The City answered a follow-up that flagged a case-log discrepancy with a blanket “no records responsive” response, filed and closed twenty-two minutes apart.
A city office released a work email about this property case to a requester under one public-records request. R.25-4711 Eight days later, the same requester filed a short follow-up pointing out that the city’s own case log says the inspector “replied back” to him, even though the email the city had just handed over was addressed to four other people and not to him. R.26-39 The follow-up asked the city for one of two simple things: either proof the email actually reached his address, or a written note confirming no such record exists and that the case-log line should be corrected. R.26-39 GC §7922.530 The city answered with a flat “we have no records that respond to your request” R.26-39 and closed the request twenty-two minutes after he filed it — without naming the responsible official, identifying what was searched, or citing a statutory basis for the determination. GC §7922.540 R.26-39 It is like writing to a store about a receipt that names you as the buyer, and being told the store has nothing on file at all, with the reply arriving before anyone could have pulled the drawer. This whole sequence only became visible because the requester kept filing records requests and then compared the city’s own portal entries side by side: the released email, R.25-4711 the case-log line, and the blanket denial all sit in the city’s own system. R.26-39
Bottom line: a public-records request makes the city hand over records it has, not write new confirmations or fix its case log — so “no records” can be a fair answer to the second ask. The open question is the first one, whether any record shows the email reached the requester, and the city closed a follow-up about that exact discrepancy with a blanket “no records” twenty-two minutes after it was filed, without showing it had looked.The City Clerk’s office released a Case 23-009185 email under Request 25-4711. R.25-4711 Eight days later, the same office closed a follow-up request on the same case, Request 26-39, with: “The City does not have any records that are responsive to your request.” R.26-39 The portal record shows the follow-up was submitted at 12:08 PM and closed at 12:30 PM, a twenty-two-minute sequence. R.26-39
The follow-up did not ask the City to reproduce the same email. It flagged a discrepancy between the case log and the produced message: the case log said the inspector “replied back” to the requester, while the email the City had just produced showed four other recipients and did not list the requester. R.25-4711 The follow-up asked for delivery headers or logs showing the requester’s address as a recipient, or, in the alternative, a written confirmation that no such record exists and that the case-log line should be corrected. R.26-39
The alternative request for written confirmation or correction is not something the CPRA requires the City to create. GC §7922.530 The live issue is the primary request: did the City search for any delivery header, trace, or log showing the email actually reached the requester? The same office had just released the email from the inspector’s Outlook mailbox, R.25-4711 then closed the follow-up twenty-two minutes after filing with no visible search account, identification of the responsible official, or statutory basis. GC §7922.540 R.26-39
The CPRA requires production of disclosable public records, a written determination within the statutory period, and, when records are withheld or access is denied, identification of the responsible official and the basis. GC §7922.530 GC §7922.535 GC §7922.540
The City responded, “The City does not have any records that are responsive to your request,” and closed the request the same day, twenty-two minutes after filing. R.26-39 No responsible official was identified, no search account was provided, and no statutory basis was cited. GC §7922.540
The City’s strongest answer is that R.26-39 asked for proof that did not exist, so “no records responsive” was accurate. That may answer the alternative request for a written confirmation or correction, because the CPRA does not require the City to create a new record. GC §7922.530 It does not answer the first request for existing delivery records. The City had just produced the email, R.25-4711 the requester flagged a concrete mismatch, and the City closed the follow-up twenty-two minutes after filing with no visible search account. R.26-39 The narrow defect is the unexplained nonexistence conclusion, not a claim that the City was required to rewrite the case log on demand. An inadequate CPRA response is judicially enforceable. GC §7923.000