OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TONY RACKAUCKAS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY

Transcription

1 March 28, 2016 Ms. Caitlin W. Sanderson Mr. Brendan Hamme ACLU 1851 E. First Street, Suite 450 Santa Ana, CA OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TONY RACKAUCKAS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY JIM TANIZAKI SENIOR ASSISTANT D.A. VERTICAL PROSECUTIONS/ VIOLENT CRIMES JOSEPH D'AGOSTINO SENIOR ASSISTANT D.A. GENERAL FELONIES/ ECONOMIC CRIMES MICHAEL LUBINSKI SENIOR ASSISTANT D.A. SPECIAL PROJECTS JAIME COULTER SENIOR ASSISTANT DA. BRANCH COURT OPERATIONS CRAIG HUNTER CHIEF BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION JENNY QIAN DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUSAN KANG SCHROEDER CHIEF OF STAFF Dear Ms. Sanderson and Mr. Hamme, I am the designated representative of the Orange County District Attorney's Office ("OCDA") assigned to handle your California Public Records Act (Gov. Code 6250 et seq) request (the "Request") that is dated March 4, 2016 and that I previously replied to on March 14, In compliance with Government Code section 6253, this letter constitutes our formal response, made within the statutorily required time, to your public record demand. We will produce what records we have as of the date of this response. General Response and Objections Your Request contains 29 separate requests for records between 1985 and present - spanning 31 years. You have requested "copies of every version of such policy, manual, training material, direction or instruction between 1985 and present" for requests related to "policies, manuals, training materials, directions or instruction." We object to the Request pursuant to Government Code section 6255 as being unduly burdensome and overbroad. "A clearly framed request which requires an agency to search an enormous volume of data for a "needle in the haystack" or, conversely, a request which compels the production of a huge volume of material may be objectionable as unduly burdensome." (California First Amendment Coal. v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 159) The OCDA has filed criminal charges in approximately 2,289,212 cases since 1985 and produced numerous internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, operational manuals, and training materials, in response to changes in statutory and case law over 30 years. The public interest served by nondisclosure of the records clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the records. The term "public interest" encompasses "public concern and the cost and efficiency of government." (North County Parents Org. v. Dep't of Education (1994) 23 Cal.App. 4th 144, 152) The financial aspect of a requested disclosure is a factor to be considered in determining whether a request is reasonable. (See County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 588, ; Bertoli v. City of Sebastopol (2015) 233 Cal. App.4th 353.) Our own Fourth District Court of Appeal has recognized the Rule of Reasonableness: the PRA should be interpreted through the lens of reasonableness noting the "press of business of public agencies, particularly in these difficult fiscal times." (Fredericks v. Superior Court (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 209, 229) REPLY TO: ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WEB PAGE:.,ww.QranQeCountyDACor' - M MAIN OFFICE El NORTH OFFICE 401 CIVIC CENTER DR W 1275 N. BERKELEY AVE P.O. BOX 808 FULLERTON, CA SANTA ANA, CA (714) (714) :1 WEST OFFICE D HARBOR OFFICE E JUVENILE OFFICE LI CENTRAL OFFICE ' STREET 4601 JAMBOREE RD. 341 CITY DRIVE SOUTH 401 CIVIC CENTER DR. W WESTMINSTER, CA NEWPORT BEACH, CA ORANGE, CA P.O BOX 808 (714) (949) (714) SANTA ANA, CA (714)

