Transcript
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
1/26
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
DEPARTMENT 65 BEFORE HON. JOAN M. LEWIS, JUDGE_______________________________)
MELVIN SHAPIRO, ))
PLAINTIFF, ))
VS. ) CASE NO. 37-2010-00094276-) CU-JR-CTL
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, ))
DEFENDANT. ) MOTION HEARING_______________________________)
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
MAY 6, 2011
(PAGES 1 THROUGH 24, INCLUSIVE)
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG A. SHERMANBY: CRAIG A. SHERMAN, ESQ.1901 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 335SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
FOR THE DEFENDANT: OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO CITY ATTORNEYBY: JOSEPH L. ALLEN, ESQ.BY: PAUL F. PRATHER, ESQ.1200 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1100
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
RINDY M. ORMROD, CSR NO. 6278OFFICIAL REPORTER
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
2/26
1
1 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA,SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA,SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA,SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, FRIDAYFRIDAYFRIDAYFRIDAY,,,, MAYMAYMAYMAY 6666, 2011, 2011, 2011, 2011
2 9:17 A.M.9:17 A.M.9:17 A.M.9:17 A.M.
3
4 THE COURT: SHAPIRO VS. THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO.
5 MR. SHERMAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. CRAIG
6 SHERMAN FOR PLAINTIFF MELVIN SHAPIRO.
7 MR. ALLEN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. JOE ALLEN AND
8 PAUL PRATHER FOR THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO.
9 THE COURT: I'M SURE MY TENTATIVE WAS MORE QUESTIONS
10 OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO,
11 BUT I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU, MR. ALLEN. I KNOW YOU WANTED
12 TO ADDRESS THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE RULING.
13 MR. ALLEN: YES, YOUR HONOR. I WON'T GO THROUGH THE
14 BRIEFINGS AGAIN, AND I REALIZED AFTER LOOKING AT THEM
15 AGAIN THIS MORNING THAT I DON'T THINK I DID THE WHOLE
16 ISSUE JUSTICE AND I ENGAGED IN A TIT FOR TAT, AND I DON'T
17 THINK I ADEQUATELY BRIEFED TO YOUR HONOR THE BROADER ISSUE
18 THAT MAKES YOUR REVIEW OF THESE THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS
19 UNNECESSARY.
20 THE COURT: THOUSANDS? DID YOU JUST SAY THOUSANDS?
21 MR. ALLEN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
22 THE COURT: THE 66 FILES EQUATE TO ABOUT 1,000
23 DOCUMENTS.
24 MR. ALLEN: WE HAVE AN ESTIMATE, MAYBE 1500 TO 2,000
25 PAGES. BUT THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE, YOUR HONOR, IS
26 THAT THE MOTION WAS TENTATIVELY GRANTED UNDER 6259 WHERE
27 IT GIVES YOUR HONOR THE DISCRETION TO ORDER THIS IN-CAMERA
28 REVIEW IF YOU THINK THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE IMPROPERLY
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
3/26
2
1 WITHHELD.
2 WE'RE ARGUING THAT THEY'RE NOT IMPROPERLY
3 WITHHELD, BUT IT DOESN'T EVEN ENGAGE IN THE P.R.A.
4 GOVERNMENT CODE BECAUSE JUST RECENTLY THE STATE OF
5 CALIFORNIA ENACTED THE STATUTE 53087.6 SPECIFICALLY
6 CARVING OUT HOTLINES FROM DISCLOSURE, AND IT WAS ENACTED
7 IN LIGHT OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. THAT'S WHY WE
8 PROVIDED THE STATE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY BECAUSE IT WAS ALL
9 CONTEMPLATED WHAT DOES THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT DO IN LIGHT
10 OF THESE HOTLINES?
11 WHAT THE STATE AND THE CITIES AND COUNTIES WERE
12 PRESENTED WITH IS THIS DILEMMA: WHEN PEOPLE REPORT
13 PROBLEMS TO THE GOVERNMENT, IT'S ALL PUBLIC BUSINESS, AND
14 THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT HAS THIS EXPOSED EVERYWHERE, AND
15 THE STATE REALIZED THAT, YOU KNOW, EVEN WITH ALL OUR
16 AVENUES OF REPORTING, THERE'S STILL A CHILLING EFFECT ON
17 MANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND A LOT OF BIG ITEMS ARE
18 NEVER BEING REPORTED BECAUSE INDIVIDUALS FEEL THEY DON'T
19 WANT ANY LIGHT EVER SHED ON THIS ISSUE; THEY JUST WANT THE
20 GOVERNMENT TO TAKE CARE OF IT AND NOT HAVE LIGHT UPON IT.
21 SO THE STATE LEGISLATURE REVIEWED THAT. THEY
22 RECOGNIZED THERE CAN BE PROBLEMS HAVING A CONFIDENTIAL
23 REPORTING AVENUE, BUT IN WEIGHING THE ISSUES, THEY SAID,
24 "WELL, THERE'S IMPORTANT THINGS THAT ARE NEVER GETTING
25 REPORTED AND NEVER BEING INVESTIGATED BY THE U.S.
26 ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, THE CITY
27 ATTORNEY'S OFFICES, THE ETHICS COMMISSIONS. ALL THESE
28 ENTITIES ARE NOT HEARING THESE COMPLAINTS BECAUSE THERE'S
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
4/26
3
1 A CHILLING EFFECT ON THE PUBLIC. THERE'S NO CONFIDENTIAL
2 AVENUE THAT PROTECTS THEM.
3 SO THEY SPECIFICALLY CARVED THIS OUT AND MADE
4 53087.6 ADDRESS HOTLINES IF -- IF A JURISDICTION WANTS TO
5 ENGAGE AND SET UP A HOTLINE, IT HAS THESE PROTECTIONS, AND
6 IT'S NOT -- THESE PROTECTIONS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO
7 EVERYONE. IT HAS TO BE AN ELECTED AUDITOR.
8 OR IF A JURISDICTION DOES NOT HAVE AN ELECTED
9 OFFICIAL, LIKE WE DON'T HERE IN SAN DIEGO -- IT'S AN
10 APPOINTED AUDITOR -- THEN THE ELECTED OFFICIALS GOVERNING
11 THIS JURISDICTION, WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN DIEGO,
12 THEY HAVE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION, "OKAY. WE HAVE THIS
13 PROBLEM. THERE'S SOME REPORTS WE'RE NOT RECEIVING. MAYBE
14 WE SHOULD CARVE OUT A CONFIDENTIAL REPORTING AVENUE EVEN
15 THOUGH WE RECOGNIZE THERE'S A DANGER BECAUSE IT'S NOT OPEN
16 TO THE PUBLIC."
17 THEY WEIGH THIS AND THE CITY COUNCIL HERE IN
18 SAN DIEGO SAID, "OKAY. LET'S SET UP A HOTLINE. AUDITOR,
19 YOU CAN RUN IT." NOW, THAT AUDITOR HAS THIS EXECUTIVE
20 DISCRETION NOW TO RECEIVE THESE COMPLAINTS AND INVESTIGATE
21 THEM, AND THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY PROTECTED UNDER 53087.6.
22 I HAVE ANOTHER COPY FOR YOUR HONOR IF YOU WOULD
23 LIKE IT NOW.
24 (PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)
