1. law, govt and politics

1
2
JAN I. GOLDSMITH, City Attorney
DANIEL BAMBERG, Assistant City Attorney
CARMEN A. BROCK, Deputy City Attorney (CSBN162592)
3
Office of the City Attorney
1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1100
San Diego, California 92101-4100
Telephone: (619) 533-5800
Facsimile: (619) 533-5856
4
5
6
7
Exempt from fees per Gov't Code § 6103
To the benefit of the City of San Diego
Attorneys for Defendant, City of San Diego
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
11 SAN DIEGANS FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT, ) Case No. 37-2012-00088065-CU-MC-CTL
)
) CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S EX PARTE
) NOTICE AND APPLICATION TO
v.
13
) REMOVE TRANSCRIPT FROM:
14 CITY OF SAN DIEGO; and ALL PERSONS
) RESTRICTIONS OF PROTECTIVE
) ORDER; ME1\1:0RANDUM OF POINTS
INTERESTED IN
MATTER OF THE
15 RENEWAL OF THE SAN DIEGO TOURISM ) AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
16 MARKETING DISTRICT, THE LEVYING OF ) THEREOF; EXHIBITS
12
Plaintiff,
ASSESSMENTS UPON THE ASSESSED
17 BUSINESSES FOR A PERIOD FO THE
THIRTY-NINE AND ONE-HALF YEARS,
18 AND THE PRESCRIBING OF A METHOD
FOR COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS
19
Defendants.
20
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
21
)
[IMAGED FILE]
Ex Parte Hearing: February 26,2015
8:30 a.m.
Time:
Judge:
Joel R. Wohlfeil
73
Dept.:
Complaint filed: December 19,2012
22
23
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
24
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 26, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter
25
as the matter may be heard in Department C-73 of the above-entitled court located at 330 W.
26
Broadway, San Diego, California, the Defendant City of San Diego (City) will apply to the court,
27
III
28 1~~______~==~~====~======~1~==~==~~====~===______~
CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S EX PARTE NOTICE AND APPLICATION TO REMOVE TRANSCRIPT
FROM RESTRICTIONS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUl1:l0RITIES IN SUPPORT
1
ex parte, for an order to remove San Diegan's For Open Govel1unent (SDOG) Member 4
2
deposition transcript (Transcript) from the restrictions of the Protective Order issued by the court
3
on January 8, 2014 (Protective Order). The City contends good cause exists for its ex palie
4 application, and asserts the City will suffer irreparable harm if it is not allowed to timely respond
5
to requests made pursuant to the Califomia Public Records Act (CPRA) and to further
6 investigate information affecting the rights o{the citizens of Sall Diego as more fully discussed
7 in the City'S Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed concurrently herewith.
8
9
The City has complied with Califomia Rules of Court, Rule 3.1203 alld has given
appropriate notice to all parties of this ex parte hearing. CaL Rules Ct, Rules 3.1202, 3.1203,
10
3.1204. Plaintiff and Petitioner SDOG will oppose the City's Application and has represented it
11
will attend the hearing ofthe City's Application as noticed. See DecL Brock.
12
111e City'S Ex Palie Application is based on this Notice of Ex Parte Application, the
13
Memorandum of Points alld Authorities in suppOli thereof, the declaration ofCannen A. Brock,
14
DCA, filed concurrently herewith, supportiIJ.g exhibits, the pleadings and papers on file in this
15
action, and the argument of counsel at the time of the hearing on the City's Ex Parte Application.
16
Dated: February 25,2015
JAN 1. GOLDSMITH, City Attorney
17
18
By
Carmen A. Brock
Deputy City Attomey
19
20
Attomeys for Defendant, City of Sall Diego
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~==~~~~~~~~~2~~~~~====~~~=_------~
CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S EX PARTE NOTICE AND APPLICATION TO REMOVE TRANSCRIPT
FROM RESTRlCTJONS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORlTIES IN SUPPORT
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2
L
3
BACKGROUND
4
As the court is well aware, San Diegans for Open Govenunent's (SDOG) lawsuit is a
5
reverse validation action brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et. seq. to
6
challenge the City's Tourism Marketing District (TMD) and its assessment levies. It had been
7
the City of San Diego's (City) and the Tourism Marketing District Corporation's (TMD Corp)
8
assertion that SDOG must demonstrate at least one of its members has paid, or is obligated to
9
pay, the TMD assessment to have standing to sue the City and TMD Corp in this action.
10
However, initially, SDOG refused to disclose the identity of its members without a protective
11
order (Protective Order). On January 8, 2014, the court issued a Protective Order protecting the
12
disclosure of the identity of the SDOG members, its officers and directors, or any other
13
individual directly associated with SDOG. Ex. A.
14
On April 10, 2014 SDOG disclosed the identity of the members SDOG would rely upon
15
for standing in this lawsuit. The members were assigned a numerical pseudonym for purposes of
16
the Protective Order. See Exs. B, C (under seal). On December 1,2014, Member 4's deposition
17 was taken. Member 4 disavowed any membership in SDOG. Member 4 also disavowed any
18 knowledge of SDOG's mission and the purpose of the above action. Ex D (under seal).
19
On February 24, 2015, the City requested SDOG remove the Confidential designation
20
with respect to the deposition Transcript of Member 4 as allowed by Paragraph 9 of the
21
Protective Order for the following reasons (1) Member 4 is not an SDOG member and, thus, is
22
not within the class of people covered by the Protective Order; (2) Member 4's information is
23
now public infonnation; and (3) certain infonnation contained in the Transcript had now become
24
directly relevant to a matter of grave public interest. SDOG refused to remove the Confidential
25
designation. See Decl. Brock. Therefore, pursuant to Paragraph 9 of the Protective Order, the
26
City hereby requests the comt issue an order removing the Member 4 Tnl11script from the
27 -restrictions ofthe Protective Order for the reasons discussed below. As directed by the Protective •
28
1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~~~~~~3~~~~~~~==~==~--------~
CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S EX PARTE NOTICE AND APPLICATION TO REMOVE TRANSCRIPT
FROM RESTRlCTIONS OF PROTECTNE ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
1
Order, SDOG now bears the burden of demonstrating the TranscIipt is Confidential. The City
2
respectfully submits the City will suffer irreparable hann if the Member 4 Transcript is not
3
immediately released from the constraints ofthe Protective Order.
4
II.
5
THE TRANSCRIPT IS NOT CONFIDENTIAL INFORlVIATION
SUBJECT TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
6
7
The Protective Order defines "Confidential Information" as infonnation that discloses the
8
identity ofthe SDOG members, officers and directors, or any other individual directly associated
9
with SDOG where the identity of the person is not a matter of public record. Ex. A, p.1, Ins. 24-
10
28. Member 4 testified Member 4 is not a member ofSDOG and has no knowledge of the
11
function or purpose of SDOG, or the purpose of this lawsuit. Ex. D, p. 29, In 25; 30 Ins. 1-9; 31,
12
Ins. 10-20; 34, Ins. 22-25; 35-37; 39, lns.18-23. At Member 4's deposition, the witness testified
13
the witness had no idea SDOG had designated Member 4 as an individual who had paid (or had
14
the obligation to pay) the TMD assessment thereby confening standing for SDOG to sue the City
15
and TMD Corp. in this action. Ex. D, p. 42, Ins. 1-7. As a non-SDOG member and ordinary
16
witness with no associational affiliation with SDOG, Member 4 is not subject to the provisions
17
of the Protective Order, rendeling the deposition Transcript no different than any other witness
18
deposition taken pursuant to a subpoena in a civil action.
19
The very purpose of the Protective Order was to protect the associational rights of the
20
SDOG members from disclosure, not to shield ordinary witness testimony from disclosure in a
21
civil action. Here, there are no associational lights to protect, warranting the removal of the
22
Transcript from the restrictions ofthe Protective Order. SDOG will not be able to meet its
23
burden to show Member 4'sassociationallights to plivacy are in any manner at issue in this
24
case .
25
III
26
III
27
III
28
III
4
CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S EX PARTE NOTICE AND APPLICATION TO REMOVE TRANSCRIPT
FROM RESTRICTIONS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
1
III.
2
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE
TRANSCRIPT IS PUBLIC INFORlVIATION NOT SUBJECT
TO THE TERlVIS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER.
3
4
The definition of "Confidential Infonnation" llllder the Protective Order further extends
5
to any information produced by a non-party in discovery pursuant to a subpoena. Ex. A, p. 2, Ins.
6
6-13. The deposition of Member 4 was taken pursuant to a deposition subpoena duly served on
7
the witness. Ex. D, ex. A thereto. However, as stated above, the testimony given by the witness
8
had nothing to do with SDOG or the subject of this lawsuit since the witness disavowed any
9
association with SDOG. The remaining testimony offered by the witness, was, therefore, no
10
different than background information any witness would provide pursuant to a validly served
11
deposition subpoena. For this reason, the infonnation is, again, not the type of "confidential"
12
inf01TI1ation envisioned by the Protective Order.
Furthennore, on February 23,2015 and February 24,2015, all of the infomlation in the
13
14
Transcript which SDOG will assert is "confidential" was made public by two KPBS inewssource
15
news media feature stories (Media Releases). See Ex. E and F. The infomlation revealed by the
16
media is now a matter of public interest and concem. On February 23,2015, the City received a
17
Califomia Public Records Act (CPRA) request from the media asking for further infomlation
18
related to the subJect of the Media Releases. Ex. G. The infonnation contained in the Transcript
19
is responsive to the CPRA request, and, pursuant to the CPRA, the infonnation should be
20
provided to the public. The City is, however, prohibited at present by the Protective Order fi-om
21
meeting its obligation under the CPRA. The public has a right to obtain any infomlation which
22
SDOG had already allowed to become a matter of public infonnation and which bears on the
23
public's right to be infomled. For this additional reason, the City submits "good cause" exists to
24
order the Transcript released fi.-om the restrictions imposed by the Protective Order to enable the
25
City to meet its important obligation under the CPRA.