2 Your requests require searches of thousands and thousands of records both in electronic and non-electronic archives. The time, expense and resources including attorneys and staff dedicated to such an undertaking would be staggering, unprecedented and unwarranted. In order to comply with our obligations under the California Public Records Act, we have requested and are requesting again that you narrow the scope of your request. The request should reflect the public interest in obtaining disclosable records and its interest in ensuring its law enforcement resources are efficiently dedicated to public protection. In my letter of March 17, 2016, I requested that you narrow your Request. You replied to me on March 18, 2016 stating, you were "not inclined to narrow the requests themselves at this time." Specific Responses and Objections: Our General Response and Objections are incorporated by reference herein as well as the following responses and objections. Request No. 1: The number and names of cases in which the Office has found prosecutorial misconduct including sanction, reprimand, or remedy for misconduct identified prior to completion of trial and where misconduct was identified after trial, in addition, the effect of misconduct on the outcome of the case (e.g. harmless error, reversal, exoneration, etc,;) Specific Response and Objection to Request No. 1: We object to this request as vague. In order to be responsive to your request: "The number and names of cases in which the Office has found prosecutorial misconduct including sanction, reprimand, or remedy for misconduct identified prior to completion of trial and where misconduct was identified after trial, in addition, the effect of misconduct on the outcome of the case (e.g. harmless error, reversal, exoneration, etc.)", we are requesting that you narrow the scope of this request. We will interpret your request as to criminal cases. Our Case Management System that we use to track our files does not maintain records in the format requested so we are unable to conduct a search for the records as requested. The Public Records Act applies to existing records and does not require a public agency to create a record that does not exist. (Gov. Code 6252 (e) and (f); Sander v. State Bar of California (2013) 58 Ca1.4th 300.) To the extent we understand your request, we do not have a record responsive to your request. Request No. 2: The case numbers and names of all cases in which the Office has defended in court against claims that informants were used in violation of Massiah and the case numbers and names of all cases in which the Office has defended in court against allegations of failures to turn over favorable evidence; Specific Response and Objection to Request No. 2: We object to this request as vague. In order to be responsive to your request: "The case numbers and names of all cases in which the Office has defended in court against claims that informants were used in violation of Massiah and the case numbers and names of all cases in which the Office has defended in court against allegations of failures to turn over favorable evidence," we are requesting that you narrow the scope of your request. We do not have a record responsive to this request. Our Case Management System that we use to track our files does not maintain records in the format requested so we are unable to conduct a search for the record. The Public Records Act applies to existing records and does not require a public agency to create a record that does not exist. (Gov. Code 6252 (e) and (f); Sander v. State Bar of California (2013) 58 Ca1.4th 300.) Request No. 3: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, electronic mail, that address or describe staff conduct and reporting obligations, supervisory responsibilities,

3 internal investigations, and disciplinary action related to ethical breaches, error or misconduct by attorneys and other staff involved in the prosecution of criminal cases, including but not limited to, formal allegations and findings of prosecutorial error and prosecutorial misconduct; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3: request. We have identified records responsive to this Record of Training Schedule, Blithe Leece, Esq. - 1 page For publicly available records responsive to this request, please see this office's website at: for the following records: (1) The Orange County District Attorney Appellate and Training Unit 2015 Training Performance Report and Plan at (2) "Orange County Informant Policy" at Office Memoranda: I will assume given the nature of your other requests that this refers to memoranda disseminated within our office as "internal memoranda." To the extent that there are records responsive to this request, they are not provided because they are protected by core work product privilege. "Any writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories shall not be discoverable under any circumstances." ((Gov. Code 6254 (k); Code Civ. Proc (a)) The core work privilege is not limited to writings made in preparation for litigation, but also to protected writings not made in preparation for trial. (Rumac, Inc. v. Bottomley (1983) 43 Cal.App.3d 810.) To the extent there are records responsive to this request, they are not provided because they are protected by the deliberative process exemption. (Gov. Code 6255, subd. (a)) This exemption protects from disclosure records reflecting the thought processes or "deliberative thought" of those, in our case elected members and employees of a government agency, whose responsibility it is to decide how prosecutors should proceed given various circumstances. (See Cal. First, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 170.) Disclosing such materials would expose the OCDA's decision making process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the office and thereby undermine our office's ability to ensure the fair administration of justice. The public interest in nondisclosure, the interest in ensuring that those who are involved in formulating such policies and directions have the freedom from criticism to engage in open dialogue, debate and deliberation with other attorneys in order to create effective and efficient policies and procedures clearly outweighs the interest of the public in disclosing those thought processes. (Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Ca1.3d 1325; Rogers v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469; Wilson v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1136.) To the extent there are records responsive to this request, they will not be produced because they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Official Information Privilege contained in Evidence Code sections (Gov. Code 6254 (k)) Official Information is all information acquired in confidence and not opened or disclosed to the public prior to the claim being made. The holder of all records and any such claim of privilege for documents or materials maintained or created by employees of the District Attorney's office is the elected District Attorney or his/her designated agent, not the employee holding or creating the record. (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 387, 399) Internal Policies and Protocols, Guidelines, and Operational Manuals: To the extent there are records responsive to this request, they will not be produced because they are protected by the "deliberative process" privilege previously discussed as we all as they contain core work product ((Gov. Code 6254, subd.(k); Code Civ. Proc (a); Gov. Code 6255, subd. (a)) The public interest in nondisclosure of 3