25 MR. ALLEN: ITEM "A" LAYS OUT THAT IT'S NOT ANYBODY,
26 IT'S AN ELECTED OFFICIAL OR THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF THE
27 JURISDICTION HAS TO AWARD IT. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT
28 LANGUAGE PERHAPS IS "E," WHICH IS ON THE SECOND PAGE OF
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
5/26
4
1 WHAT I PROVIDED.
2 IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT -- IT'S THE SECOND
3 SENTENCE. IT BEGINS "THIS DIRECTION." AND THE ONLY
4 COMMANDMENT IS THAT THIS INFORMATION SHALL BE KEPT
5 CONFIDENTIAL. THAT'S THE ONLY COMMANDMENT. EVERYTHING
6 ELSE IS DISCRETIONARY.
7 THE PARAGRAPH ENDS -- OR THAT SENTENCE ENDS WITH
8 "UNLESS" -- I'M SORRY. I'M BACK TO "E," AND -- I'VE GOT A
9 DIFFERENT COPY.
10 BUT THE INFORMATION SHALL BE DISCLOSED UNLESS --
11 HERE WE GO. NOW I'VE GOT THE SAME ONE AS YOU. DID I
12 ACTUALLY GIVE YOU 53087.6 OR WAS THAT 6259? I APOLOGIZE.
13 THE COURT: NO, I HAVE 53087.6.
14 MR. ALLEN: OKAY. GOOD. SO IN (E)(2), "THE
15 INVESTIGATIVE AUDIT CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION
16 SHALL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL EXCEPT TO ISSUE ANY REPORT OF
17 AN INVESTIGATION THAT HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIATED OR RELEASE
18 ANY FINDINGS FROM A CONDUCTED INVESTIGATION THAT" -- AND
19 THIS IS THE SAME SENTENCE -- "THAT IS DEEMED NECESSARY TO
20 SERVE THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC."
21 NOW, THIS LANGUAGE IS SPECIFICALLY IN CONTRAST
22 TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT, AND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT,
23 IT SAID THE BURDEN IS ON THE WITHHOLDING AGENCY TO SHOW
24 THAT THEIR WITHHOLDING OUTWEIGHS THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
25 THERE'S A BURDEN ON THE WITHHOLDING GOVERNMENT AGENCY.
26 THAT'S NOT SO IN 53087.6. THIS IS WHAT THE
27 LEGISLATURE DID: THEY SAID, "NO, THAT DISCRETION IS UP TO
28 THE AUDITOR. WE'RE CARVING OUT THIS EXECUTIVE DISCRETION
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
6/26
5
1 TO DEEM IT NECESSARY OR NOT." AND IF THE PUBLIC DOESN'T
2 LIKE IT, THEY BOOT THE GUY OUT.
3 BUT WE'RE ALLOWING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND
4 THE GOVERNING JURISDICTIONS IN THE STATE TO SET UP THIS
5 SPECIAL PROCEDURE IF THEY THINK IT'S NECESSARY IN THEIR
6 TOWN, AND THE CITY COUNCIL HERE IN SAN DIEGO THOUGHT THAT
7 WAS NECESSARY, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE OPEN CITY COUNCIL
8 MEETINGS, WE HAVE AN ETHICS COMMISSION, WE HAVE THE D.A.,
9 THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,
10 THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT INVESTIGATIVE OFFICE, CODE
11 ENFORCEMENT DIVISION.
12 WE HAVE ALL THESE AVENUES THAT PEOPLE CAN REPORT
13 PROBLEMS, BUT IF PEOPLE STILL FEEL SCARED TO DO THAT, THEY
14 NOW HAVE A SPECIAL HOTLINE AND THEY CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE
15 THAT IF THEY ENGAGE THAT SPECIAL PROCESS, PEOPLE AREN'T
16 GOING TO HEAR ABOUT IT; THE AUDITOR HAS BEEN GIVEN
17 DISCRETION TO WORK THAT PROCESS.
18 SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT IN THAT BROAD LIGHT AND
19 UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY, YOU REALIZE THAT WE'RE NOT EVEN
20 BEFORE YOU UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. THIS NEW STATUTE
21 WAS CREATED JUST A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WITH THE PUBLIC
22 RECORDS ACT IN MIND SPECIFICALLY, AND THEY CARVED IT OUT,
23 AND THAT'S OUR ARGUMENT.
24 MR. SHERMAN: YOUR HONOR, IT DOESN'T QUITE ADDRESS
25 WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THE TENTATIVE, BUT WITH REGARDS TO
26 THE CODE, THE PARADIGM, THE STATUTORY INTENT, I'LL
27 RESPOND.
28 I BELIEVE IT'S QUITE THE OVERSIMPLIFICATION AND
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
7/26
6
1 THE GENERAL POLICY PURPOSES OF SORT OF WHAT A HOTLINE IS
2 AND MAYBE SOME OF THE GENERICS AND GENERALITIES OF HOW IT
3 FUNCTIONS AND WHAT IT'S INTENDED TO DO AND WHO IT'S TO
4 PROTECT.
5 THE CODE THAT COUNSEL REFERS TO, 53087.6, IS
6 SPECIFICALLY TO PROTECT THE IDENTITIES OF THE REPORTER.
7 IF YOU LOOK AT THE CODE, IT TALKS ABOUT IDENTITIES,
8 IDENTITIES, IDENTITIES.
9 THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THEY PROVIDE WAS IN
10 RESPONSE TO A THIRD PARTY MAKING A REQUEST TO SEEK THE
11 IDENTITY OF A COMPLAINT THROUGH A THIRD-PARTY AGENCY.
12 IT'S, LIKE, "WELL, WE NEED TO TIGHTEN THIS UP BECAUSE THE
13 REPORTERS NEED TO BE PROTECTED." THAT'S TRADITIONALLY
14 WHAT HOTLINES HAVE BEEN.
15 THE COURT: BUT (E)(2) TALKS ABOUT MORE THAN JUST THE
16 IDENTITY.
17 MR. SHERMAN: CORRECT. SO THEN IT'S GOING ON TO TALK
