Of two same-afternoon portal messages on the same closed request, the City tracked and closed one within hours and never acknowledged the other.
A city records portal lets a person send written messages to staff about a request. One afternoon the owner’s representative sent two messages this way, on the same request, R.25-3549 minutes apart. The first laid out a careful, point-by-point comparison showing the city had handed over two different versions of the same case file, and asked six specific questions about which version was the real one. R.25-3549 The second simply asked the city to confirm whether one email in the file had really been sent. R.25-3549 The city answered the second within a few hours — it opened a new tracked request, R.25-4711 emailed notifications, and closed it the same day after releasing one document. R.25-4711 The first message got nothing back at all: no email, no tracking number, no reply. R.25-3549 The representative later wrote again to ask why one message was handled and the other was treated as if it never arrived, R.25-3549 and that question went unanswered too. This sequence is visible only because the representative kept the portal records and put the silence on the record in writing. R.25-3549
Bottom line: the city’s own portal shows it tracked and closed one of two same-afternoon messages within hours and never acknowledged the other — the one questioning which version of the case file was real — and never explained the difference when asked.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 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
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 When the representative asked why one message was handled and the other ignored, the record shows no answer. R.25-3549 This card 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. R.25-3549 R.25-4711 GC §7922.535 GC §7922.600