4 these records clearly outweighs the interest of the public in disclosing these records. Training Materials: To the extent that there are records responsive to your request, they will not be produced because they are exempt from disclosure as core work product pursuant to Government Code section 6254 subdivision (k) and Code Civil Procedure section , subdivision (a.) The OCDA's training materials were prepared by our attorneys for legal guidance on issues facing prosecutors and/or to prepare prosecutors for trial. Such records reflect an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories and are considered core work product; as such, they are protected and privileged writings whether created by this office's attorneys in anticipation of litigation or for legal advice when no litigation is threatened. (League of California Cities v. Superior Court (2015) 41 Cal.App.4th 976; 71 Ops. Cal.Atty.Gen. 5, 7: "undeniable that public attorney can rely to "full extent" upon protection of attorney work product.") To the extent that there are records responsive to your request, they will not be provided as they are exempt from disclosure as privileged information pursuant to the Official Information Privilege. (Evid. Code ) (Gov. Code 6254(k)) To the extent that that there are records responsive to your request as to "internal investigations, and disciplinary action related to ethical breaches, error or misconduct by attorneys and other staff involved in the prosecution of criminal cases," we will not produce such records as they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government Code section 6254, subdivision (c) as the disclosure of such personnel or similar files would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Additionally, disclosure of records as to a District Attorney Investigator's personnel or similar file is prohibited by Penal Code section and therefore exempt from disclosure. (Gov. Code 6254(k)) Publications: To the extent there are responsive records not created by the Orange County District Attorney's office, they will not be produced because doing so would likely infringe a copyright. Our office cannot provide records where doing so would violate another provision of law. Government Code section 6254, subdivision (k), protects "Necords, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege." (Gov. Code, 6254, subd. (k).) To the extent that we can reasonably segregate non-exempt information from exempt information in responsive and non-exempt records, we will do so and produce the responsive record. (Gov. Code 6253(a); County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1321) Request No. 4: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, electronic mail, regarding prosecutorial ethics and preventing prosecutorial error and misconduct. Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 4: Our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3" are incorporated herein by reference. We have identified records responsive to this request. PowerPoint Training Record "Brady - Informant and Discovery" presented to members of the Orange County Sheriff's Department and members of the public on December 21, pages. We have withheld slides containing photographs of crime scene victims and their families from this training record under Government Code section 6255 in order to protect the victims' family privacy. Any public interest in the disclosure of those photographs is clearly outweighed by the nondisclosure of them in order to protect the family members' right to privacy. (See Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 856) 4

5 Record of Trainings conducted by Assistant Deputy District Attorney Ebrahim Baytieh: Instructor, Present - 3 pages Ebrahim Baytieh, For publicly available records responsive to this request, please see this office's website at: for the following records: (1) The Orange County District Attorney Appellate and Training Unit 2015 Training Performance Report and Plan at (2) "Orange County Informant Policy" at Request No. 5: The case numbers and names of all cases in which the OCDA called at a preliminary hearing, grand jury proceeding, or trial a witness who testified regarding statements that he or she claimed were made by a defendant while said defendant was incarcerated at a jail or prison facility, regardless of whether at the time of the communication said defendant was criminally charged; Specific Response and Objection to Request No. 5: This request, "The case numbers and names of all cases in which the OCDA called at a preliminary hearing, grand jury proceeding, or trial a witness who testified regarding statements that he or she claimed were made by a defendant while said defendant was incarcerated at a jail or prison facility, regardless of whether at the time of the communication said defendant was criminally charged;" is vague and overly burdensome. In order to be responsive to this request, we are requesting that you narrow this request to a specific record, defendant and/or time frame. Our Case Management System that we use to track our files does not maintain records in the format requested so we are unable to conduct a search for the records. We have identified the following responsive records to your request: Records with case names and numbers - 7 pages Excel Sheet Record for Brito/Zavala, 14CF0205 and Alcala,12CF page Record of Table of Contents for Case summaries - 1 page; Please note that only numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 15 are responsive to your request. Request No. 6: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, electronic mail, regarding a prosecutor's discovery duties, including, but not limited to, those under California Penal Code Section 1054 et seq., Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, California Penal Code Section et seq., or any other regulatory, statutory, or constitutional law, or policy. Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 6: Our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3" are incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that there are responsive records that have been disclosed through legal proceedings, those records will not be provided because such disclosure did not constitute a waiver of exemptions in Government Code section (Gov. Code , subd. (b)) We have identified the following responsive records to your request: 5

