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.
Under California law, when a city worker writes about city business, that email is a public record no matter which inbox it lands in — a personal phone, a private Gmail, or a city Outlook account. City of San Jose v. Superior Court Here the city inspector’s emails about this one property — covering fees, permits, shutting off the power, and looping in his supervisor — turn up in three places off the official case file: a friend of the owner photographed them off her phone, R.25-3549 the owner’s side kept the April 2023 emails, R.25-3549 and the city’s own clerk printed one of them straight out of her city Outlook and handed it over. R.25-4711 Yet when the owner’s representative asked for the inspector’s emails and texts on this case, R.25-3549 the city sent back case printouts and said “all responsive records have been provided” R.25-3549 — the email and text categories were never produced as their own thing. The clerk’s printout is the tell: the city treated that same Outlook mailbox as fair game when it wanted to release one email, R.25-4711 then as out of reach when it declared the file complete. R.25-3549 The owner’s case file even mentions the inspector “replied back to the email,” M036 but the email itself is not in the file — it only came to light because the owner’s representative kept pushing through records requests, and a clerk happened to print it from her own account under a separate request. R.25-4711
Bottom line: 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.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. City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608 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 (topics including amendment fees, the $1,400 Notice and Order fee, power shutoff, permit scope, supervisor involvement). Owner-side email accounts hold the April 2023 Lovato exchanges. And the City Clerk’s own Outlook held the 09/02/2025 Lovato email an officer printed and released under a separate request R.25-4711 — the City labeling that file “Re_ 4880 T Street Jackie’s House - 25-3549.pdf” with its own hand. 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 for 01/01/2020 through 09/19/2025. R.25-3549
Public agencies must promptly make disclosable records available. GC §7922.530 The California Supreme Court held in City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608 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. City of San Jose v. Superior Court 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
First, 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.” Second, 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. Third, 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, R.25-4711 with the City’s release notice tied to the same request.
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. R.25-4711 Under San Jose, off-system storage does not exempt public-business writings. City of San Jose v. Superior Court
An officer printed a Lovato Case 23-009185 email from her own Outlook and released it under Request 25-4711. R.25-4711 The PDF page header reads “12/29/25, 3:25 PM … Jena R. Swafford - Outlook.” Released email header: 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.” R.25-4711
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. R.25-4711
The legal question is settled — a public employee’s public-business emails are public records wherever stored City of San Jose v. Superior Court — 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, the April 2023 owner-side accounts, and the City Clerk’s own Outlook, R.25-4711 from which the City already printed and released one such email as a public record. 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 R.25-4711 GC §7922.530
The City’s strongest response is that San Jose turns on government-business writings in a public employee’s personal account, not on mailboxes held by third parties or on City staff Outlook accounts searchable on request; and the case-file production already satisfied the CPRA. That answer does not hold. San Jose turns on the substance of the writing, not the storage venue. City of San Jose v. Superior Court And 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. R.25-4711 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