26
III
27
III
28
III
5
CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S EX PARTE NOTICE AND APPLICATION TO REMOVE TRANSCRIPT
FROM RESTRICTIONS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUrnORITIES IN SUPPORT
1
IV.
2
THE PUBLIC INTEREST COMPELS THE RELEASE
OF THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE RESTRICTIONS OF
THE PROTECTIVE ORDER.
3
4
Most importantly, the Media Releases brought to light pertinent facts which indicate the
5
interests ofthe citizens of San Diego and those of the City may have been seriously jeopardized.
6
This alone over-rules any need to keep any information contained within the Transcript
"Confidential." See Exs.
7
8
9
F, H. Specifically, with reference to the Februruy 23,2015, Media
Release, the public has a right to any infonnation related to questionable recorded documents or
deeds. To the extent the infonnation contained in the Member 4 Transcript aids in that pursuit,
the infomlation must be made public. Generas v. Justice Court, 106 Cal. App. 3d 678, 682
10
(1980); People v. Denman, 218 Cal. App. 4th 800,808 (2013); see also People v. Baender 68
11
Cal.App. 49, 55 (1924). Relevant infonnation contained in the Trrulscript should not be shielded
12
from disclosure by a half-heruied assertion of "light to privacy."
13
Clitically, the February 24,2015, Media Release exposed a potential conflict between a
14
key employee of a City contractor who obtained high value contracts for services from the City
15
without disclosing the key employee's personal relationship with a lawyer who has sued the City
16
over 50 times, including lawsuits involving projects worked on by the employee. See Ex. F, H.
The Transcript contains information highly pertinent to these allegations. Therefore, the public
17
18
has a right to know the identity of employee ruld the employee's c01111ection to lawsuits filed
against the City, as well as losses incurred by the City thereafter as a result of those lawsuits. To
19
maintain the "Confidentiality" of Member 4's Transcript in this instrulce is akin to ~osing a
20
gag order without legal basis, all to the detriment of the City and its citizens. It is a fundrunental
21
tenrult of the CPRAthat the public has a right to any record containing infomlation related to the
22
23
conduct of the City'S business, which, in this case, critically extends to Member 4's Transcript.
Community Youth Athletic Center v. City afNational City, 20 Ca1.AppAth 1385, 1418 (2013).
SDOG will be unable to demonstrate why the public's light to obtain tillS information should be
24
25
ban'ed. The infonnation must be disclosed.
/1/1
26 /11/
27 1/11
28 1//1
6
CITY OF SAl\! DIEGO'S EX PARTE NOTICE AND APPLICATION TO REMOVE TRANSCRIPT
FROM RESTRICTIONS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
1
V.
2
GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPT
FROM THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
3
4
The open conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every
5
person in tIns State. Gov. Code. §6250. Just as the people ofthe State have a right to know how
6
their elected officials conduct the public's business, they are entitled to know the identity of
7
those who may subvert or interfere with the conduct of the public's business. See e.g. Eisen v.
Regents o/University o/California 269 Cal. App. 2d 696, 704 (1969) [public entitled to know
8
identity of officers of campus organizations granted use of public propertyJ. The public's "right
9
to know" is expressed in the preamble to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Govenm1ent Code section
10
54950, which states public commissions, boards, councils and other public agencies exist
11
exclusively to aid in the conduct of the peoplets business. All actions taken by these agencies
"12
must be performed "openly," as SDOG is fully aware. The people's "right to know" not only
13
demands public access and exposure to recorded official actions, but it also includes the right to
know the identity of those who, like here, may obstruct" the valid conduct of the public's
14
15
business. Thus, anyone's claim to a right of privacy must be balanced against the public's
interest in the dissemination of infonnation demanded by the democratic process. Black Panther
16 . Party v. Kehoe 42 Cal. App. 3d 645,651-652 (1974); see also Sacram.ento County Employees
17
Retirement System v. Superior Court 195 Cal. App. 4th 440, (2011).
18
It is a foregone conclusion SDOG will claim Member 4's deposition Transcript is subject
19
to the. Protective Order to protect the witness' "right to privacy." This has been a consistent
20
theme throughout discovery in this litigation. However, the dissemination of information
21
regularly obtained through depositions in the discovery process only becomes an "invasion of
22
privacy" when: (1) the fact is private; (2) the fact has been wrohgly disclosed; (3) and it offends
23
a reasonable person's ordinary sensibilities to have had the infon11ation disclosed. Sipple v.
24
Chronicle Publishing Co. 154 Cal.App. 3d 1040, 1045 (1984). Here, the information regarding
25
Member 4 contained in the Transcript is nothing more than ordinary and customary infonnation
26
obtained in any deposition as foundation for the witness' testimony. Furthennore, all of the
27
infonnation has already been disclosed by the media, presumably with the lmowledge of SDOG
28
/11 /
7
CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S EX PARTE NOTICE AND APPLICATION TO REMOVE TRANSCRIPT
FROM RESTRICTIONS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
1
and its attomey. Thus, in this instance, the public interest certainly supersedes an alleged "right
2
to privacy" to basic foundation facts. SDOG bears the burden of proving otherwise, or proving
3
tmly "private" infonnation catmot be redacted from the Tratlscript prior to disclosure. The City
4
respectfully submits, there is no good reason to constrain the publlc's right to know under the
5
guise of an "invasion of privacy."
6
VI.
7
APPROPRIATE EX PARTE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN
8
9
Rule 3.1203(a) of the Califomia Rules of Court requires any patly seeking ex parte relief
to notify all parties no later than 10:00 a.m. the court day before the ex parte appearance of the
10
request for ex parte relief. The patly seeking ex patle relief must specify the nature of the relief
11
to be request atld the date, time and place for the presentation of the application. As more fully
12
set forth in the declaration of Cat1nen A. Brock, Esq. filed concurrently herewith, counsel for
13
SDOG was notified ofthe City's Ex Parte Application on Febmary 24,2015 at 12:12 p.m.
14
SDOG notified the City it would appear at the Ex Patle Hearing atld will oppose the City's
15 Application.
16
VII.
17
CONCLUSION
18
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, the City respectfully submits it has
19
demonstrated good cause for the court to grant its Application to remove the Tratlscript of
20
Member 4 from the restrictions imposed by the Protective Order in this action. The City will
21
suffel~
22
to investigate fully the issues raised by the recent Media Releases.
ilTeparable hann if it is not allowed to comply with its duties under the CPRA and.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: Febmary 25,2015
By
Carmen A. Brock
Deputy City Attomey
Attomeys for Defendant, City of San Diego
1__________==~~~====~====~~8~~==~~~~~~==~--------~
CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S EX PARTE NOTICE AND APPLICATION TO REMOVE TRANSCRIPT
FROM RESTRICTIONS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
JAN 1. GOLDSMITH, City Att0111ey
DANIEL F. BAMBERG, Assistant City Attomey
2 .CARMEN A. BROCK, Deputy City Attomey (CSBNI62592)
1
3
4
5
Office of the City Attomey
1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1100
San Diego, California 92101-4100
Telephone: (619) 533-5800
Facsimile: (619) 533-5856
6
7
Exempt from fees per Gov't Code § 6 J03
To the benefit of the City of San Diego
Attorneys for Defendant, City of San Diego
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
10
11 SAN DIEGANS FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT, )
)
12
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
13
)
14 CITY OF SAN DIEGO; and ALL PERSONS
)
)
INTERESTED IN THE MATTER OF THE
15 RENEWAL OF THE SAN DIEGO TOURISM )
MARKETING DISTRICT, THE LEVYING OF )
)
16 ASSESSMENTS UPON THE ASSESSED
17 BUSINESSES FOR A PERIOD FO THE
)
THIRTY-NINE AND ONE-HALF YEARS,
)
18 AND THE PRESCRIBING OF A METHOD
)
FOR COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS
)
19
Defendants.
20
21
Case No. 37-2012-00088065-CU-MC-CTL
DECLARATION OF CARNIEN A.
BROCK, DCA IN SUPPORT OF CITY
OF SAN DIEGO'S EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO RElVIOVE
TRANSCRIPT FRO]',1 RESTRICTIONS
OF PROTECTIVE ORDER;
[IMAGED FILE]
Parte Hearing: Febmary 26, 2015
Time:
8:30a.m.·
Judge:
Joel R. Wohlfeil
) Dept.:
73
) Complai11t filed: December 19, 2012
)
)
22
23
I, Carmen A. Brock, declare as follows:
24
1.
I am an att0111ey licensed to practice before all the Courts in the State of California.
25
I serve as a Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Diego (City). I am the Deputy City
26
Atto111ey assigned to represent the City in the above entitled action. Except where stated on
27
information and belief, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and
28
1________________~------------~1__----__--------------------~
DECLARATION OF CARMEN A. BROCK, DCA IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO REMOVE TRANSCRIPT FROM RESTRICTIONS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
1 could and would testify competently to those facts if called as a witness to do so.
2.
2
On February 24, 2015, I personally asked Cory Briggs, attomey for San Diegans
~
3
for Open Govemment (SDOG) if SDOG would agree to remove the "Confidential" designation
4
fi'om Member 4's depositiop. transcript (Transcript) as allowed by Paragraph 9 of the Protective
5
Order issued by this court on January 8,2014 (Protective Order) . I infonned Mr. Briggs if
6
SDOG would not agree to remove the Confidential designation on the Transcript, the City of San
7
Diego (City) would move by ex parte application (Application) on February 26,2015, at 8:30
8
a.m., to request the court remove Member 4's Transcript from the requirements of the Protective
9
Order as allowed by Paragraph 9 thereof. Mr. Briggs infonned me SDOG would not voluntarily
10
agree to remove the Confidential designation.