6 PowerPoint Training Record "Brady - Informant and Discovery" presented to the Orange County Sheriff's Department and members of the public on December 21, pages. We have withheld slides containing photographs of crime scene victims and their families from this training record under Government Code section 6255 in order to protect the victims' family privacy. Any public interest in the disclosure of those photographs is clearly outweighed by the nondisclosure of them in order to protect the family members' right to privacy. (See Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 856) Record of Trainings conducted by Assistant Deputy District Attorney Ebrahim Baytieh: Instructor, Present - 3 pages Ebrahim Baytieh, For publicly available records responsive to this request, please see this office's website at: for the following records: (1) The Orange County District Attorney Appellate and Training Unit 2015 Training Performance Report and Plan at (2) "Orange County Informant Policy" at Request No. 7: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, electronic mail, regarding training provided by OCDA staff to staff of the Orange County Sheriff's Department regarding their disclosure responsibilities to criminal defendants, including but not limited to, those under California Penal Code Section 1054 et seq., Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, California Penal Code Section et seq., or any other regulatory, statutory, or constitutional law, or policy. Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 7: Our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3" are incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that there are responsive records that have been disclosed through legal proceedings, those records will not be provided because such disclosure did not constitute a waiver of exemptions in Government Code section (Gov. Code , subd. (b)) We have identified the following responsive records to your request: PowerPoint Training Record "Brady - Informant and Discovery" presented to members of the Orange County Sheriff's Department and members of the public on December 21, We have withheld slides containing photographs of crime scene victims and their families from this training record under Government Code section 6255 in order to protect the victims' family privacy. Any public interest in the disclosure of those photographs is clearly outweighed by the nondisclosure of them in order to protect the family members' right to privacy. (See Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 856) Record of Trainings conducted by Assistant Deputy District Attorney Ebrahim Baytieh: Instructor, Present - 3 pages Ebrahim Baytieh, For publicly available records responsive to this request, please see this office's website at: for the following records: (1) The Orange County District Attorney Appellate and Training Unit 2015 Training Performance Report and Plan at 6

7 (2) "Orange County Informant Policy" at htt : o ra n ecount da.or c blobdload.as x?blob I D= _ Request No. 8: Any records reflecting the number or names of cases in which the timing of discovery disclosures by your office resulted in continuances in criminal cases; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 8: We do not have a record responsive to the record you are requesting. Our Case Management System that we use to track our files does not maintain records in the format you requested so we are unable to conduct a search for the records. The Public Records Act applies to existing records and does not require a public agency to create a record that does not exist. (Gov. Code 6252 (e) and (f); Sander v. State Bar of California (2013) 58 Ca1.4th 300) Request No. 9: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, electronic mail, as well as the documents themselves, pertaining to requests by your Office for protective orders and/or confidentiality agreements prior to a defendant receiving discovery; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 9: Our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3" are incorporated herein by reference. We have identified the following responsive records to your request: Blank Discovery Protective Order - 3 pages Blank Protective Order/Non-disclosure Order re: Perkins Operation Discovery - 3 pages Request No. 10: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, electronic mail, regarding the use of the Orange County Informant Index, including but not limited to, the maintenance of OCII files, the creation of new files, and the addition of information to preexisting files; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 10: Our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3" are incorporated herein by reference along with the following objections. To the extent there are records responsive to this request, they are not provided because they are records in investigatory files, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency for correctional, law enforcement or licensing purposes, those records are completely exempt from disclosure under Government Code section 6254(f) which applies to law enforcement investigatory files and records, including district attorney case files, and continues to apply even if the investigation is closed. (See Rackauckas v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 169; River v Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1048; Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Ca1.4th 337) This exception would also include notes or portions of documents which reflect the analysis or conclusions of an investigating officer. To the extent that your request calls for records containing records regarding a criminal investigation whether it is currently pending or closed due to being adjudicated, we object to the disclosure of such records. To the extent there are records responsive to your requests, they will not be produced because they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government code section 6254, subdivision (k), specifically Evidence Code sections , the Official Information Privilege. Official Information may be withheld where, "disclosure of the information is against the public interest because there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interests of justice." (Evid. Code 1040(b) (2)) 7

