with Mr. Boudin on it, attaching a letter signed by Mr. Boudin, refetTing not only to Mr. Ostly but to these SOTF proceedings as well, so it is responsive, not privileged, and a public record.

I'm beginning to think it was fortunate I did not take today's hearing off calendar as there appear to be several documents not produced that should have been.

Anyway, I just wanted to give you a heads up before our matter is called so you have an opportunity to prepare your response.


This e-mail is intended for the use of the person or persons to whom it is addressed and may contain inf01mation that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this c01m11unication in elTor, please um11ediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the listed e-mail address. Thank you.

From: [email protected]

Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 20214:37 PM

To: SFDA Public Records <[email protected]>; Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]>

Cc: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: SOTF - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 05/05/21 Meeting -Agenda and Packet Online

Ms. Burke,

Perhaps you could also explain why the email string below with attachments referring to Mr. Ostly that was apparently forwarded to Mr. Boudin was not produced. Is it possible your search did not include terms contained in attachments? If so, I would ask that your office conduct the search again to include attachments and any other embedded documents before confirming there are not any non-privileged, responsive documents to produce.

From: Im Subj~i! D:ate:

SFDA Pv'ht't: Fi:Ai:Dnfo Bmf<&?. Rnlbvn (D..8.I) f'~•,r1 i::llSC{ J'11i:IW EM/'Jt # 1 Flwd: S<.11vey nhw~ay, tk:tob!;;r s, ww 2:31132 PM

Att:aroltH!Ji'ib:

Rachel l\1axshall Di:cecto! of Conununii;~tio.n$ & Policy Advi;><;i! A""siittant Di$tcict Attorney 0£fic€' of San F.rrn.uc:i£-t:o Dist:t.ict Attomey Cb.e.$a Bondin

Sa.n F.i:r1J1ci5.lco Di~tt.\ct Attom1,;;y 350 fil1od.e Is.l1.nd Street, No.r:th Building, Suite 41JON San F!ru1cisco, CA 94103 De~k (628) 652~4 l.93 Cell: (415) 416-4468

Tbt hif(dv1ofif;19 rtmflti1td in th& eletmmit rtN#<J,gl! tittf)' iHt coJt!Mmtfal c:t1itl '"'<:!!,!' JJ,• 111!;/td to the ttf/:1tmty"diMI jtrit'h~;'!t mw'./ 1;;· th~ atf(ltJ4!)' r~r,rk"}rtXt:wt rk;ffri111» It u iff!Nulni Mb•fr>r th~ fltl' qf th,, f.onl#'irh1al (If' fWiltJ to w/)f)tN li i:

"T ' Jl'f" t ,, . ' ' . . ' ' M~ ,; ,r- " jl• • .• • ,;f '. t1dartoUN<. ·':/)'ON (Jre m.1 iln m!mam ncajmrnl, ,.l/fJtl ar1: t,1fri'l{.J' HfJ,.,1~'" ftu1r t:Il£.J' tJ.!f, mt.t<WHY.Wtit:m, ar r4.;.~·)t.i~ ~ tmt

<£11!/fliNNit.alit:m i.; :rfridb·prohihiteri 1j]QN hr:wff' wtein.'d this dutnmit UN;?Jtifip in 1:ttt1.r, pkYUe' sklt:-t~ ih<" rrrigim1! f.l;'l'.r~"&ge fromJ»'Juf' ?>tNt;!/ ~y.tfttN, Tb1mkJou . .

Frorn~ Russom,. Kelsev (D.A.T) <kefsey.n;ssom@sfg<:i:1t.org> Sent: Thurnday,. August 13, 2020 3:17 n..,1 To: Marsh:alf, Racfie1 (DAT) <rnthe!i.matsh8'1l@sfgov_org> Subject: DISCOVERY EMl\iL #1 Fwd: Survey

Orilv in attachments = he completed the survey. Do riot believ·e this 1Nill he turned over.

Get Clutlook for fOS

From~ R10s:r:(J!n1 K€isey 1:rnu) Sent: '\Nednesday, Jariuarv 22 .. :w:w 10:52 PM

To: Boudnn, Che:sa (DAY)

Frornt Dy~an Yep

sent; V/edn.esdav1 Jar111J1.wv 15, 2020 2::34:21 n·.;l

To: Kefsey R.ussorn

p 12s61


This e-mail is intended for the use of the person or persons to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, . confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or

employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in en-or, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the listed e-mail address .. Thank you.


Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 20213:17 PM To: SFDA Public Records <[email protected]>; Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]> Cc: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: SOTF - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 05/05/21 Meeting - Agenda and Packet Online

Ms. Burke,

Thank you for your letter. Mr. Ostly is inclined to accept the SFDA's response and take today's hearing off calendar if you can confirm your search included employees' use of the Signal App and went at least as far back

· as January 17, 2020 when I sent the attached notice to preserve evidence. Speaking of which, I assumed the 'SFDA would have at least produced the attached communication since it references Mr. Ostly, was sent by email, and is not covered by the attorney-client privilege.


This e-mail is intended for the use of the person or persons to whom it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the listed e-mail address. Thank you.

From: SFDA Public Records <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 4:58 PM To: [email protected]; Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]> Cc: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: SOTF - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 05/05/21 Meeting - Agenda and Packet Online

Dear Mr. Anderies, Attached please find our amended response to your California Public Records Act Request received on February 4, 2020 detailing our search process. Thank you.

· Best,

Robyn Burke

From: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 30, 202111:52:46 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Henderson, Paul (DPA) <[email protected]>; Rosenstein, Diana (DPA) <[email protected]>; Wargo-Wilson, Stephanie (DPA)

p 139 6 2

<[email protected]>; Polk, Mary (DPA) <[email protected]>; Maunder, Sara (DPA) <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Lin-Wilson, Tiffany (REC) <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]>; Boudin, Chesa (DAT) <[email protected]>; Marshall, Rachel (DAT) <[email protected]>; Campos, David (DAT) <[email protected]>; San Francisco Living Wage <[email protected]> Subject: SOTF - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 05/05/21 Meeting - Agenda and Packet Online

Good Morning:



The packet material is linked to each item listed on the agenda marked with an 1'attachment". Click anywhere on the title of the item to open the link to the pdf of the packet material in question.




Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phane numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

,.,

Pf963

I (BOS)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Dear Mr. Anderies:

Campos, David (DAT) < [email protected] > Friday, October 30, 2020 4:00 PM [email protected]

Russom, Kelsey (DAT); Boudin, Chesa (DAT) Letter re Ostly Invoices October 30 Letter Final.pdf

Please see attached. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

David Campos

Chiefof Staff

San Francisco District Attorney's Office



October 30, 2020

Shane K. Anderies, Esq. Anderies & Gomes LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Fl. 11 San Francisco, CA 94111 sanderies@andgo law. com

Re: Thomas Ostley Representation Invoices

Dear Mr. Anderies:


This responds to your latest request for payment of invoices dated October 26, 2020 for services rendered in representing Thomas Ostly. The Office will not pay those invoices.