3.
11
On the same day, February 24,2015, I sent an email to all attomeys ofrecord in
12
this action infonning them that the City's Application to remove Member 4's Transcript from the
13
requirements of the Protective Order would be heard in Department 73 of the above referenced
14
court on February 26,2015 at 8:30 a.m. A true and correct copy of my email notification is
15
attached to the City's Application as Exhibit "1." It is my understanding SDOG will appear at the
16'
hearing and will oppose the City's Application. It is also my understanding the Tourism
17 Marketing District Corporation's (TMD Corp) will appear at the hearing in support ofthe City's
18
19
20
Application.
,4.
A true and correct copy of the court's January 8,2014, Protective Order is
attached to the City's Application as Exhibit "A."
5.
21
A true and correct copy of SDOG's Responses to Fonn Interrogatories dated
22
April 10, 2014 has been submitted to the court separately, conditionally under seal, as required
23
by the Protective Order as Exhibit "B to the City's Application.
j
,
6.
24
A true and correct copy of SDOG's Voluntary Identification of "Hotelier"
25
Member filing dated June 27,2014 has been submitted to the court separately, conditionally
26
under seal, as required by the Protective Order as Exhibit "C" to the City's Application.
27
1/ 1/ I
28 1____~~~==~~~~~~~~~72====~~==~~~~~==~~--~
DECLARATION OF CARMEN A. BROCK, DCA IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO REMOVE TRANSCRIPT FROM RESTRICTIONS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
7.
A true 811d correct copy of Member 4's Deposition Transcript dated December 1,
2
2014 has been submitted separately, conditionally under seal, as required by the Protective Order
3
as Exhibit "D" to the City's Application.
4
8.
A tme and correct copy of the KPBS inewssource article dated Febru81}' 23,2014,
5
entitled "San Diego Attomey Cory Briggs' Land Deals Raise Ethical, Legal Questions," found
6
on the web at http://www.kpbps,org/news/2015/feb/23/ ... is attached to the City's Application as
7
Exhibit "E."
8
9.
A true and correct copy of the KPBS inewssource 81iicle dated February 24,
9 2014, entitled "San Diego Attomey's Environmental Lawsuits Could Be Tainted by Conflict of
10
Interest," found on tl1e web at http://lvww.kpbps.org/news/2015/febI24/... is attached to the
11
City's Application as Exhibit "F."
12
10.
A true and correct copy of the email received by the City from Brad Racino,
13
Investigative Reporter, dated Febmary 23,2015 requesting records pursuant to Govennnent
14
Code sections 6250 to 6277 is attached to the City's Application as Exhibit "G."
15
11.. A true a11d correct copy of the City's Memorandum dated February 24,2015,
16
regarding Helix Enviromnental Planning, Incorporated, is attached to the City's Application as
17
Exhibit "H."
18
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the
19
foregoing is true and correct Executed this 4th day of Febru81}' 25,2015 in San Diego,
20
Califomia.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1____~~~==~==~==~~~~~37=====~~~==~~~==~==~~
DECLARATION OF CARMEN A. BROCK, DCA IN SUPPORT OF CIlY OF SAN DIEGO'S EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO REMOVE TRANSCRIPT FROM RESTRICTIONS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
2
JAN 1. GOLDSMITH, City Attorney
DANIEL BAMBERG, Assistant City Attorney
CARMEN A. BROCK, Deputy City Attorney (CSBN162592)
3
Office of the City Attorney
1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1100
San Diego, Califomia 92101-4100
Telephone: (619) 533-5800
Facsimile: (619) 533-5856
4
5
6
7
Exempt from fees per Gov't Code § 6103
To the benefit of the City of San Diego
Attorneys for Defendant, City of San Diego
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
8
9 SAN DIEGANS FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT, ) Case No. 37-2012-00088065-CU-MC-CTL
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
CITY OF SAN DIEGO; and ALL PERSONS
)
INTERESTED IN THE MATTER OF THE
)
RENEWAL OF THE SAN DIEGO TOURISM )
MARICETING DISTRICT, THE LEVYING OF )
ASSESSMENTS UPON THE ASSESSED
)
BUSINESSES FOR A PERIOD FO THE
)
THIRTY-NINE AND ONE-HALF YEARS,
)
AND THE PRESCRIBING OF A METHOD
)
FOR COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS
)
)
)
Defendants.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S NOTICE OF
LODGMENT AND LODGMENT OF
DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF CITY'S
EX PARTE APPLICATION
CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL
PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
lIMA GED FILE}
Ex Parte Hearing: February 26,2015
Time:
8:30 a.m.
Judge:
Joel R. Wohlfeil
73
Dept.:
Complaint filed: December 19,2012
18
19
20
TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR
ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
21
22
PLEASE TAICE NOTICE the enclosed documents lodged in support of the City of
San Diego's (City) Ex Parte Application to Remove Transcript From Restrictions of Protective
23
Order (Application) are subject to the Protective Order issued by tIns court on January 8, 2014,
24
and are lodged herewith conditionally under seal as required by Paragraph 8 of the Protective
25
Order.
26
Dated: February 25,2015
27
28
nnen;s;,.. r (
Deputy City Attomey
Attorneys for Defendant, City of San Diego
1
CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S NOTICE OF LODGMENT AND LODGMENT OF DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF CITY'S EX PARTE
APPLICATION CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
EXHIBIT A .
1
MICHAEL O. COLANTUONO, State Bar No, 143551
)..tCobntiIO\lQ.~.LA W,
us
2 DAVfn J. RUDERMAN, State Bar No. 245989
DR Ildennan@CLLA W, l;S
3 RYAN THOMAS DuW, Stille BarNo. 268106
RDuniY$CU-A W,!;S
4
5
6
COLANTUONO & LEVIN. PC
11364 Pleasant Valley Road
Penn VaHey, California 95946·9000
Telephone; (530) 432-7357
Facsimile: (530) 432 7356
M
Attomeys for Defendant
•
SAN DIEGO TOURlSM MARKETING
8 DrSTIDCT CORPORATION
7
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORN[A
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL COURTHOUSE
It
g
.; i
u ~
12
~ r:: ~
SAN DIEGANS FOR OPEN
~
13 GOVERNMEl\T,
CASE NO. 37-2012-000a8065-CU-MC~CTL
Unlimited Jurisdiction
!~~
~ :: () 14
oZ
c;lii,.:
g ::i ~ '15
§~~
-
.. 2:
o~z
16
() ..... Lt.!
~O..
17
18
19
?-O
PlaIntiffs~
(Case assigned to Hon. Joel Wohlfeil)
IPROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
V.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO; and ALL PERSONS
INTERESTED IN THE MATTER OF THE
RENEWAL OF THE SAN DIEGO TOURISM
MARKETING DISTRICT, THE LEVYING
OF ASSESSMENTS UPON THE ASSESSED
BUSINESSRS FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTYNrNB AND ONE-HALF YEARS, AND THE
PRESCR1BlNG OF A METHOD FOR
COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS,
21
IMAGED FILE
Complaint Filed:
December 19,2012
Defendants.
22
23
IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED as follows:
?-4
1.
As used herein, CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION means information that discloses
2.5 the identity of members, officers and directors oft or any other individuals directly associated with,
26
San Diegans for Open Governmentt where the identity and affiliation with San Diegans for Open
21 Goverrunent of such person is not a matter of public record at the time of the disclosure pursuant to
28
this Protective Order.
[PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
t2.l263,g,
2.
CONFIDENTIAL INfORMATION disclosed by any party 0.1' a third party
2
(hereinafter HProducing Party") to any other party (hereinafter HReceiving Party") pursuant 10
3
discovery in this action shall be used solely for purposes ofthis litigation and shall not be disclosed
-1
directly or indirectly to any party, attorney Of other person who is not subject to this Protective
5
Order.
I
r
I
6
3.
\
Any information produced by a non-party in discovery in this litfgation pursuant to
7
subpoena or otherwise may be designated by such non-party as CONF1DENTIAL INFORMATION
B
under this Protective Order, and any such designation by a non-party shaH have the same force and
9 effect. and create the same duties and obligations. as ifrnade by one of the undersigned Parties. Any
lO
such designation shall also function as consent by such Producing Party to the authority of the Court
II in this proceeding 10 resolve a.nd conclUSively determine any motion Ot other application made by
12 any party with respect to such designntio~ or any other matter otherwise. arising under this
13 Protective Order.
4.
15
A Producing Party may designate information as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
using thc following procedures:
a.
Information set forth in responses to discovery requests Dr in documents
17
produced fOr inspection will be designated as CONFIDENTIAL
IS
INFORMATION provided that. prior to delivery to the Receivtng Party. the
19
responses ot'copics ofdocuments shall be marked by the Producing Party with
20
the following iegend:
i
21
CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE
ORDER
22
23
r
l
b.
Information revealed during a deposition upon oral examination will be
r
I
I
II
I
24
designated as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION if the Producing Party has:
25
{j) indicated on the record or in writing~ at the time thc deposition was taken
26
or prior to the conclusion of the depositIo~ that portions of the deposition
21
contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION; and (ii) instructed the court
2S
2
(PROPOSED) PROTECTIVE'ORDER
!23263.8
I
reporter prior to preparation of lhe transcript to indicate on the face pagt! of
the deposition tha.t it contains CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
2
5.
Access to information designated as CONFIDENTIAL shall be limited to the
4 following persons:
S
a.
(i) Counsel of record for a Receiving Party, their affililitcd attorneys, and
6
stenographic, clerical, and legal assistant employees whosc.functions require
7
access to CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION; (ii) In-house counsel for a
8
Receiving Party, lheir affiliated attorneys, and stenograpmc 1 clerical, and legal
9
assistant employees whose functions reqUire access to CONFIDENTIAL
. INFORMATION;
10
II
b.