8 There is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interests of justice. Release of such records would put the lives of cooperating individuals at risk and compromise pending investigations and prosecutions. The public interest in non-disclosure clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure. (Gov. Code 6255(a)) The public interest in protecting the integrity of ongoing investigations and the lives of cooperating individuals greatly outweighs a request to access confidential law enforcement information. Ongoing investigations would be materially undermined, and the public interest injured by public disclosure of such materials. To the extent there are records responsive to your request, they will not be produced because they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government Code section 6254, subdivision (k), the core work product privilege. We have identified the following responsive records to your request: Checklist for CI cases - 2 pages Memo of OCII Recent Training Log - 2 pages For publicly available records responsive to this request, please see this office's website at: for the following records: (1) The Orange County District Attorney Appellate and Training Unit 2015 Training Performance Report and Plan at D= (2) "Orange County Informant Policy" at Request No. 11: The date on which OCI1 was first created; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 11: We do not have a record responsive to the record you are requesting. The Public Records Act applies to existing records and does not require a public agency to create a record that does not exist. (Gov. Code 6252 (e) and (f)) In response to your request, the Orange County Informant Index was initially maintained through a physical card information system; it was then managed via a computerized database. The earliest entry for the computerized database is June 6, We have identified the following responsive record to your request: from Billy Chan, OCDA IT Manager Request No. 12: The number of individuals for whom an OCII file currently exists; Specific Response to Request 12: In response to your request, the Orange County Informant Index contains 2 types of files or cards: cards for people arrested for narcotics offenses, narcotics parolees, Health and Safety Code section registrants, and miscellaneous intelligence cards as well as cards for confidential informants. The OCII evolved over time; it was initially maintained through a physical card information system and then on or about June 6, 1997, it was computerized. The number of individuals for whom an OCI1 file currently exists is 20, 663 individuals. This number includes both types of files and cards described in this paragraph. 8

9 We have identified the following responsive record to your request: from Billy Chan, OCDA IT Manager Request No. 13: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, electronic mail, that identify any procedure that exists or existed since the creation of the OCII for removing individuals or information and/or purging files from the OCII; Specific Response to Request No. 13: We do not have any records responsive to this request. Request No. 14: Any communications, including anything contained in electronic mail, between your Office and the Orange County Sheriff's Department regarding the use and maintenance of the OCII database; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 14: We do not have records responsive to this request. Request No. 15: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, electronic mail, regarding a prosecutor's duties when using in-custody informants, including but not limited to, those under California Penal Code Section 1127(a,) Massiah v. United States (1964) 377 U.S. 201, or any other regulatory, statutory, or constitutional law, or policy; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 15: Our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3" are incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that there are responsive records that have been disclosed through legal proceedings, those records will not be provided because such disclosure did not constitute a waiver of exemptions in Government Code section (Gov. Code , subd. (b)) We have identified the following responsive records to your request: PowerPoint Training Record "Brady - Informant and Discovery" presented to members of the Orange County Sheriff's Department and members of the public on December 21, pages. We have withheld slides containing photographs of crime scene victims and their families from this training record under Government Code section 6255 in order to protect the victims' family privacy. Any public interest in the disclosure of those photographs is clearly outweighed by the nondisclosure of them in order to protect the family members' right to privacy. (See Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 856) Record of Trainings conducted by Assistant Deputy District Attorney Ebrahim Baytieh: Instructor, Present - 3 pages Ebrahim Baytieh, For publicly available records responsive to this request, please see this office's website at: for the following records: (1) The Orange County District Attorney Appellate and Training Unit 2015 Training Performance Report and Plan at (2) "Orange County Informant Policy" at 9