18 ABOUT THE INVESTIGATIVE AUDIT. THAT'S THE INVESTIGATIVE
19 INVESTIGATION FILES WHILE THE INVESTIGATION IS BEING
20 CONDUCTED. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, IT REQUIRES THAT
21 WHEN REPORTS -- WHEN INVESTIGATIONS ARE MADE THAT ARE
22 FOUND SUBSTANTIAL, THEY MUST REPORT, SO THAT'S MANDATORY,
23 AND I BELIEVE THE CITY ADMITS THAT. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT
24 THERE'S A SUBSTANTIATED REPORT, THE AUDITOR MUST ISSUE A
25 REPORT.
26 WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT IS NONAUDITOR
27 INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS FOR WHICH IT WAS REFERRED TO CITY
28 DEPARTMENTS AND FOR WHICH THE CITY ADMITS, AND WE BRIEFED
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
8/26
7
1 IT AND QUOTED IT A NUMBER OF TIMES, THE CITY
2 DEPARTMENTS -- THOSE REFERRED MATTERS NEVER GET REPORTED.
3 THEY DO NOT ISSUE REPORTS FOR CITY REFERRED
4 INVESTIGATIONS.
5 SO THERE'S TWO THINGS GOING ON HERE: ONE IS
6 THERE'S THIS BLACK HOLE FOR WHICH REPORTED MATTERS, EVEN
7 SUBSTANTIATED, WOULD NEVER GET REPORTED. SO THEY'RE NOT
8 FOLLOWING THE PARADIGM IN THE CODE, THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF IT.
9 THAT'S NO. 1.
10 NO. 2, THESE ARE NONAUDITOR INVESTIGATIONS.
11 THEY'RE SORT OF, YOU KNOW, THE CHICKEN'S GUARDING
12 THE HENHOUSE -- OR THE FOX IS GUARDING THE HENHOUSE,
13 WHATEVER THE ANALOGY IS. DEPARTMENTS ARE REPORTED OF
14 DOING SOMETHING WRONG, THE AUDITOR'S NOT INVESTIGATING IT,
15 IT'S BOUNCING IT TO THE DEPARTMENT SAYING, "INVESTIGATE
16 YOURSELF. REPORT BACK TO US." SO THERE'S THIS DISCONNECT
17 OF WHAT THE AUDITOR PARADIGM WAS SET UP TO DO. IT'S AN
18 INDEPENDENT AGENCY TO INVESTIGATE FRAUD AND WASTE IN
19 DEPARTMENTS FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING IN A WRONG WAY, AND
20 HERE THERE'S THIS BLACK HOLE; THEY'RE NEVER REPORTED ON.
21 THE CITY, IN ITS RESPONSE TO MY CLIENT'S
22 REQUEST, IS EVERYTHING UNDER HOTLINE PROGRAM FOREVER, FROM
23 START TO FINISH, IS JUST BLANKET OFF LIMITS, AND THAT'S
24 NOT WHAT IT'S ABOUT.
25 WE CAN TAKE IT FROM THE START AND WORK DOWN.
26 IT'S ALL ABOUT PROTECTING THE COMPLAINANT, THE IDENTITY OF
27 THE COMPLAINANTS, AND ALSO THE SUBJECT OF THE
28 INVESTIGATIONS. THERE'S REFERENCE TO THAT AS WELL.
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
9/26
8
1 WELL, THE FIRST THING THEY DO IS IN THE HOTLINE
2 INTAKE IS ASK THE COMPLAINANT, "DO YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN
3 CONFIDENTIALITY?" THEY MAY BE CHECKING THE BOX "NO. NO,
4 IT'S OKAY." WE DON'T KNOW. WE HAVE SUCH A BLANKET
5 RESPONSE.
6 AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE COURT'S NECESSITY
7 OF AN IN-CAMERA REVIEW IS TO SAY, "LET ME SEE" -- I MEAN,
8 IF ON THE INTAKE THE THIRD-PARTY OUTSIDE AGENCY THAT
9 ANSWERS THE PHONE AND DOES THE INTAKE, THE COMPUTER INTAKE
10 IN WHATEVER FORM, PAPER IT IS, IS THEY WAIVE
11 CONFIDENTIALITY. THIS IS ALL JUST SORT OF AN ACADEMIC
12 THEORY STUDY BECAUSE THE PURPOSE IS AND PROTECTIONS ARE
13 GONE, SO CERTAINLY THOSE ARE DISCOVERABLE UNDER THE
14 RECORDS ACT.
15 THEN WE CAN WORK OUR WAY DOWN THROUGH THE
16 NUMBER -- THERE'S EIGHT NUMBERED TYPES OF DOCUMENTS THAT
17 PLAINTIFFS HAVE DISCERNED THROUGH THE HOTLINE GUIDELINE
18 AND PROGRAM THAT ARE THERE. A NUMBER OF THOSE ARE SALIENT
19 AS WELL.
20 WELL, WHAT ABOUT THESE MATTERS THAT ARE REFERRED
21 TO CITY DEPARTMENTS AND THE CITY DEPARTMENT ISSUES A
22 REPORT BACK TO THE AUDITOR THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
23 RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS TAKEN? THAT'S CERTAINLY
24 SALIENT. BUT THERE WOULD NEVER BE A REPORT ISSUE, NO. 1.
25 PROBLEMATIC.
26 NO. 2 IS THOSE REPORTS ARE THE TYPE OF
27 DISCRETIONARY DISCLOSURES FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION, WHICH IS
28 REQUIRED IN THE BALANCING OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT, WHICH
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
10/26
9
1 IS REQUIRED. SO IT'S NOT EVEN UNDER (E)(2) EXCEPT TO
2 MATTERS THAT ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC. I MEAN, THAT'S
3 A CARVE-OUT TO SAY THERE'S IMPORTANT THINGS HERE THAT THE
4 PUBLIC WOULD BE INTERESTED IN AND IT'S NOT ABSOLUTE
5 CONFIDENTIALITY, AND THAT IS WHERE THE SECOND PRONG OF THE
6 PUBLIC RECORDS ACT COMES INTO PLAY.
7 THERE'S TWO PRONGS: ONE IS, IS THERE AN
8 EXEMPTION? OKAY. WELL, FINE. FIRST WE SEE IF THE
9 EXEMPTION IS APPLIED. IT'S APPLIED NARROWLY.
10 SECONDLY BEYOND THAT IS, WELL, IF WE GO BEYOND
11 THE NARROWLY-TAILORED -- AND THAT'S WHAT THIS WOULD BE --
12 ONE IS, OKAY, WE PROTECT THE IDENTITIES. THOSE ARE
13 ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENTIAL.