On January 21, 2020, my predecessor as Chief of Staff, Cristine Soto-DeBerry, sent you a letter expressly notifying you that effective that date, our Office would not pay for or otherwise provide a defense for Mr. Ostly in connection with the state bar administrative proceeding (Case No. 19-0-18023) or Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (SOTF) proceeding (File No. 19114). The letter advised that if Mr. Ostly wished to retain your firm for representation in those matters, then he would need to pay for the services himself or make other arrangements. In addition, that letter made clear the Office would not pay for any services rendered at any time in connection with any other matter related to Mr~ Ostly or his employment.

As already explained in the January 21 letter, this Office never had any obligation to provide a defense to Mr. Ostly in his state bar administrative proceeding or the SOTF proceeding, under either the MAA MOU or state law. Therefore, the Office could and did decide to stop providing a defense to Mr. Ostly in those proceedings. The fact that former District Attorney Gascon exercised his discretion and decided to provide a defense in the few bar complaints filed against attorneys in the Office does not establish any practice of providing a defense to those types of administrative proceedings, or require the current District Attorney to provide such a defense. The decision about whether to provide a defense to a bar complaint is made on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances of each individual matter. Finally, your communications with Sharon Woo did not create any binding obligation on the Office to provide a defense or pay for your services through the SOTF process. You attended the February 5, 2020, SOTF proceeding and subsequent related proceedings after receiving notice that the Office would not pay for your appearances or further work on behalf of Mr. Ostly in these matters; you incurred those costs with full knowledge that the Office would not pay for them.

It's unclear in the latest invoices that any of the charges listed relate either to Mr. Ostly's state bar administrative proceeding (Case No. 19-0-18023) or the SOTF proceeding (File No. 19114). We have never led you to believe we would cover representation costs unrelated to those two proceedings, and the January 21 letter made .this point explicit. You have no legitimate basis for requesting payment for those charges.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

350 RHODE ISLAND STREET, NORTH BUILDING, SUITE 400N · SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94103

RECEPTION: (628) 652-4000 · FACSIMILE: (628) 652-400i

P1965

CITY AND COUNTY O~ SAN FRANCISCO

P.2


Very truly yours,

Chesa Boudin DISTRICT ATTORNEY

,,:/ 1 _,, ~~----

David Campos Chief of Staff

~ I

P1966

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

I (BOS)

[email protected]

Wednesday, May 5, 2021 4:37 PM SFDA Public Records; Nicole Mitchell SOTF, (BOS) RE: SOTF - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 05/05/21 Meeting - Agenda and Packet

Online


Ms. Burke,

Perhaps you could also explain why the email string below with attachments referring to Mr. Ostly that was apparently forwarded to Mr. Boudin was not produced. Is it possible your search did not include terms contained in attachments? If so, I would ask that your office conduct the search again to include attachments and any other embedded documents before confirming there are not any non-privileged, responsive documents to produce.

P1~67

firo:m~ r~fltcl~,,,EflirbcE>LL£!fil:l· T'°'r Sub~t.~ Date~

A.ttaoomoi!ll'ibi

<:;.FDA Pu'hfi; R"''on:fs: 8.ur'e:". ROO)•n (DAI) FV1'i DI5-0!J'>''ef".Y E\'1>'\AR #1 F'wd; Stil'V•:l'J' Thu~y, Ck:tober ~' 2()W 2r31l3!l PM

~rn&.:YYit4* S!J:1",'l!W."' G.sa:xill! fo1m~,@f fl:r1Ri?:l}'.ee 5UNE¥. [~~<Oilisest(l }~Jds:<

Rache11Yforshall Ditect·oi:- of Conl.•1i:mnicatif;im & Policy Advi'J-ot Assistant Di~tr.iGt Atto:mey Office of San F .!'.ru::tci&co District Attorney Che$:a Bon.din R1!1 ch'1:l . .1\fa,.,·sllh<il1{a:: $f gr;j~v.¢~·g S~n F.u::anci$co Di~tcict Attomey 350 R.11ti·de Island Street, North Bnil:diiig,. SnJte 400N San Frru.1citco, CA 94103 D~d~: (628) 652~4 l 93 Cefr (415) 41&-4468

Th.to h£{,ri:tt11ati1Jff trJn/l1Jm~d hi ihit decttrrmir ltli!.t:rag1 t.!i"t1' b11 co1rfidtwtMi aNd tH~~· b11· tfll!}td to th~ tJft.(Jnttt"'dkttf }rix..ffrt,!;" and/.or ff.It ~:lt<ttllf)' FJ'Ork1·r¢dmi d1Jttrim+ It iJ' infr1?}+1fd (Jnb'f!/ir the t/.!<' ef tb11 itrdidd!lal or tr1i'i{y t1J .whom it f$

(ltUr~'#td Jr p:m (Jr(' mit fhtl infrJJd;d nJfi:Pimf., )f('.;l.!lf 1~r0 bm'l:rv H(lti(i~·d that fJ,1't}' /Jc~\ di.ts;;,m~'nali<m, c-r C:r'f/;.rt:i~e (Jf thi.s ~I\... ,. ""' ,,,. r.;.i ,,,.. . ""'"'"" "';if '"'

£am?11m1irafi1Jn it midfr pmhihit~Yl '!f)·ou hovP ri;'teit·l?d thit ti~Ytnmit 1tN#&/Jl iH em1r, pit{~" drttt.o: lht original Tl:t~.l'~Yi.¢,"¥' fron1](!fff i"flk~iJ ~ttylltm. Thcm.k]ON.

From~ Hussom1 Kelsev1:0AT) <kelsey.nJssorn@sfgov,org>

Sent: Thur~day, August 13, 2020 3:17 Pr•JI

To: r·.i~arshall, Rachel {DAT) <[email protected]>

Subj·ed: DISCOVERY Etv1A~L#1 Fwd: S11Jr1,r@y

Get' Outlnok for int;

From; Hussorn.1 Keio.say (D.A.T) <ke.bf,1)'. i~1J~~Qnlt~Jifg~~LQ!'~>

Sert: Wednesd<iy, Janusrv 22,. 2020 10:52 PM

To: BtJudun,. Chesa (DAT)

Subj·ed: Fwd: survey

Get Outlook fnr r05

From: Dylan Y·~p <[email protected].;1 ... :..ooJ.> Sent: 1Nednesd~y1 January 15, 2020 2:34:21 PM

To; Ke~sey Russ.om <k~l~E;J,'[email protected],bes:ab 1t;t~J!f1,c9«T1>; Rl(..1ssorT1,. Kelsey {DAT) <kg<lseut,1~~-9iJ~~'Q~.ffilt'i 0()J\1F'

P1]68


This e-mail is intended for the use of the person or persons to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in eITor, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the listed e-mail address. Thank you.


Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 3:17 PM

To: SFDA Public Records <[email protected]>; Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]> Cc: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>


Ms. Burke,

Thank you for your letter. Mr. Ostly is inclined to accept the SFDA's response and take today's hearing off calendar if you can confinn your search included employees' use of the Signal App and went at least as far back as January 17, 2020 when I sent the attached notice to preserve evidence. Speaking of which, l assumed the SFDA would have at least produced the attached communication since it references Mr. Ostly, was sent by email, and is not covered by the attorney-client privilege.


This e-mail is intended for the use of the person or persons to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the listed e-mail address. Thank you.

From: SFDA Public Records <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 4:58 PM

To: [email protected]; Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]> Cc: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>


Dear Mr. Anderies,

Attached please find our amended response to your California Public Records Act Request received on February 4, 2020

detailing our search process.