10 Request No. 16: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, electronic mail, regarding information received by OCDA staff regarding the Orange County Sheriffs Department Special Handling Unit duties and responsibilities; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 16: Our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3" are incorporated herein by reference along with the following objections. To the extent there are records responsive to this request, they are not provided because they are records in investigatory files, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency for correctional, law enforcement or licensing purposes, those records are not disclosed because they are exempt from disclosure under Government Code section 6254(f) which applies to law enforcement investigatory files and records, including district attorney case files, and continues to apply even if the investigation is closed. (See Rackauckas v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 169; Rivero v Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1048; Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Ca1.4th 337). This exception would also include notes or portions of documents which reflect the analysis or conclusions of an investigating officer. To the extent that your request calls for records containing information regarding a criminal investigation whether it is currently pending or closed due to being adjudicated, we object to the disclosure of such records. To the extent that there are responsive records that have been disclosed through legal proceedings, those records will not be provided because such disclosure did not constitute a waiver of exemptions in Government Code section (Gov. Code , subd. (b)) To the extent there are records responsive to your request, they will not be produced because they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government code section 6254, subdivision (k), specifically Evidence Code sections , the Official Information Privilege. Official Information may be withheld where, "disclosure of the information is against the public interest because there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interests of justice." (Evid. Code 1040(b) (2)) The public interest in non-disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure. To the extent there are records responsive to your request, they will not be provided because they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government Code section 6254, subdivision (k), the core work product privilege. Request No. 17: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, electronic mail, regarding information received by OCDA staff regarding informant operations in the Orange County jail; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 17: Our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3" are incorporated herein by reference along with the following objections. To the extent there are records responsive to this request, they will not be provided because they are records in investigatory files, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency for correctional, law enforcement or licensing purposes, those records are not provided because they are exempt from disclosure under Government Code section 6254(f) which applies to law enforcement investigatory files and records, including district attorney case files, and continues to apply even if the investigation is closed. (See Rackauckas v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 169; Rivero v Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1048; Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Ca1.4th 337). This exception would 10

11 also include notes or portions of documents which reflect the analysis or conclusions of an investigating officer. To the extent that your request calls for records containing information regarding a criminal investigation whether it is currently pending or closed due to being adjudicated, we object to the disclosure of such records. To the extent that there are responsive records that have been disclosed through legal proceedings, those records will not be provided because such disclosure did not constitute a waiver of exemptions in Government Code section (Gov. Code , subd. (b)) To the extent there are records responsive to your requests, they will not be provided because they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government code section 6254, subdivision (k), specifically Evidence Code sections , the Official Information Privilege. Official Information may be withheld where, "disclosure of the information is against the public interest because there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interests of justice." (Evid. Code 1040(b) (2)) To the extent there are records responsive to your request, they will not be provided because they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government Code section 6254, subdivision (k), the core work product privilege. Request No. 18: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, electronic mail, regarding information received by OCDA staff regarding the classification system and/or inmate record keeping systems in the Orange County Sheriff's Department; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 18: Our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3" are incorporated herein by reference along with the following objections. To the extent there are records responsive to this request, they will not be provided because they are records in investigatory files, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency for correctional, law enforcement or licensing purposes, those records are completely exempt from disclosure under Government Code section 6254(f) which applies to law enforcement investigatory files and records, including district attorney case files, and continues to apply even if the investigation is closed. (See Rackauckas v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 169; Rivero v Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1048; Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Ca1.4th 337) This exception would also include notes or portions of documents which reflect the analysis or conclusions of an investigating officer. To the extent that your request calls for records containing information regarding a criminal investigation whether it is currently pending or closed due to being adjudicated, we object to the disclosure of such records. To the extent that there are responsive records that have been disclosed through legal proceedings, those records will not be provided because such disclosure did not constitute a waiver of exemptions in Government Code section (Gov. Code , subd. (b)) To the extent there are records responsive to your requests, they will not be provided because they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government code section 6254, subdivision (k), specifically Evidence Code sections , the Official Information Privilege. Evidence Code section 1040 makes privileged "information acquired in confidence by a public employee in the course of his or her duty and not open, or officially disclosed, to the public prior to the time the claim of privilege is made." (Rogers v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469) The public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in nondisclosure. 11