[SELECT ONE]
u~g 12
!'hOC
• eo: ~
c>-<> 13
~Ul'"
1
::. ... 0-
0/ ....
employees, elected off! iaIs other fum the
'11)
-,<:.,.
.0>0« 14
ozu
e:
0:
•
0"')-
::I~~
... ..t ...
IS
C ... 0:
.9<:>
000;/;
...,2
16
... w
0.
0
20
2]
23
Officers, directors. partners" members, empIoyees, elected officials and agents of a
Receiving Party that the Receiving Party's counsel deems necessary to aid counsel
In the prosecution and/or defense of this lawsuit;
28
3
[PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDeR
1;zJ2!iJ.8
c.
2
consultation are being considered or will be used by such party in connection
.
with this action, including their stenographic and clerical personnel;
.l
4
00
U<c:I
... ..,.
->c. ......
....
,,-0 0
~ ~
1).
d.
~
the Producing Party, (Ii) a witness who has previously had aocess to the
6-
CONFIDENTIAL lNFORMATION, (iii) any other \'fitness with infonnation
7
relevant to the issues in this litigation; provided that CONFIDENTIAL
8
JNFORMATION may be shov,n to a fonner consultant or employee of the
9
Producing Party, or to any witness described in clause (iii) of this Paragraph
10
5(d), only if such Witness shall first sign the Agreement To Abide By
11
Protective Order in the form of Exhibit A attached hereto from cach such
12
witness\\;ho would require access to CONFIDENTIAL rNFORl\1ATlON, and
13
counsel shall retain in his or her file the original of each such signed
0-
diI_< 14
o~o
c:: < '
o!'l~
;,IU .... 15
- . . ; ....
gA..~
jj~%'
u<'lZ
'"
~""
(i) A witness an behalf of. or a current or former consultant or employee 04
5
III -, >Q
....
Outside experts or consultants for a Receiving Party whose advice and
.'
Agreement To Abide By Protective Order.
e.
Any person affiliated with a public agency who requires access to
16
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to receive, review, process, and/or
11
respond to a Callfomia Public Records Act (CPRA) request, a request under
18
the Freedom of Infonnation Act (FOIA), or any other procedure for requesting
19
and receiving copies ofpublic documents or records submitted by a Receiving
20
Party; provided that any request for copies of public documents or records
21
held by a public agency shall contain no more CONFIDENTIAL
22
lNFORMATION than reasonably necessary for the public agency and its
23
personnel to respond to the request; such as, without limitation, the
24
relationship between an identified person and San Oiegans for Open
25
Government;
~
26
f.
27
2B
Dupticati,ng servicest and auxiliary services of a Ilke nature, routinely engaged
by counsel; and
g.
The Court, its authorized staff, and court repmters (whether at depositions,
!±
[PROPOSED] PROTECT1V.E ORD.ER
12326:1.8
;
~
r
I
hearings, or any other proceeding).
2
6.
Absent further order of this Court, CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION shall not be
3
nw.de public by any Receiving Party, and shal I be used or disclosed only as provided for In this
4
Protective Order.
s
7.
6
Should any party wish to use any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATiON, or any papers
containing or making reference to the contents of such infonnatioil l in any pleading or document
7 submitted to flle Court in this Jitigation that is not filed or lodged under seal pursuant to Paragraph 8~
g
those individuals whose identities are covered by this Protective Order shan be referred to by a
9 pseudonym (e.g. "Member 1"): provided that the use of a pseudonym is not requited for discovery
0.0
()<t;o
11..
g~
)0
motions filed or lad ged with the Court or when discovery materials are filed or lodged in Court in
II
connection with discovery motions. or proceedings.
12
~
I:; ..
-",,,,
13
> ..t '"
III .. ""
.... "'0-
<iI'S>< 14
(,lZo
c « .
0<;':;
.,....,"""' 15
- ...
c ... -'
..:
[]
8.
Use of CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION in Court fIlings:
a.
In the event that a Party (other than the Producing Party) wishes to use any
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, or any papers containing or making
reference to the contents of such information, in any plt!ading or document
:>
";g zz
8- .......
16
flIed y,..ith the Court in thIs litigation) thatPany (for purposes of this paragraph
17
Sea) only~ the "Submitting Party;') shalliooge such pleading Dr document and
18
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with the Court under seal in It manner
19
consistent with Rule 2.551 (b){3) of the California Rules of Court and saaU, on
20
the same day, serve a copy of such pleading or document and
21
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by facsimile or overnight mall on the
22
Producing Party's counsel. If the Producjng Party wishes to request that the
23
CONFIDENTIAL lNFORl\1'.ATION so lodged, and any papers containing or
24
making reference to such CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION so lodged, be
2S
filed under sew, the Producing Party must, within ten ( 10) business days after
;46
service of such notice, file a noticed motion to seal pursuant to Rules 2.5S{)
21
and 2.551 of the California Ruies of Court. The CONFIDENTIAL
28
INFORMAnON, and any papers containing or making referep.ce to the
_tL
________
-...;._--:----:'---:-~-
S
..____________
{PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
1l3163.l!
contents of such infonnation, shall remaIn lodged under sea] until such time as
2
the Court can conduct a hearing and make a determination on the Producing
3
Party's motion to seal.
b.
4
5
In Lhc event that the Producing Party wishes to use any CONFIDENTIAL
f
INFC?RMATION, or any papers containing or making reference to the
I'
I
I
6
contents of such Information, in any pleading or docUment filed with the
7
Court in tills Litigation, and the Producing Party wIshes to request that such
S
pleading or document be fifed. under sear, then the Producing Party shall file a
I
9
noticed motion for an order directing that such pleading or document be flJod
10
under seal pursuant to RuJes1.550 and 2.5.51 ofthe California Rules of Court.
II
00
u~g
c.
.,.
•
CO;
12
9.
The acceptance of CONFIDENTlAL INFORi\1ATION by the parties shall not
constitute an admission or concession or peunit an inferencemm the CONFIDENTIAL
•
.5~~ 13
:. .... 0& ....
'"
...
.;:0-
INFOR.tVlATION is in fact confidential. Any Receiving Party may at any time request that the
tJ
14
desigru.ting party remove the CONFIDENTIAL designation with respect to any document, object or
::J~~
""....s
.. 1
15
information. Such request shaH be made to counsel for the Producing Party, and shall particularly
-""z
Q~z
16 identify the designated CONFIDENTlAL INFORMATION that the Receiving Party contends is not
ed ::
2
0 <:
:::
•
0"'>-
g(l..~
- .... 17
u_ ....
confidential and the reasons supponing its contention. rf the Producing Party does not agree to
18
remove the CONFIDENTIAL designation, then the party contending that such documents or
19
infonnauon are not confidential may request by motion that Lhe CQurt remove such documents or
.20
21
22
information from the restrictions of this Protective Order. The burden of demonstrating that the
documents or infonnation IS confldential shall be on the Producing Party.
10.
This Protective Order shalf not prevent a party from altern pting to examine about
23 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, at depositions and at tria1~ persons who are authorized to
24
receive CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION as identified herein in Para~aph 5. This Protective
25 Order shall not prevent counsel from examining a witness to detennine whether he.or she bas pdor
26
knowledge of CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, so long as such exa.rcination shall be in a manner
27
that does not disclose me details of the CONFIDENTIAL INFORMAnON to persons who are not
28
authorized to receive CONBDENTIAL INFORMATION as identified herein in Paragraph 5. If a
6
[PROPOSEO] PROTECTIVE ORDER.
! 23263.8
!
1
!
!.
I
witness dentes that he or she had prior knowledge ofCONFIDE;-.JTIAL INFORMATION and the
2
deposing party has !l. good faith belief that the witness knew otherwise but the deposing party is
3 precluded from questioning the witncss further because it might discfo~ the details of the
I
I
I
.; CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, each party reserves the right to later seek to examine the
5
witness concerning the CONFIDENTIAL INFORlv.1.ATlON and each party reserves all objections to
6
:fUrther examination.
II.
7
u~
CONFIDENTIAL INFO RMAT[ON may be used in testimony at trial, at any motion
8
hearing, and a.t depositions, and may be offered in evidence at trial or at any motion hearing, all
9
subject to any further Order regarding confidentiality as this Court may enter, and may be used to
10
prepare for and conduct discovery, to prepare for trial and to support or oppose any motion. all
II
subject to this Protective Order, but may not be used for any other purpOse except as expressly
g 12
provided herein or by further Order of the Court. At the request ofa Producing Party, any per.son(s)
":o:'!'
~ ~ ~ 13 not pennitted access to CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION under Paragraph S may be barred from
!<!8
~ ~ ~ 14 attending any portion of any hearing or deposition(s) at which CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
c~..:
g ~!:j
c~;(
o
15
is revealed, subject to any further Order regarding confidentiality as this Court may enter.
I
!>
8~ ~
16
I 2.
Nothing in this Order shaH bar or othernise restrict any attorney from rend ering
-"-
11 advice to a party client in this action and In the course thereof, relylng upon such attomey's
18
examination of CONFIDENTIAL INFO R..\1A TrON; provided. however, that in rendering such
19
advice and in otherwise conununicating with such client, the attorney shall not disclose any
20 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to 1U1authorized persons.
I
It
I.
I
I
I
I
21
13.