Thank you. Best,

Robyn Burke

From: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, April 30, 202111:52:46 AM

To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Henderson, Paul (DPA) <[email protected]>; Rosenstein, Diana (DPA) <[email protected]>; Wargo-Wilson, Stephanie (DPA)

P139 6 9

<[email protected]>; Polk, Mary (DPA) <[email protected]>; Maunder, Sara (DPA) <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Lin-Wilson, Tiffany (REC) <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]>; Boudin, Chesa (DAT) <[email protected]>; Marshall, Rachel (DAT) <[email protected]>; Campos, David (DAT) <[email protected]>; San Francisco Living Wage <[email protected]> Subject: SOTF - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 05/05/21 Meeting -Agenda and Packet Online

Good Morning:







Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.


Attachments:

I (BOS)

[email protected] Tuesday, May 11, 2021 1 :28 PM Burke, Robyn (DAT); SOTF, (BOS); Nicole Mitchell Campos, David (DAT) RE: SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Compliance and Amendments Committee; April 27, 2021 4:30 p.m. 01.17.20 Preservation Letter to DA.pdf


Committee members,

On February 4, 2020, Mr. Ostly sent the records request letter at issue in this Sunshine Hearing asking for the following: "All communications to or from Chesa Boudin regarding Thomas Ostly, including eniails, phone records, texts, letters, memos and written communications, including meeting/telecom notes, whether communicated by public or private telephones/smartphones/computers/laptops or through other means, between January 1, 2019 and present."

On January 17, 2020, Mr. Ostly sent the attached letter to Mr. Boudin and the SFDA notifying them of his potential legal claims and putting them on notice of their obligation to preserve evidence. The Committee should note the SFDA did not produce the attached January 17, 2020 letter despite being responsive to Mr. Ostly's request.

The SFDA searched Mr. Boudin's devices and apps; exactly which ones remain unclear, because the SFDA only identified those it searched rather than all potentially responsive devices and apps belonging to Mr. Boudin. Mr. Ostly was the one who had to raise the Signal App issue at the last hearing and knows other SFDAs use the Signal App and perhaps other messenger apps as well.

The SFDA has now confirmed it did not search the devices of any other employee to whom Mr. Boudin may have communicated about Mr. Ostly despite the potential for those devices and apps to contain responsive information and despite-or perhaps because of-the fact Mr. Boudin had motive to destroy, or at least withhold, responsive information.

The Sunshine Ordinance requires immediacy of response (Sec. 67 .25), that withholding be kept to a minimum (Sec. 67.26.), and a justification for any withholding (Sec. 67.27). The purpose of those provisions is to avoid the type of vague and incomplete initial response received by the SFDA in this case, only to have new information and the possibility of more information come to light more than a year later, by which time the information possibly no longer exists because it was lost or destroyed.

Mr. Ostly will request at the next hearing that the Committee find the SFDA violated all the aforementioned provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance for the reasons provided.

Respectfully,

Shane K. Anderies, Esq. (415) 458-2738

www.andgolaw.com

This e-mail is intended for the use of the person or persons to whom it is addressed and may contain infonnation that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in enor, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the listed e-mail address. Thank you.

From: Burke, Robyn (DAT) <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 202111:53 AM To: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]> Cc: Campos, David (DAT) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Compliance and Amendments Committee; April 27, 20214:30 p.m.

Thank you for the notice. In response to last week's Task Force meeting, I confirmed that search of the District Attorney's messaging apps included Signal when we initially searched for responsive records in February, 2020. We also did a new search of the app for records relating to Tom Ostly and, again, found no responsive records. I trust that this response satisfies the Task Force's question and remain ready for the next meeting. Best, Robyn Burke SFDA's Office

From: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 10, 20214:31 PM To: [email protected]; Rosenstein, Diana (DPA) <[email protected]>; Henderson, Paul (DPA) <[email protected]>; Maunder, Sara (DPA) <[email protected]>; Stiliyan Bejanski <[email protected]>; lonin, Jonas (CPC) <[email protected]>; Maya Zubkovskaya <[email protected]>; Kositsky, Jeff (DEM) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]>; Burke, Robyn (DAT) <[email protected]>; Guy, Kevin (CPC) <[email protected]>; Thompson, Marianne (ECN) <[email protected]>; sfneighborhoods.net <[email protected]>; SGM <[email protected]>; Wisinski, Ted (HRD) <[email protected]> Subject: SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Compliance and Amendments Committee; April 27, 20214:30 p.m.

Good Evening:

You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Compliance and Amendments Committee to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.

Date: May 25, 2021

Location: Remote meeting; participant information to be included on the Agenda

Time: 4:30 p.m.

Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.

Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian ofrecords or a representative of your depmiment, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.

Complaints:

1. File No. 20108: Complaint filed by E.l White against the Department of Police Accountability for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

2. File No. 20117: Complaint filed by Stephen Bejanski against Jonis Ionin and the Planning Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, by failing to provide public records; 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, 67.26 by failing to keep withholding to a minimum; 67.27 by failing to justify withholding and 67 .29 by failing to provide an index of records.

3. File No. 20123: Complaint filed by Maya Zubkovskaya against the Department of Emergency Management for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67 .24( d)(2), by failing to disclose certain portions of law enforcement information.

4. File No. 20079: Complaint filed by Shane Anderies against District Attorney's Office and Chesa Boudin for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 ( e) failing to respond to a records request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.26 withholding kept to a minimum and 67.27 failing to provide justification for withholding responsive documents.

5. File No. 20124: Complaint filed by Stephen Bejanski against Kevin Guy and the Office of Short-Term Rentals for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24 by failing to provide public information; 67 .25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, 67.26 by failing to keep withholding to a minimum; 67.27 by failing to justify withholding and 67 .29 and by failing to provide an index of records. ·

6. File No. 20134: Complaint filed by Mark Sullivan against the Office of Economic and Workforce Development for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

7. File No. 19140: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the Department of Human Resources for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (2) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure). For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, May 20, 2021.




Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject io disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal infonnation provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifj;ing information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its conimJttees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any informationji-om these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

ANoERIES &LGOMES 601 Montgomery St, Ste 888

San Fra·ncisco, CA 94111

PHONE 415-217-8802 FAX: 4 I 5-217-8803

January 17, 2020

VIA EMAIL

Chesa Boudin San Francisco DistrictAttorney's Office 850 Bryant Street, Room 322 San Francisco, CA 94103 Email: [email protected]

Re Thomas Ostly

Dear Mr. Boudin:


PHOl~E: 707-837-7310 FAX: 707-837-7311

I represent Thomas Ostly regarding his potential claims for retaliation and wrongful termination against your office. The purpose of this letter is to notify the San Francisco District Attorney's Office (SFDA), not to destroy, conceal, or alter any information stored in electronic form or generated by its computer systems or electronic devices that in any way relates to Thomas Ostly's employment or termination of employment or related staff changes and firings in the SFDA's office. This information may be relevant to the above matter and be unavailable from any other source. As you may know, such electronic information can easily be inadve1iently destroyed, and the failure to take reasonable measures to preserve it pending the completion of discovery can result in sanctions being in;iposed against you or your office. See,

·e.g., Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v Superior Court (1998) 18 C4th 1; Zubulake v UBS Warburg LLC (SD NY 2003) 220 FRD 212, 216.