12 To the extent there are records responsive to your request, they are not provided because they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government Code section 6254, subdivision (k), the core work product privilege. We have identified the following responsive records to your request: Special Grand Jury Exhibits from the Investigation of the Death of John Derek Chamberlain. These exhibits were previously made available to the public after an Indictment was returned by the Special Grand Jury: Exhibit No. 25 Title 12, CH 1 of Theo Lacy Policy and Procedure Manual - 16 pages Exhibit No. 32 Classification File of John Chamberlain - 3 pages Exhibit No. 57 Automated Classification Record of John Chamberlain - 3 pages Exhibit No. 68 Classification Cheat Sheets - 4 pages Exhibit No. 71 Title 12 Chapters 1-2 (1RC Classification Resources) - 16 pages Exhibit No. 72 Classification Packet of John Chamberlain prepared on pages For publicly available records responsive to this request, please see this office's website at: for the following records: OCDA Investigative Report From the 2007 Special Criminal Grand Jury Inquiry into the Death of John Derek Chamberlain: orangecountyda.org/civicax/filebank/blobload.aspx?blobid= Request No. 19: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, electronic mail, regarding the use of the TRED database, including, but not limited to, the maintenance of the TRED database, creation of new entries, and the addition information to preexisting TRED entries. Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 19: Our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3" are incorporated herein by reference along with the following objections. To the extent there are records responsive to this request, they will not be provided because they are records in investigatory files, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency for correctional, law enforcement or licensing purposes, those records are not produced because they are completely exempt from disclosure under Government Code section 6254(f) which applies to law enforcement investigatory files and records, including district attorney case files, and continues to apply even if the investigation is closed. (See Rackauckas v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 169; Rivero v Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1048; Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Ca1.4th 337). This exception would also include notes or portions of documents which reflect the analysis or conclusions of an investigating officer. To the extent that your request calls for records containing information regarding a criminal investigation whether it is currently pending or closed due to being adjudicated, we object to the disclosure of such records. To the extent that there are responsive records that have been disclosed through legal proceedings, those records will not be provided because such disclosure did not constitute a waiver of exemptions in Government Code section (Gov. Code , subd. (b)) To the extent there are records responsive to your requests, they will not be provided because they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government code section 6254, subdivision (k), specifically Evidence Code sections , the Official Information Privilege. Official Information may be withheld where, 12

13 "disclosure of the information is against the public interest because there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interests of justice." (Evid. Code 1040(b) (2)) The public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in nondisclosure. To the extent there are records responsive to your request, they will not be provided because they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government Code section 6254, subdivision (k), the core work product privilege. To the extent that there are records responsive to your request, they will not be provided because they are protected by the deliberative process exemption as they reflect the thought processes or "deliberative thought" of those whose responsibility it is to decide how prosecutors should proceed given various circumstances. (Gov. Code 6255) Disclosing such materials would expose the OCDA's decision making process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the office and thereby undermine our office's ability to ensure the fair administration of justice. The public interest in nondisclosure, the interest in ensuring that those who are formulating such policies and directions have the freedom from criticism to engage in open dialogue, debate and deliberation with other attorneys in order to create effective and efficient policies and procedures clearly outweighs the interest of the public in disclosing those thought processes. (Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Ca1.3d 1325; Rogers v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469; Wilson v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1136.) Request No. 20: Any communications, including anything contained in electronic mail, between your Office and the Orange County Sheriff's Department regarding the use and maintenance of the TRED database. Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 20: To the extent that we understand your request to be for "communications" and there are records responsive to this request, they will not be provided because they are records in investigatory files, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency for correctional, law enforcement or licensing purposes, those records are not produced because they are completely exempt from disclosure under Government Code section 6254(f) which applies to law enforcement investigatory files and records, including district attorney case files, and continues to apply even if the investigation is closed. (See Rackauckas v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 169; Rivero v Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1048; Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Ca1.4th 337). This exception would also include notes or portions of documents which reflect the analysis or conclusions of an investigating officer. To the extent that your request calls for records containing information regarding a criminal investigation whether it is currently pending or closed due to being adjudicated, we object to the disclosure of such records. To the extent that we understand your request to be for "communications" and to the extent there are records responsive to your request, they will not be provided because they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government code section 6254, subdivision (k), specifically Evidence Code sections , the Official Information Privilege. Evidence Code section 1040 makes privileged "information acquired in confidence by a public employee in the course of his or her duty and not open, or officially disclosed, to the public prior to the time the claim of privilege is made." (Rogers v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469) The public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in non-disclosure. Request No. 21: The case numbers and names of all matters in which TRED records, created by the Orange County Sheriff's Department were ordered disclosed and/or where the Office took possession of such records; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 21: Our Case Management System that we use to track our files does not maintain records in the format requested so we are unable to conduct a search for the 13