14 BUT FOR MATTERS THAT ARE DISCRETIONARY, FOR
15 MATTERS THAT CAN BE IMPORTANT PUBLIC PURPOSES IN THESE
16 REPORTS ABOUT WHAT'S THE INNER WORKINGS OF GOVERNMENT,
17 FRAUD, WASTE, ABUSE, THE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT
18 THERE MAY BE, THEN WE GO INTO THE BALANCING, AND THAT'S
19 WHY IN-CAMERA REVIEWS ARE IMPORTANT AS WELL.
20 WITH THE RESPONSE FROM THE CITY THAT NO
21 DOCUMENTS ANY TIME, ANY MATTER, NO MATTER WHAT, I DON'T
22 THINK THERE'S ANY OTHER WAY TO APPROACH IT. YOU HAVE TO
23 BE ABLE TO BALANCE, YOU KNOW, IS THE WITHHOLDING AND THE
24 PRIVACY MATTER OF SUCH A GREAT UTMOST CONCERN THAT THE
25 PUBLIC -- IN LIGHT OF THE PUBLIC WITH THE WEIGHT IN FAVOR
26 OF THE RELEASE IF POSSIBLE.
27 THEN LASTLY IS MR. SHAPIRO'S REQUESTING CLOSED
28 CASES. A LOT OF THE REASONS AND THE PROTECTIONS FOR
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
11/26
10
1 PERSONS AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE INVESTIGATIVE AUDIT AND
2 THE PROCESS IS GONE.
3 NO. 2, I THINK IT'S TELLING THAT THE CODE WAS
4 CHANGED IN 2010 FROM THE WAY COUNSEL'S READ IT AS WELL.
5 IT CURRENTLY READS IN (E)(2), "THE INVESTIGATIVE AUDIT IS
6 KEPT CONFIDENTIAL," AND WE'VE SUBMITTED THAT WE DON'T WANT
7 THE INVESTIGATIVE FILES, THE WORK PRODUCT. THAT'S OFF
8 LIMITS TO THE EXTENT THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOTES OF
9 INVESTIGATORS AND INTERNAL MEMOS FROM INVESTIGATORS AND
10 INTERVIEWS THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
11 WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THE INVESTIGATIVE AUDIT
12 FILES, WE'RE RESPECTING THAT, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT --
13 BUT IF THERE'S OTHER DOCUMENTS, PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, THAT ARE
14 PART OF THOSE FILES THAT ARE RELEASABLE AND OTHERWISE
15 AVAILABLE, THAT'S THE TYPE OF SEGREGATION THAT'S REQUIRED
16 UNDER THE CODE.
17 BUT THE SECOND PART OF (E)(2) NOW SAYS THAT
18 "THEY SHALL RELEASE ANY FINDINGS RESULTING FROM A
19 COMPLETED INVESTIGATION." IT'S NOT "CONDUCTED
20 INVESTIGATION."
21 THE COURT: WHERE ARE YOU READING THAT? I'M SORRY.
22 MR. SHERMAN: IT'S IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF (E)(2).
23 IT STARTS, "ANY INVESTIGATIVE AUDIT CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO
24 THE SUBDIVISION SHALL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL," BUT THEN
25 AFTER THIS PART, "EXCEPT AS TO ANY ISSUE OF REPORT OF
26 INVESTIGATION THAT HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIATED OR TO RELEASE
27 ANY FINDINGS RESULTING FROM A COMPLETED INVESTIGATION."
28 MY VERSION IS SHOWING A 2010 AMENDMENT THAT
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
12/26
11
1 SUBSTITUTED "CONDUCTED" FOR "COMPLETED," THAT'S BECAUSE
2 IT'S OVER, WHAT ARE THE RESULTS, THE FINDINGS, THE TYPES
3 OF THINGS THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE ABLE TO KNOW.
4 THE COURT: MR. ALLEN?
5 MR. ALLEN: YES, YOUR HONOR. I'LL JUST QUICKLY
6 ADDRESS THE POINTS HE MADE.
7 FIRST, WE DON'T AGREE -- THE CITY DOES NOT AGREE
8 THAT DISCLOSING ANY OF THESE REPORTS IS MANDATORY. THAT'S
9 NOT WHAT IT SAYS. THE ONLY MANDATORY COMPONENT IS THAT
10 THE INVESTIGATIVE AUDIT "SHALL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL," AND
11 THE CITY TAKES THAT VERY SERIOUSLY, AND SO DID THE ELECTED
12 OFFICIALS WHEN THEY DECIDED TO ENGAGE THIS STATUTE, "IT
13 SHALL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL."
14 AS OUR IN-HOUSE COUNSEL, THE ADVISORY DIVISION
15 OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WENT THROUGH THE
16 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IN ALL THESE CASES, THAT WAS THEIR
