Re Item 4 I missed the 2 that are on the list. The
other cases that you indicate as not active are or were on the court docket and
showed during the 14 day docket info. They must be active or there is another
local City of
Barry Allen
818 243 1502
-----Original Message-----
From: Varpetian, Lucy
[mailto:LVarpetian@ci.glendale.ca.us]
Sent:
To: ba@fieldworks.net
Cc: Buchanan, Rita; Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: RE: CPRAR 50407 Act Lit
Mr. Allen:
This email responds to the 4 follow up emails you
sent regarding litigation, including the one below:
1.
There
were no time sheets included and the case was not listed on the pending cases
provided in response to another request
The attorneys in the City Attorneys office do not keep
time sheets. If we did, such documents would be subject to the attorney
work produce privilege and the attorney-client privilege and therefore exempt
from production.
2.
Please be
advised that the case Atty Grant is working on (Largey) is not listed. I also believe there is a case
involving Gregg vs City that was not listed.
The City of
3.
The $400
cost for court call did not show up on the list of expenses for
The court costs are identified by I.M.P.A.C.
Government Services.
4.
With regard
to your email below, we produced pending lawsuits where the City of
BC348019 060227 City of Glendale v John M.
Lawson, et al NOT ACTIVE
BC360587
061019 Helen Martinez v City of Glendale et al ON THE LIST
BC364230
070103 Angela Moreno v City of Glendale et al ON THE LIST
EC041790 051109 Mossa Setvanpour v City of
EC043550 060920 Jirair Yekteziarian, et al v City of
06C02834 060818 Benjamin Villanueva v MV
Transportation, Inc NOT ACTIVE AGAINST CITY
06C04414 061222
07C02830 070305 City of
07C03234 070405 City of
Lucy Varpetian
Office of the
613 East Broadway,
Tel: 818-548-2080
Fax: 818-547-3402
CONFIDENTIAL
THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry [mailto:ba@fieldworks.net]
Sent:
To: Varpetian, Lucy
Subject: RE: CPRAR 50407 Act Lit
It appears that these cases are among those not
included in your print out. Could there be even more?
BC348019 060227 City of Glendale v John M. Lawson, et al
BC360587 061019 Helen Martinez v City of Glendale et al
BC364230 070103 Angela Moreno v City of Glendale et al
EC041790 051109 Mossa Setvanpour
v City of
EC043550 060920 Jirair Yekteziarian, et al v City of
06C02834 060818 Benjamin Villanueva v MV Transportation, Inc
06C04414 061222
07C02830 070305 City of
07C03234 070405 City of
Barry Allen
818 243 1502
-----Original Message-----
From: Varpetian, Lucy
[mailto:LVarpetian@ci.glendale.ca.us]
Sent:
To: ba@fieldworks.net
Cc: Kassakhian, Ardashes;
Buchanan, Rita
Subject: RE: CPRAR 50407 Act Lit
Mr. Allen:
Records responsive to your request will be
available for inspection in the office of the City Clerk on
Lucy Varpetian
Office of the
613 East Broadway,
Tel: 818-548-2080
Fax: 818-547-3402
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry [mailto:ba@fieldworks.net]
Sent:
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes;
Varpetian, Lucy; Buchanan, Rita
Subject: CPRAR 50407 Act Lit
|
VANGUARD
POB 11202,
818 243 1502 vanguard1@charter.net
Contributions are tax
deductible Rev. Proc. 92-85, 1992-42 I.R.B. 32
VIGILANCE leads to
ACCOUNTABILITY
Ardy Kassakhian, City Clerk
613 E. Broadway
Email
RE: Public Records Act Request Reference: _50407 Active Lit
Dear Mr. Kassakhian:
Pursuant to my rights under the California
Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) and the California
Constitution, as amended by passage of Prop 59 on
Documents indicating all active litigation.
I ask for a determination on this request within
10 days of your receipt of it, and an even earlier reply if you can make that
determination without having to review the record(s) in question.
If you determine that any or all or the
information is exempt from disclosure, I ask that you reconsider that
determination in view of Prop 59, which has amended the state Constitution to
require that all exemptions be "narrowly construed." Prop 59 may
modify or overturn authorities on which you have relied in the past.
If you nonetheless determine that the requested
records are subject to a still-valid exemption, I would further request that:
(1) you exercise your discretion to disclose some or all of the records
notwithstanding the exemption; and (2) that, with respect to records containing
both exempt and non-exempt content, you redact the
exempt content and disclose the rest.
You must provide assistance by helping to
identify records and information relevant to the request and suggesting ways to
overcome any practical basis for denying access.
Finally, should you deny part or this entire request, you are required to provide a written response
describing the legal authority or authorities on which you rely. Please also
address the question whether Prop 59 requires disclosure even though
authorities predating Prop 59 may appear to support your exemption claim.
Records concerning litigation are exempt only
until the claim is resolved or settled. Upon disposition all records including
court records and those pre-dating the suit are public.
If I can provide any clarification that will
help expedite your attention to this request, please contact me at the number
above. I ask that you notify me of any duplication costs so that I may
decide which records I want copied.
I am sending a copy of this letter to your legal
advisor to help encourage a speedy determination, and I would likewise be happy
to discuss my request with him or his designee at any time.
Thank you for your time and attention to this
matter.
Sincerely,
Barry Allen