The inadvertent or mistaken disclosure by a Producmg Party of CONFIDENTIAL
22 .INFORMATION shall not constitute a waiver of any claim of confidentiality except where(i) within
23
fifteen (15) days of the Receiving Party's receipt of the inadvertent or mistaken disclosure of
24
CONFIORNTIAL INFORMATrON, or within fifteen (t 5) days of entry of this Order, whichever is
25
later, the Producing Party notifies the Receiving Party ofsuch inadvertent or mistaken disclosure
26
andt (ll) within thirty (30) days {)fhaving provided such notice, the Producing Party fails to provide
27
properly
18
notice, the materials sh.aIl be treated as designated in the Producing Party's notice. Upon receipt of
re~designated documents to
the Receiving Party. During the thirty (30) day period after
7
[PROPOS SO} f'ROTECTNE ORDRR
123263.8
~
1
properly re-designated documents. the Receivlng Party shaH return all unmarked or incorrectly
2 designated documents and other materials to the Producing Party within five (5) business days. The
3 Receiving Party shall not retain copies thereof and shalt treat informa.tion contained in said,
4
documents and materials and .any summaries or notes thereof as appropriately marked pursuant to
S the Producing Party's notice.
14.
6
Shoufd a.'1y CONFIDENTIAL TNFORMATION be disclosed, through inadvertence
7
or otherwise, by the ReceivIng Party to any person or parry Dl)t authorized under this Protective
8
Order, then the Receiving Party shall: (a.) use its best efforts to obtain the return of any such
~
CONFIDENTIAL INFOIU.1A1ION and to bind such person to the lenns of this Pro1ective Order~
10
(b) within three (3) business days of the discovery of such disclosure, inform such person ofal!
T[ provisions of this Protective Order; (c) within five (5) business days of the discovery of such
o ~8
A.
0 ~ .
12
disclosure, identify such person to the Producing Party; and (d) request such person to sign the
• a: •
~ ~ ~ 13 Agreement To AbIde By Protective Order in the ronn attached hereto as Exhibit A. The executed
!II'-!II'I
. . 40-
~ ~;j 14 agreement shall be served upon counsel of record for the Producing Parry within five (5) business
c
of.
•
;:I W
oJ
o!!:!~ S
NF
T
ct:I i ::-~ 1 days ofits execution by the party to whom'CO lDENTIAL INFORMA ION was disclosed.
~ ~ 16· Nothing in this pa..rn.graph is intended to limit the remedies that the Producing Pany, or any person
8
-"
17 whose CONFIDENTIAL TNFORMATION was disclosed, may pursue for breach of this Protective
18 Order.
19
20
21
15.
Nothing in this Protective Order shall require disclosure of info nnation or provide a
basis to refuse disclosure of infm:mation. "
16.
If information subject to a claim of attorney-client or taXpayer-confidentiality
22 privilege or work~product inununity is inadvertently or mistakenly produced, such production shall
23 in no v;ay prejudice or otherwise constitUte a waiver of~ or estoppel as to any claim of privilege or
24
immunity for such infonnation. If a parry has inadvertently or mistakenly produced information
25
subje.ct to a claim of imrn\mity or privitege, upon request made b)' ilie Producing Pany within. seven
26 (7) business days of discovery of such inadvertent or mistaken production, or entry of this Order, the
27
information for which a claim of inadvertent production is made sh.all be returned 'Within three (3)
28 business days of such request and aU copies of any inadvertently Or mistakenly produced document
8
[pROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER
12.3263.8
i
shall be destroyed. The party returning such information may move the Court for an Order
2
I
compelling production cfsuch infonnat1on. Nothing in this Stipulation is intended to operate as a
J waiver of any claim ofprivilege or immunity or [0 concede that any matter as to which privilege is
4
asserted is, in fact, privileged.
5
17.
The restrictions. and obligations set forth in thls Protective Order reia.ting to ,
6 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMAnON shall not apply to any information which~ (a) is already public
7
knowledge prior to the entry of this Protective Order; (b) has become or becomes public knowledge
8 other than as a result of disctosure_ in violadon of this Prot~tive Order; or (c) is in the Receiving
9 Party's possession independently ofproduction from the Producing Party, The restrictions and
I
J
.'
10 obligations under this Protective Order shall not prohibit discussions with any person of
II
CONFIDENTIAL lNFORMAnON if that person already possesses the CON'f'lDENTIAL
12 INFORMATION and is not otherwise bound to maintain such information as confidential.
18.
The Protective Order shall not prevent any party from applying to the Court for relief
14 therefrom or modification thereof, or from applying to the Court for further or additional protective
IS orders.
19.
This Protective Order shall survive the termination oftbis action.
17 After final tennination of this Mtion, the counsel designated in paragraph 5(a) hereof for the
18 Receiving Party may each retain one archival copy of deposition exhibi!SJ Court exhibits, documents
!
19
and other materiais subroitted to the Cou~ deposition transcripts and tra!LScrlpcs of court
20
proceedings. one copy or sample ofthe CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION produced by opposing
r
2J
counsel for reference in the event of a dispute over the Use or dissemination of information, and
15
22 ,CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to the extent it jnc~udes or reflects an attorney's work product.
I
23
Such material shall continue to betreated as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION underthls
24
agreement. After final termination of this action, counsel for the Receiving Party ejther shall return
25 alt additional CONFIDENTIAL lNFORMATION in his pcssession7 custody or c()ntro~ or in the
26 Cllstody of any authorized agents, outside experts and consultants retained or utilized by counsel for
21 the Receiving Party to counsel for the party who has provided such CONFlDENTIAL
28 INFORMATION in discovery or sh.aU certify destruction thereof to such counsel.
9
[PROPOSED) PRome-riVE ORDER
12326!.8
.;-
I
I!.
r
l'
2
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING. IrIS SO ORDERED.
:3
Da(ed:~Jy
4
5
The
e Joel Wohlfei1
Judge of the Superior Court
<5
7
:)
9
10
II
u
~
g 12
~o~
• tI:
•
E
~::; 13
> .... 00:>.11(')
..J~otd .... ~
c,",,>""
~ .
-g :Ii:f
...
14
15
-'
«
oc: "" :>
'O:;!; § 16
o
~
...
~"-
11
18
19
20
21
22
:
I
23
I
24
25
26
21
28
lQ
[PROPOSED] PROTECflVeORDER
J1.326U
EXHIBIT E
San Diego Attomey Cory Briggs' Land Deals Raise Ethical, Legal Questions I KPBS
Page 1 of6
San Diego Attorney Cory Briggs' Land'Deals Raise Ethical,
Legal Questions
Tomorrow: Investigation by inewsource examines issues
surrounding Briggs' environmental lawsuits
Monday, February 23, 2015
By Brad Racino I inewsource and Brooke Williams I :inewsource
Photo by Roland Lizarondo
Attorney Cory Briggs speaks to inewsource, Feb. 11, 2015.
For years, Cory Briggs, a high-profile San Diego lawyer and a key figure in the resignation of former
Mayor Bob Filner, has engaged in real estate transactions that a host of experts say are questionable and
possibly fraudulent.
inewsource followed millions of dollars of his land deals through four Southern Califomia counties to be
met with slammed doors, a threat to call the police and a strange hand-delivered letter, saying there was
no payoffto get rid of Filner, who resigned in 2013 amid a sexual harassment scandaL inewsource also
discovered Briggs had sold his home for about halfits worth to a corporation he controls.
http://\;vwvv.kpbs.org/news/2015/feb/23/san-diego-attomey-cory-briggs-land-deals-raise-etl... 2/23/201:')
San Diego Attomey Cory Briggs' Land Deals Raise Ethical, Legal Questions I KPBS
Page 2 of6
111ese types of transactions are "never done in honest business dealings," said William Black, a whitecollar criminologist and fonner bank regulator who testified before Congress about the Lehman Brothers
collapse.
inewsource asked Black and other experts to review public records of Briggs' land deals, in p8.1ticular
h¥o $1.5 million deeds of trust made on the same day in 2013. Briggs and his law firm entered into the
deeds with four members of the same family. The deeds were secured by houses wOlth a fraction of that
cost, without listing a title company.
"I don't think he's going to want the Bar to leam about these things," Black said.
A puzzling letter
Credit: William Black
Professor William K. Black teaches economics and law at the University of Missouri - Kansas City. He researches
white-collar crime and testified in front of Congress about the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2010.
Since at least 2007, the Briggs Law Corp. has been entering into deeds of trust
liens against a property
typically in exchange for loans - with people in Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and Los Angeles
counties for as little as $15,000 and as much as $1.5 million.
Briggs' largest liens, totaling $3 million, were made on Aug. 28,2013 - five days after Pilner
announced his resignation
by members of the Wolfmbarger family in Dian10nd Bar and Chino, a little
more than 100 miles northwest of San Diego. The liens were worth nearly three times the value of the
homes, according to data from Zillow and Homesnap. One house was worth about $679,000 at the time;
the other currently is valued at about $378,000.
http://www.kpbs.org/newsI2015/feb/23/s8.11-diego-attorney-cory-briggs-l8.11d-deals-raise-etl... 2/23/2015
San Diego Attorney Cory Briggs' Land Deals Raise Ethical, Legal Questions I KPBS
Page 3 of6
LEARN MORE: See the original documents behind each sentence
inewsource asked Briggs' about the deeds of trust, and mentioned the proximity to Pilner's resignation
alU10UnCel11ent. But Briggs shut down the interview on Feb. 11 and threatened to call the police if
reporters didn't leave his office.
"This stuff is not an issue," Briggs said, adding he would respond to inewsource's story after publication.
The reporters immediately headed north to Chino to interview Randy Wolfinbal'ger, who slalmned the
door when asked about his lien for $1.5 million. His wife - coming home from a trip to the store - ' said
"he just briefed me on it earlier," then "no conunent" and hurried inside.
'
In nearby Dialll0nd Bar, JallleS alld Barbara \Volfinbarger didn't allSWer their door or a phone call that
evening. Two cars were parked in the driveway. The lights were off in the house.
inewsource left a copy of their $1.5 million lien on their door with a note requesting an interview.
On Feb. 16, inewsource received a letter from the Wolf1l1bal'gers with a puzzling claim: That an
inewsource reporter had accused them of paying someone to oust Pilner from office. The reporters who
tried to interview the \Volfinbargers never mentioned Pilner, according to video footage of the encounter,
either in verbal questions to the family or in the note left with the deed of trust.
