The City said it withheld complainant identity, then released the same identifier inconsistently: redacted on one page and visible on another page of the same April production.
The City informed a public records requester that it had withheld the identities of complainants, but the records it produced inconsistently exposed a complainant’s first name and telephone number. In the April 2026 production, a specific complaint entry from March 26, 2026, is redacted on one page while the exact same information remains fully visible on another page of the same file. These records also included the directional identification of a cooperating neighbor and other personal details that the City's own closure letter stated were protected from disclosure. Although the City later applied redactions to this information in a May production, the initial release contained internal contradictions where the same identifiers were both protected and exposed. This inconsistency in the April records conflicts with the City’s formal statement that this sensitive information had been withheld.
The City's public materials tell complainants that their identifying information is protected, and the City's April 2026 records-response letter says complainant identification was withheld CITY.3 CITY.4 R.26-1549. But the April production itself exposes the complainant's first name and telephone number on multiple pages, identifies a cooperating neighbor by direction, and handles the same March 26, 2026 additional-complaint entry two ways: redacted on one page and visible on a later page of the same file A010 A011 A038 A039.
This card is about production handling, not the truth of the complaint. The May source-of-record production later redacts the same name in the corresponding context M011 M040. That makes the April production's internal inconsistency sharper: the same identifier appears protected in one place and exposed in another inside a file the City closed with a letter saying complainant identification had been withheld R.26-1549.
In plain language: the City told the requester it had removed complainant identity, but the package it released still showed that identity in some places and hid it in others. A redaction box on one page and the same detail visible on another page is not a legal interpretation; it is inconsistent production handling.
The strongest City answer is that case notes must record what complainants and neighbors report, and production-pipeline artifacts can create page differences. That does not resolve this record. The issue is not whether the City could record a complaint; it is whether the City could tell the requester complainant identity had been withheld while releasing a file that exposed the same identifier in multiple places and redacted it in another R.26-1549 A010 A011 A038 A039. The May context does not cure the April production's internal inconsistency M011 M040. The corrective question is straightforward: produce the redaction/export explanation or issue a corrected production.
The City-cited withholding authorities at issue are GC § 7922.000 and GC § 7930.100. ---