17 DETERMINATION. I HAVE MR. PAUL PRATHER, WHO IS ONE OF
18 THOSE ATTORNEYS, WITH ME. THAT'S THE MANDATE TO THE
19 JURISDICTION. THE REST IS UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE
20 AUDITOR.
21 PLAINTIFF BRINGS UP THIS ARGUMENT THAT IF THE
22 AUDITOR DECIDES TO NOT CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION
23 THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY DON'T FEEL THAT THEY HAVE THE
24 EXPERTISE TO DO THAT AND THEY ISSUE IT TO ANOTHER
25 GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY, THEN IT TAKES IT OUT OF
26 THIS 53087.6. BUT SPECIFICALLY IN 53087.6(B) IT STATES
27 THAT "THE AUDITOR OR CONTROLLER MAY REFER CALLS RECEIVED
28 ON THE WHISTLE BLOWER HOTLINE TO THE APPROPRIATE
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
13/26
12
1 GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW AND POSSIBLE
2 INVESTIGATION." SO IT KEEPS IT IN THE PURVIEW OF THIS
3 STATUTE BECAUSE IT SAYS THE AUDITOR CAN DO THAT, AND
4 THAT'S WHAT THE AUDITOR DOES IN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO.
5 AND THEN THE POINT THAT EVERYTHING IS OFF LIMITS
6 FOREVER AND NO ONE CAN EVER SEE ANYTHING -- THAT'S THE
7 POINT OF THE DISCRETION OF THE AUDITOR, AND THE ELECTED
8 OFFICIALS HAVE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION: "DO WE WANT
9 OUR AUDITOR TO HAVE THIS POWER OR NOT?" IF THEY CHOOSE TO
10 DO SO, THEN THE STATUTE SAYS THEY CAN HAVE THAT AUTHORITY
11 TO DECIDE TO KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL OR NOT.
12 AND WHAT THE CHANGE WAS RECENTLY FROM "COMPLETED
13 INVESTIGATION" TO "CONDUCTED," IT GAVE THE AUDITOR EVEN
14 MORE DISCRETION OF WHAT THEY CAN DISCLOSE IF THEY CHOOSE
15 TO DO SO. THEY CAN DO IT ON JUST CONDUCTED INVESTIGATIONS
16 AND NOT CLOSED IF THEY DEEM THAT NECESSARY, BUT IT'S STILL
17 IN THEIR DISCRETION.
18 IT'S NOT A BLACK HOLE, AND IF THE CITY WANTS TO
19 GET RID OF THIS BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE THE WAY IT'S BEING
20 CONDUCTED, THEY CAN SHUT IT DOWN AND IT WON'T EXIST. IN
21 FACT, THE ENTIRE STATUTE IS A SHADOW. EVEN THE CALLS THAT
22 ARE RECEIVED CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE TO BE INVESTIGATED AT
23 ALL, AND IF THE REPORTING PARTIES DON'T LIKE IT, THEY CAN
24 GO TO ALL THESE OTHER AVENUES, WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT POINT
25 HERE BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY DID DO THAT: HE USED
26 THE HOTLINE, DIDN'T LIKE IT, SO THEN HE WENT TO AN OPEN
27 CITY COUNCIL SESSION AND MADE THE SAME COMPLAINT, AND NOW
28 IT'S ALL PUBLIC RECORD.
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
14/26
13
1 IF HE WANTS TO MAKE A PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST
2 FOR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED OUT OF THAT PROCESS, HE'S FREE
3 TO DO SO. BUT ON THE HOTLINE, IT'S PROTECTED, AND CALLERS
4 KNOW THAT. IF A CALLER DOESN'T LIKE WHATEVER MAY HAVE
5 RESULTED, THEY HAVE PLENTY OF OTHER AVENUES THAT ARE OPEN
6 TO THE PUBLIC.
7 THE LAST POINT THAT WAS MADE -- COUNSEL STATED
8 THAT THEY DO NOT WANT THE INVESTIGATIVE FILES, WHICH IS
9 KIND OF CURIOUS TO COUNSEL HERE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY
10 REQUESTED.
11 THE COURT: WELL, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. I THOUGHT
12 THE REQUEST WAS --
13 MR. ALLEN: THAT'S WHAT WE BELIEVED ALL ALONG. THEN
14 I HEARD COUNSEL STATE THAT THEY DON'T WANT THE FILES BUT
15 PERHAPS PUBLIC DOCUMENTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE THAT
16 ARE INSIDE THE FILES. AND OUR POSITION ON THAT POINT IS
17 THAT ONCE DOCUMENTS ARE COLLECTED, SAY --
18 WELL, WE CAN TAKE THE CASE OF PLAINTIFF HIMSELF
19 WHO ASKED FOR A CERTAIN TRANSACTION ABOUT THE SALE OF CITY
20 PROPERTY. IF THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE GOES TO THE COUNTY
21 RECORDER AND GETS AN OTHERWISE PUBLICLY-AVAILABLE DOCUMENT
22 TO REVIEW WHAT THE SALE WAS AND WHAT THE APPRAISAL WAS,
23 AND THEN HE PLACES THEM IN HIS FILE, WELL, ALL THE
24 DOCUMENTS THAT HE COLLECTED TOGETHER AND PUT IN HIS FILE
25 BECOME HIS INVESTIGATIVE AUDIT. THIS IS HIS WORK PRODUCT
26 THAT THAT INVESTIGATOR IS GOING THROUGH TO MAKE THE
27 DETERMINATION.
28 THOSE ARE PROTECTED. THAT SHOWS THE AUDIT AND
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
15/26
14
1 REVEALS EVERYTHING THAT WAS DONE IN THE PROCESS, AND YOU
2 CAN EASILY DECIPHER WHAT THE COMPLAINT WAS BY THAT FILE AS
3 A WHOLE. BUT IF A CALLER HAS A CONCERN ABOUT THIS
4 OTHERWISE PUBLICLY-AVAILABLE DOCUMENT, THEY ARE FREE TO
5 MAKE A PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST TO THE TAX COLLECTOR OR
6 ANY OTHER ENTITY THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO SO, BUT IF THEY
7 WANT TO USE THE AUDITOR AS THEIR PERSONAL INVESTIGATIVE
8 SERVICE AND THEN SEE THE AUDITOR'S FILES, THEY CANNOT.
9 IT'S CARVED OUT; THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAID THEY CAN'T
10 DO IT. THEY CAN MAKE A COMPLAINT ELSEWHERE ON ANOTHER
11 PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST, AND THEN ALL OF THOSE
12 DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE.
13 THE COURT: YOU KNOW WHAT I WANT TO DO --
14 DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY,
15 MR. SHERMAN?
16 MR. SHERMAN: YES, JUST ON TWO OF THE POINTS, IF I
17 MAY.
18 THE COURT: SURE.
19 MR. SHERMAN: I MEAN, THE INVESTIGATIVE -- WITH
20 RESPECT TO THE INVESTIGATIVE AUDIT FILES, I THINK THAT'S
21 OVERLY BROAD, LUMPING THE WHOLE HOTLINE INTO ONE FILE
22 BECAUSE THERE'S THESE DISTINCT SEGREGABLE ASPECTS OF IT
23 WHICH WE'VE OUTLINED IN 1 THROUGH 8 ON PAGE 5 OF OUR
24 MOTION WITH REGARDS TO THE LODGMENT.
25 I MEAN, THERE'S THE COMPLAINT, THERE'S THE
26 INTAKE FORM, THERE'S THE TRANSMITTAL MEMO, THERE'S THE
27 FINDING REPORT MEMO. YEAH, THERE'S EVENTUALLY AN
28 INVESTIGATIVE FILE WHEN AN INVESTIGATION'S DONE, BUT THESE
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
16/26
15
1 OTHER SEGREGABLE PORTIONS --
2 MY CLIENT REQUESTED, YOU KNOW, "WHAT ARE THE
3 COMPLAINTS? WHAT ARE THE ISSUES ABOUT?" THAT'S NOT
4 IDENTITY OF A PERSON, AND THAT'S NOT IDENTITY OF THE
5 COMPLAINANT, AND WE CAN GET THOSE FROM ONE OF THE INTAKE
6 STARTING POINTS.
7 I MEAN, TO THE FACT THAT SOME OF THESE ARE SENT
8 TO THIRD-PARTY -- YOU KNOW, THE LOCAL 127, THAT TAKES IT
9 OUT OF CONFIDENTIALITY. IF THE REPORTER DOESN'T, YOU