In order to comply with the discovery requests that we will make in this matter, SFDA will need to provide electronic evidence in its native format. SFDA will also need to provide electronic documents, along with the metadata or information about data that is contained in those electronic documerits. Even when a paper copy of a document or file exists, we will also seek the documents or files in their electronic format so that we also receive the information in the metadata. Our discovery requests will include certain data on your office computers' hard drives, floppy disks, and backup files, and will include data not usually available to the ordinary computer user, such as deleted files and file fragments.

Thus, the electronic data and the storage devices in which they are kept that you and SFDA are obligated to maintain and preserve during the pendency of discovery in this case include all of the following data and devices:

1. Your office's desktop computers, laptop computers, home personal computers, and the backup media used for each;

P1976

January 17, 2020 Page 2

2. E-mail, text messages, social media posts and/or feeds, both sent and received, internally or externally;

3. Telephone files and logs such as voicemail and universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS) data;

4. Word processing files, including drafts and revisions;

5. Spreadsheets, including drafts and revisions;

6. Presentation data or slide shows, such as PowerPoint;

7. Data generated by calendaring, task management, and personal information management software, such as Microsoft Outlook;

8. Electronic files in portable storage devices, such as floppy disks, compact disks, digital video disks, ZIP drives, thumb drives, or pen drives;

9. Data created with the use of tablet, personal digital assistant, or smartphone;

10. Internet and web-browser-generated history files, caches, and "cookies" files generated at the workstation of each employee in your office's employ and on any and all backup storage media;

This letter shall also confirm our representation of Thomas Ostly and request that all communications be directed to my office. Enclosed you will find an electronic service agreement. Please review same to be executed and returned to me. Thank you for your attention to this letter. ·

Very truly yours,

ANDERIES & GOMES LLP

SKA/nsm

P1977

Respondent's· Document Submission

P1978

Le er, Cheryl (BOS)

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Bastian, Alex (DAT) Wednesday, July 8, 2020 10:06 AM SOTF, (BOS); Boudin, Chesa (DAT) Nicole Mitchell; [email protected]; Marshall, Rachel (DAT)

Subject: RE: SOTF - Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 20079

Dear Sunshine Ordinance Task Force,

I write on behalf of District Attorney Chesa Boudin to respond to the .Complaint filed by Shane Anderies, File No. 20079.


The Sunshine request that Mr. Anderies submitted to the DA on February 4, 2020, that is the subject of his complaint is as follows:

All communications to or from Chesa Boudin regarding Thomas Ostly, including emails, phone records, texts, letters, memos and written communications, including meeting/telecom notes, whether communicated by public or private telephones I smartphones /computers/ laptops or through other means, between January 1, 2019 and present.

After invoking a 14-day extension under the Sunshine Ordinance, ·the DA provided a response on March 3, 2020; that stated as follows:

We do not have any responsive documents that we are able to turn over. We are withholding five e-maUs under the attorney client communication privilege Cal. Got. Code section 6254k, 6276.04

For records maintained by other departments you will need to reach out to them directly to obtain any responsive documents they might have.


Mr. Anderies argues that the DA's r~sponse to Its request was both untimely and inadequate. While it is correct that the. DA's initial and ultimate responses were each 4 days late, this delay was minor and likely resulted from a simple error in the DA's deadline calculation. The DA's response complied with.the law in all other respects.

1. Untimeliness

The DA's initial response invoking a 14-day extension was provided to Mr. Anderies on February 18, 2020, 14 days after his request was submitted. The DA's ultimate response. was provided 14 days later .on March 3, 2020. It appears that the responder in lhe DA' s office may have erroneously calculated the initial response period as 14 days rather than 10, resulting in a 4-day delay in responding to Mr. Anderies. This minor delay appears to be based on a simple error in the DA's office, occurring during a time of significant transition in the office. The request was made within the first month of a new administration, when staff roles and workloads were somewhat in flux.

2. Adequacy of Response

Mr. Anderies argues that the DA.failed to keep withholding to a minimum in violation of Adm in Code 67.26, and th.at the DA failed to provide.a legitimate basis for withholding in violation of Adm in Code 67.27. Both arguments fail.

P1979

In r.esponding to the request1 the DA conducted a search in the DA's internal databases. The DA's search located five . responsive documents, which were all emails between the DA's office and the City Attorney, in which the DA sought and the City Attorney provided legal advice. As such, the DA properly determined that these five records were protected in their entirety by the attorney-client privilege. The DA's withholding of the emails was therefore con'sistent with its obligation under Admin Code 67.26 to keep withholding to a minimum. Contrary to Mr. Anderies' arguments, this obligation to keep withholding to a minimum does not require that the DA fl explain how it is possible non-privileged responsive documents do not exist regarding Mr. Ostly's six years of employ·ment as a District Attorney or regarding Mr. Boudin's decision to terminate his employment or their communications and dealings leading up to and regarding same.11 The DA's response stated a legitimate basis for withholding the five responsive documents It identified, and further notified the requestor that any requests for documents in the custody of other city departments should be directed to those other departments.

The DA's response to Mr. Anderies' request satisfied the DA's obligation to provide a legitimate basis for withholding responsive documents under Admin Code 67.27 by stating that_responsive· documents were being withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The _Sunshine Ordinance imposes no obligation on the DA to provide a detailed privilege log1

to create new records, or to otherwise 11explain11 the absence of responsive records subject to disclosure.

* * *

Hope these responses help and I hope everyon.e is staying safe and healthy,

Alex

From: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> . sent: Tuesday, June 30, 202010:04 AM .

To: Basti_an, Alex (DAT) <[email protected]>; Boudin, Chesa (DAT) <[email protected]> Cc: Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]>; [email protected] ·. Subject: SOTF - Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 20079

Good Morning:

The District Attorney's Office has been named as a Respondent in the attached complaint fil~d with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please.respond to the attached complaint/request within five business days.

The Respondent is. required to submit a written response to the allegations including any and all supporting documents, recordings, electronic media, etc., to the Task Force within five (5) business days of receipt of this ·notice. This is yom opportunity to provide a full explanation to allow the Task Force to be fully informed in considering your response prior its meeting.



2. Date the relevant records were provided to the Complainant. 3. Description of the method used, along with any relevant search terms used, to search for the relevant

records. 4. Statement/declaration that all relevant documents have been provided, does not exist, or has been

excluded. 5. Copy of the original request for records (if applicable).

P1980


The Complainant alleges: Complaint Attached

Cheryl Leger ·Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724 .

(;j ~~ Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.


Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Boatd of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Persona/ information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to al/ members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on th~ Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

P1981

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)


Attachments:

Dear Mr. Anderies,

SFDA Public Records Tuesday, May 4, 2021 4:58 PM [email protected]; Nicole Mitchell SOTF, (BOS) RE: SOTF - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 05/05/21 Meeting - Agenda and Packet Online SAndries updated response 5.4.pdf

Attached please find our amended response to your California Public Records Act Request received on February 4, 2020 detailing our search process. Thank you. Best, Robyn Burke

c "'="""'"'=''=-'""'"='="'="'=:=,;..~,....,='--="'1'-='=·,,,,~==-'"""""-"'>='"""=---==z.==""-~· ~-.==''""""'""""'='==-=""---='""=·'=""""='"'"'"'"'"="""="'-·=~"'=·='''''""""='"-'=--'="='-'="""''=="'==·c='"'"-·- -···'""~=~="''""=1= .. =~""'~""''"'.:...==

From: SOTF, (BOS) <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 30, 202111:52:46 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Henderson, Paul (DPA) <[email protected]>; Rosenstein, Diana (DPA) <[email protected]>; Wargo-Wilson, Stephanie (DPA) <[email protected]>; Polk, Mary (DPA) <[email protected]>; Maunder, Sara (DPA) <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Lin-Wilson, Tiffany (REC) <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]>; Boudin, Chesa (DAT) <[email protected]>; Marshall, Rachel (DAT) <[email protected]>; Campos, David (DAT) <[email protected]>; San Francisco Living Wage <[email protected]> Subject: SOTF - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 05/05/21 Meeting - Agenda and Packet Online

Good Morning:

The agenda and packet for the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force May 5, 20214:00 p.m. meeting is online at the following link:



Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors ·

. [email protected] Tel: 415-554-7724 Fax: 415-554-5163 www.sfbos.org



May 4, 2021

Shane Anderies


Anderies and Gomes Employment Law Nicole Mitchell [email protected]

Re: Your Public Records Request received February 4, 2020

Dear Mr. Anderies,


Per our March 16, 2021 meeting with the San Francisco Sunshine Taskforce Committee, this is an updated response to your Public Record Act request received by our office via email on February 4, 2020, making the following request:

''All communications to or from Chesa Boudin regarding Thomas Ostly, including emails, phone records, texts, letters; memos and written communications, including meeting/telecom notes, whether communicated by public or private telephoneslsmartphones/computers/laptops or through other means, between January 1, 2019 and present."

Please see the response to your request below:

Under the Public Records Act and the Sunshine Ordinance, a "public record" is broadly defined to include "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 the physical form or characteristics." Cal. Govt. Code §6252(e). If the department has no records responsive to the specific request, the department has no duty to create or recreate one.

After a thorough search ofrecords maintained by the San Francisco District Attorney's office we do not have any responsive documents that we are able to tum over. I personally conducted this search by using the words: "Tom", "Ostly", and "Tom Ostly" when searching the District Attorney's official email, his personal email, his campaign email and his office issued and personal cell phones. We are withholding five emails under the attorney client communication privilege Cal. Govt. Code§§ 6254(k), 6276.04.

For records maintained by other departments, you will need to reach out to them directly to obtain any responsive documents they might have.

Sincerely, Robyn Burke San Francisco District Attorney's Public Records

350 RHODE ISLAND, SUITE 400N· SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94103 RECEPTION:

(628) 652-4000 ·FACSIMILE: (628) 652-4001

P1983

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)


Burke, Robyn (DAT) Tuesday, May 11, 2021 11 :53 AM SOTF, (BOS); [email protected]; Nicole Mitchell Campos, David (DAT) RE: SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Compliance and Amendments Committee; April 27, 2021 4:30 p.m.

Thank you for the notice. In response to last week's Task Force meeting, I confirmed that search of the District Attorney's messaging apps included Signal when we initially searched for responsive records in February, 2020. We also did a new search of the app for records relating to Tom Ostly and, again, found no responsive records. I trust that this response satisfies the Task Force1s question and remain ready for the next meeting.

Best, Robyn Burke SFDA's Office

From: SOTF, (BOS} <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 10, 20214:31 PM To: [email protected]; Rosenstein, Diana (DPA} <[email protected]>; Henderson, Paul (DPA)

<[email protected]>; Maunder, Sara (DPA} <[email protected]>; Stiliyan Bejanski <[email protected]>; lonin, Jonas (CPC} <[email protected]>; Maya Zubkovskaya <[email protected]>; Kositsky, Jeff (DEM} <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]>; Burke, Robyn (DAT) <[email protected]>; Guy, Kevin (CPC} <[email protected]>; Thompson, Marianne (ECN} <maria [email protected]>; sfneighborhoods.net <[email protected]>; SG M <[email protected]>; Wisinski, Ted (HRD) <[email protected]> Subject: SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Compliance and Amendments Committee; April 27, 20214:30 p.m.

Good Evening:

You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Compliance and Amendments Committee to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a detennination; and/or 3) consider refenals from a Task Force Committee.

Date: May 25, 2021


Time: 4:30 p.m.


Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian ofrecords or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.

Complaints:

1. File No. 20108: Complaint filed by E.J. White against the Department of Police Accountability for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67 .. 21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

2. File No. 20117: Complaint filed by Stephen Bejanski against Jonis Ionin and the Planning Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, by failing to provide public records; 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, 67.26 by failing to keep withholding to a minimum; 67.27 by failing to justify withholding and 67 .29 by failing to provide an index of records.

3. File No. 20123: Complaint filed by Maya Zubkovskaya against the Department of Emergency Management for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24(d)(2), by failing to disclose certain portions of law enforcement information.

p 12s 8 5

4. File No. 20079: Complaint filed by Shane Andeties against District Attorney's Office and Chesa Boudin for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67 .21 ( e) failing to respond to a records request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.26 withholding kept to a minimum and 67.27 failing to provide justification for withholding responsive documents.

5. File No. 20124: Complaint filed by Stephen Bejanski against Kevin Guy and the Office of Short-Term Rentals for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67 .24 by failing to provide public information; 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, 67.26 by failing to keep withholding to a minimum; 67.27 by failing to justify withholding and 67.29 and by failing to provide an index ofrecords.

6. File No. 20134: Complaint filed by Mark Sullivan against the Office of Economic and Workforce Development for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

7. File No. 19140: Complaintfiled by Stephen Malloy against the Department of Human Resources for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing io respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.


For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (2) working days before the hearing (see. attached Public Complaint Procedure). For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, May 20, 2021.




Disclosures: Personal injormation that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifYing information ·when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings ·will be niade available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information fi'om these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

P1987

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Mr. Anderies,

SFDA Public Records Tuesday, May 25, 2021 6:38 PM [email protected] Nicole Mitchell; SOTF, (BOS)

Updated Response · FOIA Chesa Boudin DA.docx; ostly DA email_Redacted.pdf

After our last meeting with the Sunshine Taskforce, I requested that our IT department do a secondary sweep of all

emails to and from the District Attorney during the time frame and we found 4 emails that were previously undisclosed.

I am attaching those emails here. Thank you for your patience on this request. Best,·

Robyn Burke

SFDA's Public Records

P11laa

IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST. PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FORM

To: Custodian of Records

Office of the San Francisco District Attorney

Name of Requester : Frank Noto

Date: Jan. 25,2020

350 Rhode Island Street, North Building, Suite 400N, San Francisco, CA 94103

Requester Address: 15 Quintara St., San Francisco, CA 94116 City/State/Zip: __________________ _ Telephone: 415-830- Number to be called when

1502 documents are available or to clarify request

9 AM- 9 (Indicate times when you can PM be contacted)

Subject or Item Requested: (Please be as specific as possible) All communications between Chesa Boudin/the Boudin transition team and/or their agents, and employees in the Public Defenders' office and/or their agents, regarding District Attorney's Office firings of Linda Allen, Michael Swart, Ana Gonzalez, Todd Barrett, Kara Lacy, Tom Ostly, Craig Menchin, et.al., or other District Attorney's Office personnel matters, to include emails, phone records, texts, letters, memos and written communications, including meeting/telcom notes, whether communicated by public or private telephones/smartphones/computers/laptops or through other means, between January 1, 2019 and January 26, 2020. In addition, all communications (including emails and texts) during the same time period as above between the same parties as above, asking Boudin to take any action or inaction if elected, or after he was elected.