Their letter was dropped off at KPBS, where inewsource has its office, by a woman who appeared to be a
Briggs employee. It read in part:
"Brad Racino has repeatedly harassed us and other family members with the accusation that we paid an
attorney millions of dollars to get rid of San Diego mayor Bob Pilner alld made impolite demands that we
talk with him about this absurd theory. For the record, we do not even know who Mr, Filner is. We did
not pay any person to get rid of him or the mayor of any other city for that matter."
Maldngcontact
inewsource found eight deeds of trust between the Briggs Law Corp. and b011'0wers - the earliest from
2007 - for a total of $3.8 million. Two more deeds involve Briggs' personal LLC but not his law
corporation.
Of the eight deeds involving Briggs' law finn, five list a title company such as First American or Fidelity
National as a trustee. Of the other three, one lists Karin Langwasser as trustee, and the other two - the
ones for $1.5 million
list "Cory J. Briggs" as trustee.
inewsource attempted to interview all of the borrowers.
Two did not return multiple phone calls or emails, another two, the Wolfinbargers, would not talk about
the liens. The fifth and sixth's phone numbers couldn't be located, but inewsource found oI1:e of them,
Andrew Levy, was a defendallt in a 2007 lawsuit in which Briggs represented the plaintiff. Levy's
$15,000 deed with the Briggs Law Corp. was filed the Salne day as an amended cOUli complaint.
The seventh's bookkeeper said that the lien was a gual'antee for a $75,000 payment regarding a lawsuit
Briggs filed against her company, but declined to speak further about it.
"They don't want anybody pulling on the threads here," said Black, the white-collar criminologist, when
http://\vww.kpbs.org/news/20 15/feb/23/sall-diego-attorney-cory-briggs-Iand-deals-raise-et/... 2123/2015
. San Diego Attorney Cory Briggs' Land Deals Raise Ethical, Legal Questions I KPBS
Page 4 of6
told the total number of deeds. "TIlls is how you end up naked."
The eighth said that the $200,000 recorded on the deed never actually changed hands, and that she barely
lmew Briggs.
"I think we contacted him because we were trying to protect our assets in looking at a potential lawsuit,"
said Marlene Nisbet.
.
Nisbet and her husband were named as defendants in a personal injury lawsuit filed about one month
prior to her deed with Briggs. She said she couldn't remember the details and was unaware that there was
a $200,000 lien on her house. inewsource obtained the deed, which says the "debt" is "due and payable
on conclusion of beneficiary's representation ofBonower(s)."
A possible explanation, according to Black and other experts interviewed, is that the liens were used to
protect Nisbet's assets froin the creditors in her lawsuit. They said this scenario would not be legaL
"I'm celiainly scratching my head wondering why someone would set themselves up for the kind of
scrutiny that this would bring," said Jonathan Arons, a defense attorney for lawyers, who has more than
30 years of experience llllegal ethics.
"What do you hope to gain from this?" Arons said.
This is how a typical asset protection scheme works, they said: Jane owes a lot of money to a creditor
after a lawsuit or bankruptcy, for example - and that creditor wants repayment in the fonn of Jane's
home. But Jane has already entered into a fake deed of trust with someone, so it appears as if the house is
encumbered, or underwater. Because the house isn't worth much of anything, the creditor might leave it
alone. Eventually, the lending party lifts the fake deed from Jane's property so it is no longer underwater.
Nisbet said, in her case, no money changed hands in the deed, but she might have paid Briggs for his
. legal services. She said she doesn't remember.
The Briggs Law Corp. lists "asset protection" as a service for its clients on its website.
That's unusual for a law firm to advertise, Black said.
Asset protection, he said, includes such tlUngs as advising a client to create a family trust or a
corporation, or to buy real estate somewhere else, "so they can't go after your debts." It's best to advise
before the client is already in trouble, he said, adding "They're a law firin, they give advice on asset
.. protection
they don't actually do the deals themselves."
Ed McIntyre, a legal ethicist and a former member of the California State Bar Committee on Professional
Responsibility
Conduct, agreed.
and
"A law firm is in the business of the practice oflaw and it should not be using its law firm name and
license and whatever status being a law firm gives you to be lending money/' McIntrye said.
"You've got a pattern that I think would get somebody' s attention," he said, "whether it's a prosecutor,
investigator or somebody at the state Bar who may want to know - 'Why is tllls quasi-public interest
law firm lending out all tIllS money?'"
"There may be a legitimate reason for it," McIntyre said, "but what's it all about?"
http://www.kpbs.org/news/20 15/feb/23/san-diego-attomey-cory-briggs-land-deals-raise-etI... 2123/2015
San Diego Attorney Cory Briggsl Land Deals Raise Ethical l Legal Questions I KPBS
Page 5 of6
The West End Executives Association
One cOlU1ection inewsource found between Briggs alld several borrowers was a business group called the
West End Executives Associationl a nonprofit "dedicated to increasing our business success by providing
referralsl~ to members. Its website says the association is part of a network of 90 sister organizations
operating in major cities in 18 countries, and they typically meet for breakfast at a Holiday Inn in
Ontario.
One current executive board member and two past presidents ofthe association, including James "Butch"
Wolfinbarger, appear on deeds of trust connected to Briggs Law Corp.
Briggs has been a member since 2002, according to the groupls Facebook page. He was president for six
months in 2005, according to the website.
A Jan. 14 post on the group's Facebook page, accompanied by a photo of Briggs at a podium, states,
"Briggs Law COlvoration specializes in business law for small, family-owned businesses. Services
include formation of corporations and LLCs, negotiation of commercial contracts, asset protection
strategies, estate plmming and trust administration ... Many members have atiested to the services
received by Cory and his fiTI11, who are always available to give advice, and solve problems when
needed."
One last puzzle
Briggs' home in Sall Diego also baffled experts.
He purchased it for $1.49 million in 2010 vvithout recording a deed of trust for the property at the San
Diego County assessor's office~ said Sharon·Ferguson~ the office's assistant division chief.
A litile more than nvo years later, he sold it to TYL Enterprises, a corporation fonned in Nevad~ for
$725,000. According to the Nevada secretary of state's website, Briggs serves as TYL's president,
secretary, treasurer mld director, and represented the company in court over a breach of contract dispute
in 2010.
No experts interviewed could suggest a logical explanation for taking such a loss on the home.
inewsource repeatedly asked Black if there was any sensible explanation for its findings.
"l'Jo," he said. ','And if there is, these folies could provide it."
Overall, Black said, "the deals make no sense as economic matters, and it's not even close."
"It's not a matter ofjudgment. It's just: no, no no," he said.
Brooke Williams is an inewsource correspondent andjournalismfellow at Harvard University. Follow
her on Twitter @reporterbrooke
http://www.kpbs.org/news/20 15/febI23/san-diego-attol11ey-cory-briggs-land-deals-raise-etI... 2/23/2015
Sail Diego Attorney Cory Briggs' Land Deals Raise Ethical, Legal Questions I KPBS
Page 6 of6
BRAD RACINO, Multimedia-Based Investigative Reporter / inewsource I Contact brad-racino
Follow @bradracino on T\vitter
Brooke Williams / inewsource
I
. Related Content
Bill Horn's Basic Faith I May 22,2014
What You Can Find Out About A Person At Assessor/Recorder's Office I February 10,2014
San Diego Mayoral Candidates' Personal Finances I February 6, 2014
Please stay on topic and be as concise as possible. Leaving a comment means you agree to our COllununity Discussion
Rules. We like civilized discourse. We don't like spam, lying, p1'Ofanily, harassment or personal attacks.
comments poweredby Disqus
http://www.kp bs.org/news/20 15/feb/23/san-diego-attorney-cory-briggs-land-deals-raise-etl... 2123/2015
'EXHIBIT F
San Diego Attomey's EnvirolUnental Lawsuits Could Be Tainted By Conflict OfInterest I... Page 1 of 7
San Diego Attorney's Environmental Lawsuits Could Be Tainted
By Conflict Of Interest
Tuesday, February 24,2015
By Brad Racino I inewsource and Brooke Williams I inewsource
Photo by KatIe Schoolov
Attorney Cory Briggs spe<;lks to KPBS news about the San Diego Convention Center, Jan. 6, 2015.
A few minute's before 3 p.m. on Feb. 11, Cory Briggs, a well-known San Diego environmental lawyer,
walked into his office for an interview with inewsource.
He placed his large, iced drink and cellphone on the conference table. A pile of documents rested in a
comer of the room. Guitars, a dry-erase board and framed photos decorated the walls.
As a videographer for inewsource made final camera adjustments, one photo
caught the attomey's eye. He tqok down the picture.
of Briggs and his wife
"I don't put fanuly on stuff," he said.
http://www .kpbs.org/news/20 15/feb/241san-diego-attomeys-envirolU11ental-lawsuits-could-bl 212412015
San Diego Attorney's Environmental Lawsuits Could Be Tainted By Conflict OfInterest I... Page 2 of 7
That practice has proven successful. A review of a decade's worth of news coverage about Briggs found
no mention of his wife's name. Similarly, news profiles of his wife didn't mention him by name.
But Sarichia "Seekey" Cacciatore has shared a professional interest with her husband - the environment.
An inewsource investigation reveals she worked for a company, Helix Environmenta(Planning, that was
involved in at least three cases on the other side of his lawsuits.
Ed McIntyre, an attorney who currently devotes his practice to legal ethics and professional responsibility
and was named one of San Diego's top lavvyers in 2014, said the arrangement raises legal and ethical
questions.
"I really think the situation just screams conflict of interest, not just for her but for him," McIntyre said.
"It gives him entree into where they're not complying, in a fashion that he really shouldn't have."
The news surprised San Diego business and government officials, as well as legal ethicists, and is now; of
great interest to some who have been his biggest targets over the years.