10 KNOW, PLEDGE A REQUEST AND WAIVES CONFIDENTIALITY, THAT
11 TAKES IT OUT OF CONFIDENTIALITY. IN FACT, (E)(2), THE
12 WHOLE PURPOSE OF IT SAYS, "WELL, THE INVESTIGATIVE AUDIT
13 IS TO BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL EXCEPT TO ISSUE A REPORT OF AN
14 INVESTIGATION THAT HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIATED."
15 SUBSTANTIATED ISSUES, THEY'RE NOT PROTECTED.
16 THEY'RE SAYING THIS IS PUBLIC INFORMATION ONCE THEY'RE
17 COMPLETED AND THEY'RE FOUND TO BE SUBSTANTIATED. THAT'S
18 THE BLACK HOLE.
19 FOR THE CITY REFERRED DEPARTMENTS, THE
20 DEPARTMENT REFERRALS, NONAUDITOR INVESTIGATIONS, THOSE
21 WILL NEVER BE REPORTED ON, SUBSTANTIATED OR NOT. THAT
22 CAN'T BE RIGHT. THEY'RE NOT EVEN FOLLOWING THE CODE. HOW
23 COULD IT BE EVERYTHING THAT -- ANYTHING THEY DID, EVEN IF
24 IT'S REFERRED?
25 WITH REGARDS TO THE REFERRALS, THEY'RE NOT
26 REFERRING IT TO ANOTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY TO INVESTIGATE.
27 THEY'RE SENDING THIS TO THE DEPARTMENT THAT'S BEING
28 REPORTED ON TO WORK ON THE FILE. NOW, IT'S AN INTER-CITY
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
17/26
16
1 DEPARTMENT, BUT THIS IS ONCE AGAIN WHERE THEY'RE NOT
2 REPORTING ON IT. THEY NEVER WILL. SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
3 THEY'RE TRYING TO NOT REPORT ON ISSUES AND THEN SAY IT
4 FALLS UNDER THE AUDITOR'S REALM BECAUSE THE AUDITOR DOES
5 ISSUE REPORTS UNSUBSTANTIATED, AND THEY HAVE TO, THEY DO
6 WHEN THEY FILE UNSUBSTANTIATED REPORTS, THE AUDITOR DOES,
7 BUT THE CITY DEPARTMENT WON'T.
8 THE COURT: MR. ALLEN?
9 MR. ALLEN: I THINK I CAN KEEP IT IN LESS THAN A
10 MINUTE'S TIME.
11 THE COURT: THAT'S FINE.
12 MR. ALLEN: WE AGAIN DISAGREE THAT YOU MUST MAKE A
13 SUBSTANTIATED REPORT AVAILABLE. WHAT IT SAYS IS "SHALL,"
14 THAT "IT SHALL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL" AND THAT MANDATE TO
15 THE CITY OR THE STATE AUDITOR IS REDUCED IF THEY GET A
16 SUBSTANTIATED REPORT. THE LEGISLATURE SAID, "YOU SHALL
17 KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL," BUT IF YOU SUBSTANTIATE A REPORT
18 THAT "SHALL" IS RELEASED. SO THEN IT'S THE DISCRETIONARY
19 DECISION. THE ONLY MANDATE IS THAT IT SHALL BE KEPT
20 CONFIDENTIAL.
21 THEN THERE'S TWO CARVE-OUTS. IF IT'S
22 SUBSTANTIATED OR YOU HAVE A CLOSED INVESTIGATION, THEN
23 THEY CAN DECIDE, BUT IT'S NOT THE AUDITOR'S DECISION IF
24 THEY DON'T SUBSTANTIATE, AND IF THEY DON'T CLOSE AN
25 INVESTIGATION, THE LEGISLATURE SAID, "YOU CAN'T EVEN
26 DISCLOSE ANY OF IT. IT SHALL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL."
27 THAT'S WHAT THE MANDATE IS TO YOU BECAUSE WE'RE
28 LETTING THE PUBLIC HAVE THIS CONFIDENTIAL AVENUE, AND
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
18/26
17
1 WE'RE ONLY GIVING THAT TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE YOU HAVE A
2 MANDATE TO KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL UNLESS IT'S SUBSTANTIATED
3 OR A CLOSED INVESTIGATION AND THEN THAT "SHALL" IS
4 RELEASED AND YOU CAN DECIDE.
5 THE COURT: SO THE AUDITOR DECIDES WHETHER THEY'RE
6 GOING TO RELEASE THAT INFORMATION?
7 MR. ALLEN: YES, IF THEY DEEM IT IN THE PUBLIC'S
8 INTEREST. IF THE REPORTER DOESN'T LIKE IT AND IT NEVER IS
9 RELEASED, THEY HAVE ALL THESE OTHER AVENUES OF OPEN
10 REPORTING AND OPEN ASKING THE D.A., THE CITY ATTORNEY'S
11 OFFICE, THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT INVESTIGATIVE OFFICE, ETHICS
12 COMMISSION, ALL THOSE ENTITIES. THEY CAN GO CALL THE
13 POLICE.
14 IF YOU THINK SOMEBODY -- COUNCIL MEMBERS STOLE
15 PROPERTY, CALL THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THERE'S
16 ALL OF THESE AVENUES AVAILABLE. BUT THE LEGISLATORS SAID,
17 "YOU CAN HAVE THIS ONE PROCEDURE WITH THESE MANDATES."
18 THE COURT: HERE'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO: WOULD YOU
19 GENTLEMEN HAVE A SEAT IN THE AUDIENCE. I WANT TO READ
20 THIS CODE SECTION AGAIN, BUT I WANT TO HEAR FROM MY LAST
21 ORAL ARGUMENT AND THEN I'LL TAKE A QUICK RECESS AND I'LL
22 BE BACK.
23 MR. ALLEN: SURE.
24 MR. SHERMAN: YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY ON THAT (E)(2), I
25 MEAN, I REALLY -- IT SAYS THE "CONFIDENTIAL" BUT THEN
26 THERE'S TWO EXCEPTIONS AFTER THE "CONFIDENTIAL," SO I'D
27 ASK THE COURT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. THANK YOU.
28 (PAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.)
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
19/26
18
1 THE COURT: WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SHAPIRO
2 VS. CITY OF SAN DIEGO MATTER. ALL ATTORNEYS ARE HERE.
3 I WENT BACK, AS I INDICATED, AND I REREAD THIS
4 STATUTE AND I HAVE EVEN MORE QUESTIONS THAN I HAD EARLIER
5 TODAY BASED ON SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
6 A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT STRIKE ME: BOTH OF YOU
7 ARE MAKING DEFINITIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT THIS AUDITOR BEING
8 ABLE TO HAVE A DEPARTMENT OR A DIVISION WITHIN THE CITY
9 KIND OF INVESTIGATE -- AS YOU SAID, MR. SHERMAN,
10 INVESTIGATE THEIR OWN.
11 AND, MR. ALLEN, YOU'RE SAYING THAT UNDER THE
12 SUBSECTION (B) OF 53087.6, THAT THE AUDITOR HAS THE
13 AUTHORITY TO ALLOW A GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND
14 TO INVESTIGATE.
15 MY QUESTION IS: WAS IT CONTEMPLATED THAT A
16 DIVISION, BY WAY OF EXAMPLE PARKS AND RECREATION, IS
17 REALLY A GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY, AND IF IT WAS
18 CONTEMPLATED -- I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU BRIEF THESE ISSUES
19 SO THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF IT.
20 IF IT WAS CONTEMPLATED THAT IT HAD TO BE A
21 GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY AND NOT A DIVISION, WHAT HAPPENS
22 THEN IF SOME OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE SENT TO A DIVISION,
23 THEY DID THE INVESTIGATION? DOES THAT TAKE THEM OUTSIDE
24 OF THIS PARTICULAR CODE SECTION? AND THAT WOULD ALLOW
25 THEN FOR THE COURT TO -- IF I AGREE THAT THEY'RE NOT A
26 GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY, THEN I COULD THEN LOOK AT THE
27 DOCUMENTS AND DO THAT BALANCING TEST UNDER THE PUBLIC
28 RECORDS ACT. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE. THAT'S
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
20/26
19
1 ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.