_X__ I want to see the records. Please call me at the above phone number when the records are ready for viewing. Do not make copies on my behalf. I will review the documents first and then indicate those documents I wish copied.

_X__ I want copies of the pages in the records that I have marked. I want the entire records copied. I want the information mailed fo the address

above. _X__ If paymentis required before releasing copies,

please let me know

*Immediate Disclosure Requests: (Requests satisfied no later than the close of business on the day following the day of the request.) This deadline shall apply only if the words "Immediate Disclosure Request" are placed across the top of the request and on the envelope, subject line, or cover sheet in which the request is transmitted.

P1989

Burke, Rob n (DAT)

From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Get putlook for iOS

District Attorney, (DAT) Friday, Janua1y 17, 2020 7:49 PM Clendinen, Eugene (DAT) Fwd: Thomas Ostly 011720 PreseivationltrToDA.pdf

From: Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 3:19:28 PM To: District Attorney, (DAT) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Thomas Ostly


Good afternoon,

This email is to confirm Shane K. Anderies' representation of Thomas Ostly in the above referenced matter. Please direct any and all communication to our office.

Attached please find our evidence preservation letter. We thank you for your anticipated cooperation regarding the items outlined in this letter.

Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached or anything else related to Mr. Ostly's matter, please feel free to contact our office. My contact information is below, and Mr. Anderies can be reached at ext. 8805 or [email protected].

Thank you,

Nicole S. Mitchell, Paralegal Anderies & Gomes LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 888 San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 217-8802 ext. 8806 F: (415) 217-8803 \V\VW.andgolaw.com

1

P1990

Burke, Rob n (DAT)

From: Sent:

Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]> Friday, January 17, 2020 3:19 PM

To: Cc:

Subject: Attachments:

District Attorney, (DAD [email protected] Thomas Ostly 011720 PreservationltrToDA.pdf


Good afternoon,

This email is to confirm Shane K. Anderies' representation of Thomas Ostly in the above referenced matter. Please direct any and all communication to our office.

Attached please find our evidence preservation letter. We thank you for your anticipated cooperation regarding the items outlined in this letter.

Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached or anything else related to Mr. Ostly's matter1 please feel free to contact our office. My contact information is below, and Mr. Anderies can be reached at ext. 8805 or ~.<[email protected].

Thank you,

Nicole S. Ivlitchell, Paralegal Anderies & Gomes LLP 601 Montgome1y Street, Suite 888 San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 217-8802 ext. 8806 F: (415) 217-8803 W\VW.andgolaw.com

2

P1 991

Burke, Rob n (DAT)

From:

Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

Categories:

Frank Noto <[email protected]> Sunday, January 26, 2020 11 :46 AM District Attorney, (DAD Immediate Disclosure Public Records Request FOIA Chesa Boudin DA.docx

Follow up Completed

Blue category


Please forward this request to the Custodian of Public Records for the District Attorney's Office.

Thank you,

Frank Noto

3

P1992

Burke, Rob n (DAT)

From: Sent:

Nicole Mitchell <[email protected]> Tuesday, February 4, 2020 2:55 PM

To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Importance:

Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

Categories:

District Attorney, (DAT) [email protected] Thomas Ostly PubRecsReq-SFDAO.pdf

High

Follow up Completed

Blue category


Good afternoon,

Please find the attached public records request regarding Thomas Ostly and you/your office.

Thank you!

Nicole S. Mitchell, Paralegal Anderies & Gomes LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 888 San Francisco, CA 94111 T: (415) 217-8802 ext. 8806 F: (415) 217-8803 \:Vww.andgolaw.com

4

P1993

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)

From: Sent: To:

Subject:

SOTF, (BOS) Friday, May 21, 2021 12:40 PM 'cjkohrs'; Youngblood, Stacy (POL); Maya Zubkovskaya; Lim, Victor (DEM); [email protected]; Nicole Mitchell; Marshall, Rachel (DAT); Burke, Robyn (DAT); 'sfneighborhoods.net'; Thompson, Marianne (ECN); Heckel, Hank (MYR); 'SGM'; Wisinski, Ted (HRD) SOTF - Compliance and Amendments Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 05/25/21 Meeting - Agenda and Packet Online

Good Afternoon:

The agenda and packet for the Compliance and Amendments Committee meeting of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force May 25, 20214:30 p.m. meeting is online at the following link:

https://sfgov.org/sunshine/sites/default/files/cac052521 agenda.pdf





Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.


I (BOS)

SOTF, (BOS)

Tuesday, June 30, 2020 10:04 AM

Bastian, Alex (DAT); Boudin, Chesa (DAT)

'Nicole Mitchell'; [email protected]

Attachments: SOTF - Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force File No. 20079

SOTF - Complaint Procedure 2019-10-02 FINAL.pdf; 20079 Complaint.pdf

Good Morning:

The District Attorney's Office has been named as a Respondent in the attached complaint filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please respond to the attached complaint/request within five business days.

The Respondent is required to submit a written response to the allegations including any and all supporting documents, recordings, electronic media, etc., to the Task Force within five (5) business days of receipt of this notice. This is yo ill opportunity to provide a full explanation to allow the Task Force to be fully informed in considering your response prior its meeting.



2. Date the relevant records were provided to the Complainant. 3. Description of the method used, along with any relevant search terms used, to seaxch for the relevant

records. 4 .. Statement/declaration that all relevant documents have been provided, does not exist, or has been

excluded. 5. Copy of the original request for records (if applicable).



Cheryl Leger

Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors

Tel: 415-554-7724

@

~@ Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.


Disc/osures: Personal information that.is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors-is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying Information when they communicate with the Board.of Supervisors and its committees. Ali written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be mode available to ail members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a m"ember of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

P-1 9 9 5

I (BOS)

From: Sent: To:

Subject:

SOTF, (BOS) Tuesday, August 18, 2020 4:22 PM [email protected]; Heckel, Hank (MYR); Elsbernd, Sean (MYR); Povyer, Andres (MYR); Cretan, Jeff (MYR); Bruss, Andrea (MYR); Kittler, Sophi.a (MYR); [email protected]; Cote, John (CAT); City Attorney (CAT); 84603-91115102 @requests.muckrock.com; Miyamoto, Paul (SHF); Quanico, James (SHF); DIETTERLE,

