Off-system public-business emails are public records — yet Lovato's Case 23-009185 emails sit in three mailboxes the City never produced as a category.
The City of Sacramento stated it had provided all public records for an inspector’s emails on a specific code enforcement case, yet several responsive emails exist in locations that were never produced. Under California law, any writings by a public employee regarding government business are public records, regardless of where they are stored. In this case, records involving Inspector Paul Lovato were found on a property representative's phone, in owner-side email accounts, and within the City Clerk’s own Outlook mailbox. Although a specific request asked for these emails and texts, the City closed the request by claiming the production was complete. This statement is contradicted by the City's own later release of a case-related email printed directly from a staff member's Outlook account under a separate request.
The rule is settled California law: a public employee's writings about the conduct of the public's business are public records under the CPRA, wherever they are stored CALSC.SanJose.2Cal5th608. On Case 23-009185, Inspector Paul Lovato's emails about access, violation specificity, permit scope, amendment fees, power shutoff, and supervisor escalation are documented sitting in at least three off-case-file mailboxes. Karin Owens's phone holds 2025 Lovato email and text screenshots S.11 S.8 S.12 S.13. Owner-side email accounts hold the April 2023 Lovato exchanges E.1 E.2. And the City Clerk's own Outlook held the 09/02/2025 Lovato email an officer printed and released under a separate request E.3 R.25–4711.rn R.25-4711 — the City labeling that file "Re_ 4880 T Street Jackie's House - 25-3549.pdf" with its own hand E.3. The City closed Request 25-3549 with "All responsive records have been provided" R.25-3549 after a request that expressly named Lovato emails, texts, memos, attachments, and management communications R.25-3549.
When a city inspector writes about city business — fees, permits, shutting off power, looping in his supervisor — that email is a public record no matter which inbox it lands in. Here, those emails turn up in three places off the official case file: Karin Owens photographed them off her phone, the owner's side kept the April 2023 exchanges, and the city's own clerk printed one straight out of her city Outlook and handed it over under a separate request. Yet when the property representative asked for the inspector's emails and texts on this case, the City said "all responsive records have been provided." The City treated the staff Outlook mailbox as fair game when it released one email, then as outside the record when it declared the earlier production complete.
Public agencies must promptly make disclosable records available GC § 7922.530. The California Supreme Court held in *City of San Jose v. Superior Court* that a city employee's writings about public business are not excluded from CPRA just because they are sent, received, or stored in a personal account CALSC.SanJose.2Cal5th608. An agency cannot exempt a category of public-business writings from production by storing it off-system.
Request 25-3549 expressly asked for Lovato's "emails, text messages, memos, or attachments he wrote or received about Code Enforcement cases" and "communications between Code Enforcement management and Paul Lovato," for 01/01/2020 through 09/19/2025 R.25-3549.
The City closed Request 25-3549 with "All responsive records have been provided" R.25-3549. The portal record shows case-file PDFs and a 311 export being released, but the later 25-4711 email production shows a responsive Lovato email still outside that closure R.25-3549 E.3 R.25–4711.rn R.25-4711.
- Karin Owens's phone — 2025 Lovato email and text screenshots, on topics including amendment fees, the $1,400 Notice and Order fee, power shutoff, permit scope, supervisor involvement, and a text exchange with "Paul" S.11 S.8 S.12 S.13. - Owner-side April 2023 accounts — Lovato emails covering the complaint narrative, backyard access and verification, the card left at the door, and whether penalties should be assessed E.1 E.1.3 E.1.5 E.2. - The City Clerk's own Outlook — the 09/02/2025 Lovato Case 23-009185 email an officer printed at 3:25 PM on 12/29/2025 and released under Request 25-4711, with the City's release notice tied to the same request E.3 R.25–4711.rn R.25-4711.
The City declared Request 25-3549 complete R.25-3549; the record now holds Lovato Case 23-009185 correspondence responsive to that request's express scope in owner-side accounts and in a City Outlook print E.1 E.2 S.11 S.8 S.12 S.13 E.3. Under *San Jose*, off-system storage does not exempt public-business writings CALSC.SanJose.2Cal5th608.
An officer printed a Lovato Case 23-009185 email from her own Outlook and released it under Request 25-4711 E.3 R.25–4711.rn R.25-4711. The PDF page header reads "12/29/25, 3:25 PM … Jena R. Swafford - Outlook," and the release notice carries the same day E.3 R.25–4711.rn. The released email header is verifiable in the produced file: From Paul Lovato, Date Tue 9/2/2025 2:43 PM, To Bo Cosley, Douglas Pierson, kowensfoley@gmail.com, baritelljm@gmail.com, Subject "Re: 4880 T Street Jackie's House" E.3. All four recipients are case parties; kowensfoley@gmail.com is the same Karin Owens whose phone holds the photographed 2025 Lovato emails S.11 S.8 S.12 S.13.
The 09/11/2025 Lovato case note states "I replied back to the email stating: Chris, Thank you for reaching out to the city of Sacramento with your concerns of the property at 4880 T street…" M036 — the case file describes a Lovato email but does not contain the email as a record; the email surfaced only when the City Clerk printed it from Outlook under a separate request E.3. The case file records the same email as a paraphrase, not a produced record.
The legal question is settled — a public employee's public-business emails are public records wherever stored CALSC.SanJose.2Cal5th608 — so the only open question is factual: do Lovato Case 23-009185 emails sit in off-case-file accounts. Three documented mailboxes answer yes: Karin Owens's phone S.11 S.8 S.12 S.13, the April 2023 owner-side accounts E.1 E.2, and the City Clerk's own Outlook E.3, from which the City already printed and released one such email as a 25-4711 record R.25–4711.rn R.25-4711. The City cannot treat the same Outlook mailbox as in-the-record when it releases one document and outside-the-record when it declares the earlier production complete R.25-3549 E.3.
The strongest realistic City response is that *San Jose* turns on government-business writings in a public employee's personal account, not on mailboxes held by third parties (Karin Owens) or on City staff Outlook accounts searchable on request; and the case-file production already satisfied the CPRA for the records actually sought, with email/text/memo categories outside scope or covered by it. That answer does not hold. *San Jose* turns on the substance of the writing, not the storage venue: a public employee's writings about public business are CPRA records even when sent, received, or stored outside a government account CALSC.SanJose.2Cal5th608. Each mailbox holds Lovato writings about Case 23-009185 S.11 S.8 S.12 S.13 E.1 E.2 E.3. The third-party-mailbox point does not exempt the City from producing the City-side copies of the same exchanges; the writings exist in both places, and because Lovato authored them from his City account, a City-side copy is proven for the Swafford-Outlook email the City already printed and released E.3. The Outlook point is foreclosed by the City's own production: the City printed a case email from a staff Outlook and released it as a public record E.3 R.25–4711.rn. And the scope point is foreclosed by Request 25-3549's own language, which named emails, texts, memos, attachments, and management communications as categories the City was asked to search and produce R.25-3549.
The city's own released email proves the inspector's case emails live in accounts it can reach — yet it called the production complete without ever producing those emails as a category, which is exactly what state law says it cannot do.
---