2 THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE GOES TO SUBSECTION
3 (E)(2), AND I SEE HOW YOU BOTH READ THIS CODE SECTION, AND
4 I SUSPECT THAT, MR. ALLEN, YOU'RE COMING UP THAT THE
5 AUDITOR HAS THIS DISCRETION WHEN IT'S NOT MANDATORY -- HE
6 HAS THIS DISCRETION TO MAKE A DECISION ONE WAY OR THE
7 OTHER WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO RELEASE ANYTHING, AND
8 THAT'S BASED ON THAT LAST PART OF IT WHERE IT SAYS,
9 "ORDERED RELEASE ANY FINDINGS RESULTING FROM A COMPLETED
10 INVESTIGATION THAT ARE DEEMED NECESSARY TO SERVE THE
11 INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC."
12 YOU'RE READING THAT AS DISCRETIONARY AND
13 MR. SHERMAN'S READING THAT AS ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS THAT
14 WOULD TAKE IT OUTSIDE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE AUDITOR HAS
15 THAT BROAD DISCRETION TO MAKE A DECISION NEVER TO TURN
16 OVER ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND SUBSTANTIATED.
17 I NEED FOR YOU FOLKS TO BRIEF THAT AS WELL.
18 AND WHO POLICES THE AUDITOR? WHAT HAPPENS IF
19 THE AUDITOR JUST MAKES THIS DECISION NOT TO TURN ANYTHING
20 OVER? WHAT HAPPENS THEN?
21 SO I DON'T KNOW. HOW DO THEY -- HOW DOES ONE
22 CHALLENGE MAYBE ABUSE OF DISCRETION THAT THE AUDITOR DOES
23 AT ONE POINT IN TIME? SO I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THAT
24 BECAUSE AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, AS I HEAR THE CITY SAYING
25 THAT THE AUDITOR IS THE PERSON WHO MAKES THE CALL: YOU
26 GET THE DOCUMENT OR YOU DON'T GET THE DOCUMENT.
27 SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.
28 THAT CONCERNS ME AS WELL. SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE AREAS
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
21/26
20
1 THAT I NEED FOR YOU TO DISCUSS. I THINK THE CITY HAS
2 THE -- I THINK YOU SHOULD FILE YOUR PAPERS FIRST TO TRY TO
3 ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS FOR ME BECAUSE IT'S MORE