San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, whose office has defended against more than' 50 Briggs lawsuits
over the past decade, said he was concemed about inewsource's fmdings.
"Learning of this information from inewsource," he said, "I have requested a full review of the city of
San Diego's use of Helix envirom11ental."
A questionable arrangement
Briggs has made a nan1e for himself suing developers and goverml1ent agencies from here to Los Angeles
over alleged environmental violations, such as a sewage spill on Camp Pendleton in 2011. He also was
among the first to publicly demand former-Mayor Bob HIner re~ign in2013. His initial criticism
concerned HIner's relationship with a developer Briggs was about to sue, not allegations of sexual
harassment - ultimately the reason HIner resigned.
One ofBrigg's frequent legal targets is the Port of San Diego.
Unbeknownst to the public agency, Brigg's wife, Cacciatore, was listed as a project manager on a
contract her employer, Helix, had with the port at the same time her husband was suing it over
environmental matters. The contract stated that Helix would help in the "preparation of enviromnental
documents and technical studies to assist the District in meeting the mandates of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)."
Jonathan Arons has practiced law and legal ethics for more than 30 years, and defends lawyers in
disciplinary proceedings. He shared his opinion ofthe Briggs-Cacciatore professional relationship with
inews0 urce .
"It certainly raises an eyebrow or two. Or twelve," Arons said.
"I think you'd have to be blind not to think that there's something going on," he said. "The only question
is whether or not it violates any requirements of disclosure. If he's filing lawsuits and using inside
information, then the question is: is he doing something illegal?"
Arons said he would need more details to come to a conclusion.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/20 15/feb/24/san-diego-attomeys-envirOlTI11ental-lawsuits-could-bl 2/24/2015
San Diego Attomey's Environmental Lawsuits Could Be Tainted By Conflict OfInterest I... Page 3 of 7
John Bolduc, acting president and CEO of the port, was surprised to leam of the professional cOlmection
between Briggs and his wife and said his staff is looking into it.
A port spokeswoman confirmed Helix never disclosed a potential conflict of interest in its agreements
with the agency.
Neither Briggs, his wife (through her attorney, Marco Gonzalez) nor her fOl1l1er employer would respond
to questions about their relationships.
Briggs sued more than 20 municipalities and filed more than 100 lawsuits in the past decade, according to
public records searches.
Helix reports Briggs has sued
over:
Sunroad Harbor Island Hotel project
Blythe and Genesis Solar projects
For months, inewsource has investigated his lawsuits and the
projects his wife's company was under contract to review. It
found three environmental assessments, prepared by Helix
during the time she worked there, for projects her husband
took to comi. Although she was a project manager for Helix
and was the primary author on sever~l reports, her name was
110t listed specifically on any of the three.
Master Stormwater Maintenance Program
Regardless, McIntyre said, because Cacciatore held a key
position in the company, that is "certainly i potential conflict that probably should have been disclosed."
"If she was privy to confidential infonnatiol1 about the jobs, by reason of her position, then you have the .
same actual conflict," he said.
In addition to the three assessments, Helix did work for more than a dozen government agencies Briggs
has sued.
San Diego County, one o~those, hired Helix to write its manual on how to prepare environmental reports.
A larger issue
For much of the time Briggs has sued government agencies and developers in Southern California
alleging CEQA violations, Cacciatore's employer was on contract to help at least 15 of those same
agencies comply with the same law.
She was a project manager in biology resources at Helix, a consulting company based in La Mesa. She
has worked on environmental impact reports (EIRs) for government agencies from San Ysidro to
Escondido. Before that she was working as an environmental project manager for the City of Chula Vista.
At the Port, Cacciatore is iisted among key personnel in Helix's as~needed contract to help ensure
compliance with CEQA, a contract that staIied in 2009.
inewsource found no EIRs for the port with Cacciatore's name on them. None of the reports reviewed
included names of Helix staff.
Helix's contract with the POli lists Cacciatore's rate at $105 an hour, aIld it outlines projects the port
anticipated needing help with to comply ,",,,ith CEQA. Among them was the Sunroad Hm'bor Island Hotel
and Port Master Plan Amendment, a project Briggs has sued over.
http://www.kpbs. org/news/20 15 IfebI24/saIl~diego~attorneys~enviro1U11ental-lawsuits~could- bl 2/2412015
San Diego Attorney's Environmental Lawsuits Could Be Tainted By Conflict OfInterest I. .. Page 4 of7
Helix was responsible for the air quality section of the report. In Briggs' complaint filed against the pOli,
he alleged the agency's EIR "fails to provide adequate identification and analysis of the significant
adverse environmental impacts" of, among five other topics, air quality.
Dan Feldman, a vice president at Sumoad Enterprises, was surprised to leam ofthe potential comlection.
"1 find it tremendously interesting," Feldman said.
A lawyer for Sunroad added that because the company is in litigation with Briggs over two proj ects, the
Harbor Island Hotel included, that they could not conunent fUliher.
Helix also provided "impact analyses for proposed solar energy projects," including the Blythe Solar
Power and Genesis Solar Energy projects. In December of2010, Briggs made those projects in Riverside
COUllty major components of a lawsuit he filed against the U.S. Department of the Interior and federal
Bureau of Land Management. Helix provided biological support for that project.
In that lawsuit, Briggs represented a nonprofit called La Cuna de Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle
Advisory Committee, a group that is not registered with the California Secretary of State's Office or the
state attomey general's registry of charitable trusts, according to representatives for those agencies and to
extensive online searches.
La Cuna isn't registered with the Internal Revenue Service, either, according to the IRS' website.
Unknowns
In response to a request for communication between the port and Cacciatore, inewsource received several
email chains sent between June 2009 and February 2014. None involved projects on which Briggs sued,
although he was copied on one email.
TIlat email was social in nature and addressed 24 people, illcluding local politicians, lawyers and a
. member of the media. It was sent on Feb. 4,2014, using Cacciatore's Helix email address.
As far back as 2011, Cacciatore had a registered email address with the Briggs Law Corp. [email protected].
Helix's CEO, Michael Schwerin, responded to questions at first, but did not reply to phone messages or
emails after that. One question asked of Schwerin was when Cacciatore left the company.
Her LinkedIn profile states she stopped working for Helix in 2011. In 2012, she was no longer on the list
of key personnel in the port contract. In March 2014, she was listed as one of two authors of a Helix
biological review for Orchard Hills, a plrumed residential development near San Marcos.
inewsource asked Schwerin for a comprehensive list of Cacciatore's work. He did not respond.
Briggs and Cacciatore responses
Briggs stopped his interview with inewsource once questions arose concerning his business practices. He
said the basis for the interview was misrepresented, and he refused to answer any questions about his
wife.
http://wwvv.kpbs.org/news/20 15/feb/24/san-diego-attorneys-environl11ental-Iawsuits-could-bl 2/24/2015
San Diego Att0111ey's Enviromnental Lawsuits Could Be Tainted By Conflict Of Interest I... Page 5 of 7
"We also have questions about your wife and her business working for Helix," a reporter asked.
"I'm sure, that's fine, have a nice day," Briggs replied.
The next day, inewsouree recdved an email from Marco Gonzalez, a lawyer who, along with Briggs, is
an envirOllllental attol11ey and played a key role in the call for Filner's resignation.
"While Air. Briggs's [sic] wife is quite confident she has done nothing wrong, I write to remind you that
unlike her husband she is not a public figure or even a quasi-public figure. Indeed, she is an entirely
private figure. Ifyou have any questions regarding her private:ftgure status, please do not hesitate to
contact me. " .
inewsource submitted a list of questions for Cacciatore by way of Gonzalez on Feb. 13, and received a
response on Feb. 18. It began:
"Either you have been fed inaccurate information designed to damage Ms. Cacciatore, or you have
detennined yourself to use false accusations to link unrelatedfacts in an effort to fabricate a story where
one does not exist. In either event, publication based upon unsupported speculation would severely
damage my client's reputation and career. Further, your list of leading questions attacks the
professionalism of not only my client, but also of a company and the many professionals within it. Those
persons have been advised accordingly. "
Gonzalez wrote that his communication with inewsource was "off the record" - an arrangement
inewsource never agreed to - and demanded that if that request was ignored, that the email be published
in full. It can be foul1d here.
"Reasonable due diligence with independent third parties would readily establish that the conflict of
interest you are racing to uncover simply does not exist," Gonzalez wrote.
He did not answer any of the questions posed.
"Please proceed at your own risk," he wrote.
Reactions
Conunenting on Briggs' and Cacciatore's professional relationship, legal ethicist McIntyre said, "I
suspect that if tllis was revealed to the lawyers representing the port, they'd say there was 110 way they
could have known tllis. Because it just wouldn't have been obvious."
He's right.
Bolduc, the port's acting president and CEO, was surprised to learn of the cOIDlection between Briggs and
Cacciatore and said his senior staffhad no lmowledge of it.
"That's not sometlling that anybody would have thought to look into, or guess would be a factor, in
awarding these contracts," he said.
.
"Depending on what we learn, we'll certainly evaluate to see if there are any safeguards we can build into
our systems."
Greg Sllields, chief executive of Proj ect Design Consultants, an engineering company that works with
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/feb/24/s8.11-diego-attomeys-envirOlIDlental-lawsuits-could- bl 2/24/2015
San Diego Attorney's Envll'olUllental Lawsuits Could Be Tainted By Conflict OfInterest I... Page 6 of 7
Helix and has been deeply involved in projects for the port and city of San Diego, said he did not know
about Briggs' wife.
Shields said Helix does "lots and lots of envirolUl1ental documents that touch many projects," and it
"seems like there might be an opportunity for him to get inside information."
"It puts the document in question," he said.