. COLLEEN (CAT); FEITELBERG, BRITTANY (CAT); pmonette-shaw; [email protected]; Walton, Shamann (BOS); Gee, Natalie (BOS); Maybaum, Erica (BOS); [email protected]; Cote, John (CAT); COOLBRITH, ELIZABETH (CAT); CityAttorney (CAT)) [email protected]; Office of Canhabis (ADM); MICHAEL PETRELIS; 84960-47105337 @requests.muckrock.com; Lim1 Victor (DEM); Zamora, Francis (DEM); Hart1 Amy (ADM); Breed, Mayor London (MYR); Kositsky, Jeff (DEM); Rosenfield, Ben (CON); Forbes, Elaine (PRT); 'Murase, Emily (WOM)'; Colfax1 Grant (DPH); Nicholson, Jeanine (FIR); Torres, Joaquin (ECN); Arntz1 John (REG); Raju, Manohar (PDR); Lambert, Michael (LIB); Callahan, Micki (HRD); Rhorer, Trent (HSA); Rydstrom, Todd (CON); 'Wirowek, Christopher (ADM)'; Quesada, Amy (PRT); 'Murase, Emily (WOM)'; Ludwig, Theresa (FIR); Thompson, Marianne (ECN); Vu, Tyler (PDR); McHale, Maggie (HRD); Rudakov, Vladimir (HSA); [email protected]; 83843-754687 [email protected]; [email protected]; Vien, Veronica (DPH); lizamurawski@yahoo'.com; Lambert, Michael (LIB); 87732-85704646 @requests.muckrock.com; Elsbernd, Sean (MYR); Rosenstein, Diana .(DPA); Henderson, Paul (DPA); Taylor, Damali (POL); Elias, Cindy (POL); Hamasaki, John (POL); Brookter, Dion-Jay (POL); DeJesus, Pe:tra (POL); Youngblood, Stacy (POL); Zach; MICHAEL PETRELIS; [email protected]; Patterson, Kate (LIB); Malhi, Mohanned (DPH); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lin-Wilson, Tiffany (REC); Tucker, John (FIR); [email protected]; [email protected]; Nicole Mitchell; Boudin, Chesa (DAT); Bastian, Alex (DAT); 94375-24579709 @requests.muckrock.com; Kositsky, Jeff (DEM); 88337-02999056 @requests.muckrock.com; Rosenfield, Ben (CON); Rydstrom, Todd (CON); [email protected]; [email protected];

· [email protected]; Kelly, Jr, Harlan (PUC); Public Records; Yip, Kesinee (PUC); Youngblood, Stacy (POL); [email protected]; Mahogany, Honey (BOS); Mcdonald, Courtney (BOS); RivamonteMesa, Abigail (BOS); Haney, Matt (BOS);

· Zou, Han (BOS); Beinart, Amy (BOS); Lerma, Santiago (BOS); Monge, Paul (BOS); Ronen, Hillary; Quan, Daisy (BOS); Wong, Alan (BOS); Wright, Edward (BOS); Mar, Gordon (BOS); Maxine Doogan; Vien, Veronica (DPH); San Francisco Living Wage; Kelly, Naomi (ADM); Thompson, Mari.anne (ECN); Davis, Sheryl (HRC); Maria Schulman; chris roberts; Amanda Ashton; Doug Yake~ (AIR); Tanenberg, Diedre (ENV); Sheehan, Charles (ENV) SOTF - Request for Waiver of 45 day Rule

Dear SOTF Petitioners, Respondents and other Stakeholders:

As you most likely know SOTF operations have been delayed over the last few months due to the Covid-19 emergency. The SOTF have started to conduct remote meeti.ngs via videoconference and are working to establish procedures to resume all operations including the pro(:essing of complaints.

1 >-{

P1996

While the Sunshine Ordinance requires that certain actions be taken within 45 days, the Covid-19 emergency has forced delays and immense new backlogs for complaint hearings: We write today to ask if you are willing to waive the 45 day rule for your complaint.

The SOTF intends to resume hearing complaints on a limited basis and complaints will be queued to be heard in the near future. We continue to work to address technical issues posed by remote meetings. We are aware of the time sensitivity of your records requests. Please be assured thatthe SOTF appreciates the urgency of your matters and the importance of handling them in a timely manner.

If you have further questions about your files or have other issues, please feel free to email the SOTF Administrator at the email below.


~ «'2 Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors· customer Service Satisfaction form.


Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying'information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

P1997

I (BOS)

From: Sent: To:

.SOTF1 (BOS) Wednesday, March 3, 2021 10:04 AM . [email protected]; Lambert, Michael (LIB); Patterson1 Kate (LIB); Shaub1 Margot (LIB); Vien, Veronica (DPH); [email protected]; [email protected]; LinWilson1 Tiffany (REC); [email protected]; Tucker, John (FIR); [email protected]; Nicole Mitchell;' Marshall, Rachel (DAT); Bastian1 Alex (DAT); Campos, David (DAT)

Subject: SOTF·- Notice of Appearance - Complaint Committee: March 161 2021 5:30 p.m.

Good Morning:

Notice 1s hereby given that the Complaint Committee (Committee) of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (Task Force) shall-hold hearings on complaints listed below to: 1) determine if the Task Force hasjmisdiction; 2) review the merits of the complaints; and/or 3) issue a report and/or recommendation to the Task Force.

Date: March 16, 2021

Location: Remote Meeting

Time: 5:30 p.m.


Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67 .21 ( e) of the Ordinance, the custodian ofrecords or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.

Complaints:

File No. 20068: Complaint filed by James Chaffee against the Library Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67 .14 by failing to make audio

· recordings available on the website, 67.21 by failing to respond to a records request in a timely manner and 67 .29 by failing to maintain the Library Commission website.

. .

File No. 20073: Complaint filed by Jud Buechler against the Department of Public Health for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 20077: Complaint filed by Tom Borden against Recreation and Parks Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, by failing to respond to a public

. records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 20078: Complaint filed by Jared Cooper against John Tucker and the Fire Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.25, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. ·

File No. 20079: Complaint filed by Shane Anderies against District Attorney's Office and Chesa Boudin for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.2l(e) by failing

P1998

to respond to a records request in a timely and/or complete mrumer; 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request'in a timely and/or complete manner; .67.26 by failing to keep withholding to a minimum ru1d 67 .27 by failing to provide justification for withholding responsive documents.


For a doci.lment to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing. For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, March 11, 2021.

Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Boru·d of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724

@" M@ Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.


Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to discl.osure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to 'provide personal identifying information when they communicate ·with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications ·that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings ·will be niade available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any informationfi,om these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees---may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or'in.other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

P1999

Leger, Cheryl (BOS)

From: Sent: To:

SOTF, (BOS)

Tuesday, April 27, 2021 2:09 PM '[email protected]'; Henderson, Paul (DPA); Polk, Mary (DPA);

Wargo-Wilson, Stephanie (DPA); Rosenstein, Diana (DPA); Heckel, Hank (MYR); 'Anonymous'; '[email protected]'; Lin-Wilson, Tiffany (REC); [email protected]; Nicole Mitchell; Boudin, Chesa (DAT); Marshall, Rachel (DAT); 'San Francisco Living Wage'; '[email protected]'; Shaub, Margot (LIB); Ghirarduzzi, Mary (LIB)

Subject: SOTF - Notice of Appearance, May 5, 2021 - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force; 4:00 PM; Remote Meeting

Attachments: SOTF - Complaint Procedure 2019-10-02 FINAL.pdf

Good Afternoon:

You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in the following complaints scheduled before the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a detennination; and/or 3) consider refeITals from a Task Force Committee.

Date: May 5, 2021

Location: Remote Meeting

Time: 4:00 p.m.



Complaints:

File No. 19144: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Depaiiment of Police Accountability, Paul Henderson, Diana Rosenstein, Stephanie Wargo-Wilson, and Mary Polk for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections, 67.21, 67.24, 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to assist in a timely or complete manner, failing to cite lawful justification for exemption, failing to key redactions by footnotes or other clear references to justifications, and failing to withhold the minimal p01iion of records.