4 INTERPRETING THIS CODE SECTION NOW, WHICH YOU REALLY
5 DIDN'T DO AS MUCH IN YOUR PAPERS, AND I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU
6 WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH WHAT MR. SHERMAN WAS REQUESTING.
7 SO YOU NEED TO DO THAT.
8 AND A WEEK AFTER I THINK YOU, MR. SHERMAN,
9 PROVIDE YOUR PAPERS ALMOST IN OPPOSITION OR HOWEVER YOU
10 WANT TO VIEW WHAT THE CITY'S SAYING. TELL ME WHAT YOUR
11 THOUGHTS ARE ON IT, BUT I NEED SOME AUTHORITY.
12 I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE
13 HISTORY, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I NEED SOME MORE AUTHORITY TO
14 MAKE SOME DECISIONS BEFORE I DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT I HAVE
15 THE AUTHORITY TO DO AN IN-CAMERA REVIEW BECAUSE AGAIN IF
16 IT TAKES IT OUT OF THIS CODE SECTION, I THINK WE GO TO THE
17 PUBLIC RECORDS ACT, AND THEN I MIGHT HAVE TO DO AN
18 IN-CAMERA REVIEW OF THE FILES THAT WEREN'T REVIEWED BY THE
19 AUDITOR.
20 SEE WHAT I'M SAYING?
21 MR. SHERMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
22 MR. ALLEN: THE ONES SENT OUT TO A DEPARTMENT.
23 THE COURT: CORRECT. BECAUSE I THINK THE CODE
24 PROTECTS THE AUDITOR'S INVESTIGATION. I THINK. SO WE'LL
25 SEE.
26 MR. ALLEN: OKAY. YOUR HONOR.
27 THE COURT: DOES EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING
28 ABOUT?
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
22/26
21
1 MR. ALLEN: YES. I WAS JUST GOING TO TRY AND SEEK
2 CLARIFICATION ON IF WE ARE MAINLY ADDRESSING THOSE
3 INVESTIGATIONS SENT OUT TO THE DEPARTMENTS, WHICH I KNOW
4 THAT WAS YOUR FIRST QUESTION --
5 THE COURT: RIGHT.
6 MR. ALLEN: -- BUT THEN THE SECOND IS GOING TO THE
7 DISCRETION OF THE AUDITOR THEMSELVES --
8 THE COURT: CORRECT.
9 MR. ALLEN: -- AND THAT WOULD APPLY TO ANY COMPLAINTS
10 THAT COME INTO THEIR OFFICE OR JUST TO THE ONES THAT THEY
11 CHOSE TO SEND OUT TO THE DEPARTMENTS?
12 THE COURT: I THINK YOU DO BOTH SO THAT I UNDERSTAND
13 IT.
14 AND, THIRD, WHAT DID THIS CODE SECTION
15 CONTEMPLATE IF, IN FACT, THE AUDITOR HAS THIS AUTHORITY?
16 HOW DOES ONE FIND OUT WHETHER THE AUDITOR'S DOING HIS JOB
17 OR HER JOB?
18 SO I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG YOU NEED TO PROVIDE
19 THAT INFORMATION TO THE COURT. IF YOU WANT TO LET ME
20 KNOW, THEN I CAN TELL MR. SHERMAN WHEN HE NEEDS TO PROVIDE
21 IT. I DON'T THINK ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE NECESSARY, BUT
22 ONCE I SEE THE PAPERS I MAY -- BECAUSE I'M TAKING THIS
23 UNDER SUBMISSION, I MAY NEED ORAL ARGUMENT AND THEN WE CAN
24 GIVE YOU A CALL AND LET YOU KNOW WHEN THAT CAN HAPPEN.
25 BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO TRY TO -- FOR THE
26 COURT TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS
27 CONTEMPLATED WITH THIS EXCEPTIONS TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS
28 ACT, THIS HOTLINE EXCEPTION.
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
23/26
22
1 MR. ALLEN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
2 THE COURT: MR. SHERMAN, YOU'RE GOOD WITH WHAT I'M
3 ASKING?
4 MR. SHERMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR, AND I THINK -- OTHER
5 THAN THOSE QUESTIONS, I THINK THE PLAINTIFFS ORIGINALLY --
6 ORIGINAL RECORDS REQUEST AND MOTION TO THIS COURT FOR THE
7 GREATER PANOPLY OF DOCUMENTS, I THINK, STILL APPLIES. I
8 UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S QUERY ON THESE POINTS.
9 THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
10 MR. SHERMAN: LET ME STATE IT A DIFFERENT WAY. WE
11 STILL BELIEVE THAT THE CODE PROTECTS CERTAIN ASPECTS AND
12 TIMING DURING THE AUDITOR'S INVESTIGATION AND NOT AS IT'S
13 CHARACTERIZED BY COUNSEL TO SAY, "WELL, ANYTHING THE
14 AUDITOR DOES IS JUST THE INVESTIGATIVE AUDIT" AS A ONE
15 LUMP SUM OF ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS, WHEREAS WE'VE
16 SEGREGATED THEM OUT TO SAY --
17 IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST PART OF 53087.6, IT
18 TALKS ABOUT "DURING THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION," YOU KNOW,
19 "THE COMPLAINTS SHALL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL." I THINK IF
20 YOU READ THAT AT FACE VALUE FOR WHAT IT SAYS, IT'S DURING
21 THAT INITIAL PHASE, DURING THE INVESTIGATIVE PHASE PRIOR
22 TO COMPLETION.
23 THE COURT: WELL, I THINK IT'S AN INTERPRETATION, AND
24 IF YOU HAVE ANY AUTHORITY THAT SUPPORTS YOUR REVIEW AND
25 INTERPRETATION OF IT, YOU NEED TO GIVE IT TO ME, BOTH OF
26 YOU. I NEED SOME AUTHORITY. I CAN SEE HOW YOU READ SOME
27 OF THE SECTIONS THE WAY YOU DO. I CAN ALSO SEE HOW THE
28 CITY READS SOME OF THE SECTIONS THEY DO.
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
24/26
23
1 THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ENOUGH TOPIC THAT HAS NEVER
2 BEEN PUT BEFORE ME THAT I THINK WE NEED SOME INFORMATION
3 ON, ALL OF US. SO LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND TALK --
4 FIND SOME AUTHORITY THAT WOULD SUPPORT YOUR POSITION THAT
5 IT SEGREGATES OUT DOCUMENTS.
6 AND THEN I THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THIS
7 REALLY MEANS IN THE BIG SCHEME OF THINGS. IF I MAKE A
8 DETERMINATION THAT, IN FACT, IT TAKES IT OUT OF THE PUBLIC
9 RECORDS ACT AND SOME DOCUMENTS NEED TO BE REVIEWED AND I
10 REVIEW THEM AND I MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THEY'RE
11 ENTITLED TO SEE THEM, WHAT HAPPENS THEN? IS THE CASE OVER
12 WITH, OR WHAT HAPPENS?
13 SO THINK ABOUT THOSE THINGS AS WELL. THESE ARE
14 ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE GOING THROUGH MY MIND WITH THE
15 INITIAL PAPERS. OKAY? DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND WHERE
16 I'M GOING?
17 MR. ALLEN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
18 MR. SHERMAN: I DO.
19 MR. ALLEN: AS A SCHEDULING MATTER, IN A COUPLE HOURS
20 I'M LEAVING TOWN FOR THREE WEEKS, SO I WOULD ASK THAT THIS
21 BRIEFING SCHEDULE MAY BE PUSHED BACK A LITTLE BIT SO THAT
22 I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THESE NEW QUESTIONS SINCE
23 WE'RE FILING FIRST.
24 THE COURT: WHEN CAN YOU GET THEM TO ME? I DON'T
25 THINK YOU'RE GOING TO BE LEAVING -- OR DOING IT BEFORE YOU
26 LEAVE, AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT --
27 MR. ALLEN: NO.
28 THE COURT: YES. SO AFTER YOU GET BACK IN THREE
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
25/26
24
1 WEEKS --
2 MR. ALLEN: YES.
3 THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO HAVE THEM TO ME BY -- WHEN
4 DO YOU COME BACK?
5 MR. ALLEN: MAY 25th.
6 THE COURT: HOW ABOUT JUNE 24th? IS THAT TOO SOON?
7 I MEAN, I REALLY WANT YOU TO DIG INTO THIS BECAUSE I NEED
8 SOME INFORMATION, SO I DON'T THINK IT'S SO ACUTE A
9 DECISION THAT, YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO BE DONE RIGHT NOW.
10 MR. ALLEN: YES, YOUR HONOR.
11 THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE BRIEFING DONE SO
12 THAT I UNDERSTAND IT. SO PICK A DAY.
13 MR. ALLEN: THE FIRST WEEK OF JULY PERHAPS.
14 THE COURT: SO, MR. SHERMAN, YOU GOOD WITH JULY 8th
15 HAVE THE MOVING PAPERS IN AND THEN YOU CAN GIVE ME YOUR
16 PAPERS ON THE 22nd? I'LL GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
17 HOW IS THAT?
18 MR. SHERMAN: THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR.
19 THE COURT: FILE THEM IN MY DEPARTMENT. DON'T DROP
20 THEM. FILE THEM HERE SO THEY DON'T GET LOST IN THE
21 SHUFFLE AND I CAN SEE THEM SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
22 THANKS A LOT. IT'S UNDER SUBMISSION.
23 MR. SHERMAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
24 MR. ALLEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
25 (THE PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 10:35 A.M.)
26 * * *
27
28
8/6/2019 5-6-11ShapirovsCity
26/26
1 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO):
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
3
4 I, RINDY M. ORMROD, RPR, CSR NO. 6278, OFFICIAL
5 REPORTER FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
6 CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY:
7 THAT I REPORTED IN MACHINE SHORTHAND THE PROCEEDINGS
8 HELD IN THE FOREGOING CASE, SHAPIRO VS. CITY OF SAN DIEGO,
9 AND THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT, PAGES 1 THROUGH 24,
10 INCLUSIVE, IS A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPTION OF
11 THE PROCEEDINGS.
12 DATED AT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA THIS 9TH DAY
13 OF MAY, 2011.
14
15
16
17
18
19 __________________________________RINDY M. ORMROD, RPR, CSR NO. 6278
20 OFFICIAL REPORTERSAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
top related