Of two same-afternoon portal messages on the same closed request, the City tracked and closed one within hours and never acknowledged the other.
The City of Sacramento processed one records portal message within hours while leaving a more complex message sent earlier that same afternoon completely unacknowledged. On December 29, 2025, a representative first sent a technical comparison of two file productions that included six specific demands for data verification. Less than two hours later, the same representative sent a second message asking to verify a single email entry from a case log. The City converted this second message into a new request, released a document, and closed it before the end of the day. Despite using the same communication channel, the City provided no tracking number or reply for the first message and did not respond to subsequent inquiries asking why the two messages were handled differently.
The owner's representative submitted two messages through the same NextRequest message function on the same closed request, R.25-3549, the same afternoon R.25-3549. The first message was a six-item technical comparison of two productions of the Case 23-009185 file, including specific hash, page-count, file-size, and production-record demands. It drew no visible City acknowledgment, tracking number, conversion to a new request, or reply R.25-3549.
The second message, sent later that afternoon, asked the City to verify one case-log email entry. The City converted that message into R.25-4711, sent a release notice, and closed the new request the same day with one document released R.25-4711 R.25–4711.rn. Days later, the representative asked why the first message had received nothing when the second was processed. No answer appears in the request record R.25-3549.
The same portal channel produced a tracked request when the representative asked about one email entry, but generated no visible acknowledgment when the representative asked which version of the case file was authentic. The City’s own handling demonstrates that the message function was capable of opening a new request; it simply did so for one of the two same-afternoon messages and not the other.
The CPRA requires the City to respond to public-records correspondence and assist requesters in identifying responsive records GC § 7922.535 GC § 7922.600.
The 12:02 PM message compared two productions of the same case file and requested six specific production records; it expressly warned that silence or substitution would not be treated as a response R.25-3549.
The 1:46 PM message asked whether the inspector had replied to a specific case-log email entry and requested headers or delivery confirmation R.25-3549.
On January 6, 2026, the representative asked why the first message received no notification, acknowledgment, tracking number, or communication when the later message was acted on. The thread shows no City answer R.25-3549.
The strongest City answer is that the first message was duplicative or already addressed by the existing request. The record does not show that. The 12:02 PM message made a distinct, six-item production-integrity demand R.25-3549. The later message used the same portal channel and was processed within hours R.25-4711 R.25–4711.rn. When the representative asked why one message was handled and the other ignored, the record shows no answer R.25-3549. This card does not infer what happened inside the portal; it preserves what the produced portal record shows: one same-afternoon message was tracked and closed, while the itemized production-discrepancy message received no visible City response.
---