Shields said when Project Design works with Helix, which acquired its ~nvirolmlental division in 2007,
he doesn't know the names of all persOlmel. There is a chance Cacciatore worked 011 the same projects as
his company, he said, but he doesn't have "any concerns about any work that we've ever done."
A bright line
The repercussions for Briggs would depend on what, if any, infornlation he learned from his wife that
could aid in his lawsuits, McIntyre and Arons said.
"If the port could contend that she was privy to confidential infonnation, and it was being passed on, he
would be disqualified from his lawsuit," McIntyre said. "It's a bright line in California - that you crumot
get your hands on the other side's information."
When asked how it could affect cases already settled, he paused.
"No court has had to grapple with that yet," McIntyre said. He suggested a court could order a lawyer to
pay back the fees eruned as a result of a lawsuit.
"I can see a court going there," he said.
Arons, the other ethicist, said there were so many issues to consider, and so many unknowns, that he
couldn't say whether Briggs' actions could be unethical, but that "there's certainly a lot of smoke."
"This raises enough questions that somebody better be checking tins out," he said.
Brooke Williams is ajournalismfello111 at Harvard University and an inewsource correspondent. Follow
her at @reporterBrooke on Twitter.
BRAD RACINO, Multinledia-Based Investigative Reporter 1 inewsource I Contact brad-racino
Follow @bradracino on TVvitter
Brooke Willi runs 1inewsource
I
Please stay on topic and be as concise as possible. Leaving a comment means you agree to our Community Discllssion
http://www.kp bs.org/news/20 lS/feb/24/san-diego-attoi11eys-envirolUnental-lawsuits-could- bl 2/24/2015
San Diego Attorney's EnviroIUllental Lawsuits Could Be Tainted By Conflict OfInterest
I...
Page 7 of7
Rules. We like civilized discourse. We don1t like spal11, lying, profanity, harasslTI.cnt 01' personal attacks.
comments powered by Disqus
http://wwvv.kpbs.org/news/20 15/febI24/san-diego-attomeys-environmental-lawsuits-could-bl 2/24/2015
EXHIBIT G
From: Brad Racino [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: IVlonday, February 23, 20152:13 PM
To: Braun, Gerry
Subject: amended PRA inewsource Feb 23, 2015
Good afternoon Gerry,
Please ignore my prior request, or simply amend it, include more language:
Pursuant to the state open records law, Cal. Gov1t Code Secs. 6250 to 6277, I write to request digital copies of:
1. Any and all San Diego City Attorney office communication or documents (emails, faxes, papers, memos, etc)
involving or mentioning: II Cory Briggs, II II Cory J. BIiggs, II IISeekey Cacciatore, II "Sarichia Cacciatore, II IIHelix
enviromnental" or !lHelix li since Jan. 1,2010. Please check the follovving email addresses, as well:
'[email protected], [email protected], [email protected].
As provided in the open records la\v, Sec. 6253(c), I vvill expect your response within ten (10) business days.
Please advise me of the cost prior to compiling any documents.
If you choose to deny this request, please provide a written explanation for the denial including a reference to
the specific statutory exemption(s) upon which you rely. Also, please provide all segregable portions of
otherwise exempt material.
Thank you very much for your help and assistance with this matter.
Brad Racino
Investigative Reporter
Vfv\Tw.inews'ource.org
c 845.553.4170
0619.594.3569
@bradracino
1
EXHIBIT H
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
MEl\10RANDUM
DATE:
February 24,2015
TO:
Scott Chadwick, Chief Operating Officer
FROM:·
Kris McFadden, Director, Transportation & Stonn Water Department
SUBJECT:
Helix Environmental Planning, Incorporated
The Transportation & Storm Water Department (Department) has engaged with Helix
Environmental Planning, Inc. (Helix) on two as-needed environmental contracts in recent years.
Please note that this memo only discusses th6 contract history of the Department Helix may
have contracts with other City Departments. Under the first contract Helix was the Department's
main consultant in the development offhe Storm Water Master System Maintenance Program
(MMP) and Program Environmental Impact Report (pEIR). This contract, which was amended
twice, was from 2004 - 2012 with a total value of $104 million. Cory Briggs represented one of
the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the PEIR, San Diegans for Open Government et al. v.
City ofSan Diego, San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2011-0015171. In 2013, the City and
the plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement that required modifications to the project and
payment of attorneys' fees.
In November 2013, the City Council authorized award and execution of the second as-needed
environmental contract with Helix after a competitive request for proposals process. The contract
is for a tenll of five years and an amount not to exceed $7.5 million. Under this contract, Helix is
assisting the Department with environmental pennitting related to the MMP and PEIR for storm
water channel maintenance. Please contact me at (619) 236-6594 if you have any questions.
~~
Kris McFadden
cc:
Jan L Goldsmith, City Attorney
Stacey LoMedico, Assistant Chief Operating Officer
Heather Stroud, Deputy City Attorney
Drew Kleis, Deputy Director, Storm Water Division
EXHIBIT I
Brock, Carmen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Brock, Carmen
Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:12 PM
'Cory Briggs'; 'Jennifer L. Pancake'
Ryan T. Dunn; 'Len P. Aslanian'
Notice of Ex Parte Hearing SDOG v. City of San Diego (TMD)
Mr. Briggs,
Please take notice the City of San Diego has set an ex parte hearing for Thursday February 26, 2015/ at 8:30 a.m. in
Department 73 to request the court remove the Confidential designation to the deposition transcript of SDOG Member
4 as allowed by Paragraph 9 of the Protective Order in this action. Pursuant to our conversation this morning, itis my
understanding SDOG will oppose the City's ex parte application and will appear at the hearing. Please let me know if I
am in any manner mistaken. I will include this representation in my supporting declaration.
Thank you.
Carmen Brock, DCA
Carmen A. Brock
Deputy City Attorney
Land Use Litigation Unit
Civil Division
Office of the City Attorney
City of San Diego
1200 Third Street, Suite 1100
San Diego, California 92101
PLEASE NOTE: This email is for the sole use of the intended reciplent(s) and may contain information protected by the ATTORNEYCLIENT PRIVILEGE and/or by the ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE. The contents of this email may include confidential and/or
inside information and may be legally privileged or protected and should not be communicated to or relied upon by any person
without express consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient ofthis communiciltion, you ilre hereby notified that any
uniluthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and may
be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email, delete the original
communication, and destroy all copies.
Confidential Information Lodged Conditionally
Under Seal Pursuant to Protective Order
JAN 1. GOLDSMITH, City Attomey
DANIEL F. BAMBERG, Assistant City Attomey
CARMEN A. BROCK, Deputy City Attomey (CSBN 162592)
Office of the City Attomey
Civil Division
1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1620
San Diego, Califomia 92101
Telephone: (619) 236-6220
Facsimile: (619) 236-7215
Attomeys for Defendant City of San Diego
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
Case No. 37-2012-00088065-CU-MC-CTL
San Diegans for Open Govenunent
v. City of San Diego, et aL
Judge: Joel R. Wohlfeil/Dept. 73
Parte: Feb. 26, 2015 at 8:30 a.m.
[IMAGED FILE]
I, the undersigned declare that I am, and was at the time of service of the papers herein
refened to, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the action; and I am employed in the
County of San Diego, Califomia, III which county the within-mentioned service occUlTed. My
business address is 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1100, San Diego, California, 92101.
I served the following document(s):
1.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S EX PARTE NOTICE AND. APPLICATION TO
REl\fOVE TRANSCRIPT FROM RESTRICTIONS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF;
EXHIBITS
DECLARATAION OF CARMEN A. BROCK, DCA IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF
2.
SAN DIEGO'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REMOVE TRANSCRIPT FROM
RESTRICTIONS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
3.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO'S NOTICE OF LODGMENT AND LODGMENT OF
DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF CITY'S EX PARTE APPLICATION
CONDITIONALL Y UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
Cory J. Briggs, Esq.
Mekaela M. Gladden, Esq.
BRIGGS LA W CORPORATION
99 East "C" Street, Suite 111
Upland, CA 91786
Telephone: (909-949-7115
Facsimile: (909) 949-7121
[email protected]
Michael G. Colantuono, Esq.
Jennifer L. Pancake, Esq.
Ryan Thomas Dunn, Esq.
COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH &
WHATLEY, PC
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 542-5700
Fax: (213) 542-5710
[email protected]
. Attorney Plaintiff and Petitioner San
[email protected]
Diegansfor Open Government
. Attorney for Real Party in Interest San
Diego Tourism Marketing District
(BY MAIL [CCP § 1013(a»)) I served the individual(s) named by placing a true and
[ ]
correct copy of the documents in a sealed envelope and placed it for collection and
mailing with the United States Postal Service this same day, at my address shown above,
following ordinary business practices.
i
[ ]
(BY FAX [CCP § 1013(e); CRC Rule 2008]) On
I transmitted the
above-described documents by facsimile machine to
fax number(s) set forth above or
as stated 011 the attached service list. The transmission originated from facsimile phone
number (619)533-5856 and was reported as complete and without error. The facsimile
machine properly issued a transmission report, a copy of which is attached hereto.
[ :xx
](BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE [CCP § 1010.6]) I caused to be served by
electronically mailing a true and correct copy through electronic mail system to the
e-mail addressee(s) set forth above, or as stated on the attached service list per agreement
in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6.
[ ]
(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) By submitting an electronic version of the
document(s) to One Legal, LLC through the user interface at www.onelegal.com.
[
(BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY [CCP § 1013]) I served the individual(s) named by
placing a hue and correct copyofthe documents in a sealed envelope(s) to be delivered
overnight via an ovemight delivery service in lieu of delivery by mail to the addressee(s)
listed above, or as stated on the attached service list:
]
[ ]
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE [CCP § 1011)) I served the individual named by
personally delivering the copies to the offices ofthe addressee.
Time of delivery:
a.m.lp.m. Person served: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 25, 2015, at San Diego, California.
MerHta S. Rich