File No. 20033: Complaint filed by Anonymous against London Breed for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.29-5 by failing to keep or cause to be kept a compliant Prop G calendar.

File No. 20077: Complaint filed by Tom Borden against Recreation and Parks Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

P2boo

File No. 20079: Complaint filed by Shane Anderies against District Attorney's Office and Chesa Boudin for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(e) failing io respond to a records request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.26 withholding kept to a minimum and 67.27 failing to provide justification for withholding responsive documents.

File No. 20092: Complaint filed by Karl Kramer against the Department of Recreation and Parks for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67 .21 by failing to respond to a records request in a timely and/or complete manner. ·

File No. 20082: Complaint filed by Library Users Association against the Library Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67 .15 by failing to allow participation in public comment during a remote Library Commission meeting.

For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure).

For inclusion in the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, April 29, 2021.

Chery 1 Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724



Cheryl Leger

Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information ji-om these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors ·website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724

Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction fonn.

From: Sent: To: Subject:

I (BOS)

[email protected] Friday, April 30, 2021 11 :53 AM SOTF, (BOS)

Automatic reply: SOTF - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 05/05/21 Meeting - Agenda and Packet Online


I am out currently of the office with limited access to email and voicemail. If you need immediate assistance, please contact Nicole Mitchell at [email protected] or ( 415) 85 8-6431. Thank you for your patience.

Shane K. Anderies, Esq. Anderies & Gomes LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Fl. 11 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 458-2738 www.andgolaw.com

I (BOS)

From: Sent: To:

Subject:

Attachments:

SOTF, (BOS)

·Monday, May 10, 2021 4:31 PM '[email protected]'; Rosenstein, Diana (DPA); Henderson, Paul (DPA); Maunder, Sara (DPA); 'Stiliyan Bejanski'; lonin, Jonas (CPC); Maya Zubkovskaya; Kositsky, Jeff (DEM); [email protected]; Nicole Mitchell; Burke, Robyn (DAT); Guy, Kevin (CPC); Thompson, Marianne (ECN); 'sfneighborhoods.net'; 'SGM'; Wisinski, Ted (HRD) SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Compliance and Amendments Committee; April 27, 2021

4:30 p.m. SOTF - Complaint Procedure 2019-10-02 FINAL.pdf

Good Evening:

You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Compliance and Amendments Committee to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.

Date: May 25, 2021


Time: 4:30 p.m.



Complaints:

1. File No. 20108: Complaint filed by E.J. White against the Department of Police Accountability for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

2. File No. 20117: Complaint filed by Stephen Bejanski against Jonis Ionin and the Planning Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, by failing to provide public records; 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, 67.26 by failing to keep withholding to a minimum; 67.27 by failing to justify withholding and 67.29 by failing to provide an index ofrecords.

3. File No. 20123: Complaint filed by Maya Zubkovskaya against the Department of Emergency Management for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24(d)(2), by failing to disclose certain portions of law enforcement info1mation.

4. File No. 20079: Complaint filed by Shane Anderies against District Attorney's Office and Chesa Boudin for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67 .21 ( e) failing to respond to a records request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.26 withholding kept to a minimum and 67.27 failing to provide justification for withholding responsive documents.

5. File No. 20124: Complaint filed by Stephen Bejanski against Kevin Guy and the Office of Short-Term Rentals for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67 .24 by failing to provide public information; 67 .25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, 67.26 by failing to keep withholding to a minimum; 67.27 by failing to justify withholding and 67.29 and by failing to provide an index ofrecords.

6. ·File No. 20134: Complaint filed by Mark Sullivan against the Office of Economic and Workforce Development for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a·timely and/or complete manner.

7. File No. 19140: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the Department of Human Resources for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.


For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (2) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure). For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, May 20, 2021.




Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in cumrnunications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redact;ed. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifj;ing information when they communicate with the Board of Supe7'visors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all me.mbers of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any informationfi'om these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

Leger, Cher I {BOS)

From: To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Good Morning:

SOTF, (BOS)

SGM; Wisinski, Ted (HRD); Pera, Arran (POL); Anonymous Records Requester; [email protected]; Scott, William (POL); 81412-71801448 @requests.muckrock.com; [email protected]; Henderson, Paul (DPA); Rosenstein, Diana (DPA); 76435-9391511 [email protected]; [email protected];

www.doloresgbd.org/contact; Goldberg, Jonathan (DPW); [email protected]; [email protected]; Nicole Mitchell; Burke, Robyn (DAT); Boudin, Chesa (DAT) SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Compliance and Amendments Committee; June 22, 2021 4:30 p.m. SOTF - Complaint Procedure 2019-10-02 FINAL.pdf

You are receiving this notice .because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Compliance and Amendments Committee to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee.

Date: June 22, 2021

Location: Remote meeting; participant information to be included on the Agenda .

Time: 4:30 p.m.


Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.

Complaints:

File No. 19140: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the Depmiment of Human Resources for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19124: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Chief William Scott and Lt. R. Andrew Cox and the Police Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.25, 67.26, 67.27, by failing to by failing to assist in a timely or complete manner, by failing to provide a timely or complete response to a records request, by failing to provide rolling responses, by failing to withhold the minimal portion of public records, and by failing by provide written justification for withholding.

' . File No. 19112: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Chief William Scott and Lt. R. Andrew Cox and the Police Department for violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.25, 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to justify withholding of records and failing to maintain a Proposition G calendar.

1 P2006

File No. 20108: Complaint filed by E.J. White against the Department of Police Accountability for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 19098: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Police Department for violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67 .21 (b ), by failing to provide copies of electronic records by printing and scanning them instead; 67 .21 (k) by failing to search for all personally held public records within the scope of City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017); Section 67.26 by withholding partial text message records namely the To and From of each message and also by withholding all email metadata namely email headers, and Section 67.27 by failing to key each redaction with a footnote or other clear reference to a justification.

2 P2007

File No. 18086: Hearing regarding request for reconsideration. Compliant filed by Mark Sullivan against the Mission Dolores Green Benefit District Formation Committee for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.14, by failing to allow video and audio recording filming and still photography of a policy body.

File No. 20079: Complaint filed by Shane Anderies against District Attorney's Office and Chesa Boudin for violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67 .21 ( e) failing to respond to a records request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner; 67.26 withholding kept to a minimum and 67.27 failing to provide justification for withholding responsive documents.


For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure). For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, June 17, 2021.

Chery 1 Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724


The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived niatters since August 1998.

Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Ni embers of the public are not required to provide personal identifj!fng information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and r;opying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any ir1formation fi·om these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public docwnents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

3 P2008

From: Sent: To: Subject:

I (BOS)

[email protected] Wednesday, June 2, 2021 10:51 AM SOTF, (BOS)

Automatic reply: SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Compliance and Amendments Committee; June 22, 2021 4:30 p.m.


I am out currently of the office with limited access to email and voicemail. If you need immediate assistance, please contact Nicole Mitchell at [email protected] or ( 415) 85 8-6431. Thank you for your patience.

Shane K. Anderies, Esq. Anderies & Gomes LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Fl. 11 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 458-2738 www.andgolaw.com

1 P2009