14 record. The Public Records Act applies to existing records and does not require a public agency to create a record that does not exist. GC 6252 (e) and (f) (See Sander v. State Bar of California (2013) 58 Ca1.4th 300, 237) We have identified the following responsive records to your request: Record of Table of Contents for Case summaries - 1 page; Please note that only numbers 5, 6 and 8 are responsive to your request. For publicly available records responsive to this request, please see this office's website at: for the following records: OCDA Investigative Report From the 2007 Special Criminal Grand Jury Inquiry into the Death of John Derek Chamberlain: orangecountyda.org/civicax/filebank/blobload.aspx?blobl D= Request No. 22: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, electronic mail, regarding how the Office coordinates the gathering and collection of evidence from law enforcement and other agencies that are part of the prosecution team for discovery purposes; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 22: Our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3" are incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that there are responsive records that have been disclosed through legal proceedings, those records will not be provided because such disclosure did not constitute a waiver of exemptions in Government Code section (Gov. Code , subd. (b)) We have identified the following responsive records to your request: PowerPoint Training Record "Brady - Informant and Discovery" presented to members of the Orange County Sheriff's Department and members of the public on December 21, pages. We have withheld slides containing photographs of crime scene victims and their families from this training record under Government Code section 6255 in order to protect the victims' family privacy. Any public interest in the disclosure of those photographs is clearly outweighed by the nondisclosure of them in order to protect the family members' right to privacy. (See Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 856) Record of Trainings conducted by Assistant Deputy District Attorney Ebrahim Baytieh: Instructor, Present - 3 pages Ebrahim Baytieh, Request No. 23: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, electronic mail, regarding how the Office decides and defines who is considered part of "the prosecution team" for discovery purposes; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 23: Our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3" are incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that there are responsive records that have been disclosed through legal proceedings, those records will not be provided because such disclosure did not constitute a waiver of exemptions in Government Code section (Gov. Code , subd. (b)) We have identified the following responsive records to your request: 14

15 PowerPoint Training Record "Brady - Informant and Discovery" presented to members of the Orange County Sheriff's Department and members of the public on December 21, pages. We have withheld slides containing photographs of crime scene victims and their families from this training record under Government Code section 6255 in order to protect the victims' family privacy. Any public interest in the disclosure of those photographs is clearly outweighed by the nondisclosure of them in order to protect the family members' right to privacy. (See Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 856) Record of Trainings conducted by Assistant Deputy District Attorney Ebrahim Baytieh: Instructor, Present - 3 pages Ebrahim Baytieh, Request No. 24: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, electronic mail, regarding the scope and the authority and the access to information given to the Informants and Practices Evaluation Committee ("IPPEC"); Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 24: Our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3" are incorporated herein by reference along with the following objection. Additionally, to the extent that there are records responsive to your request, they will not be provided because they are protected by the deliberative process exemption. (Gov. Code 6255) The "deliberative process privilege" is a qualified, limited privilege not to disclose or to be examined concerning not only the mental processes by which a given decision was reached, but the substance of conversations, discussions, debates, deliberations, and like materials reflecting advice, opinions, and recommendations by which government policy is processed and formulated. (Caldecott v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 212.) It covers records that are purely factual if such records are actually related to the process by which policies are formulated, or inextricably intertwined with policy-making processes. (American Civil Liberties Union of Northern CaL v. Superior Court (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 55.) Disclosing such materials would expose the OCDA's decision making process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the office and thereby undermine our office's ability to ensure the fair administration of justice. The public interest in nondisclosure, the interest in ensuring that those who are formulating such policies and directions have the freedom from criticism to engage in open dialogue, debate and deliberation with other attorneys in order to create effective and efficient policies and procedures clearly outweighs the interest of the public in disclosing those thought processes. (Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Ca1.3d 1325; Rogers v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469; Wilson v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1136.) To the extent there are records responsive to your request, they will not be provided because they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government Code section 6254, subdivision (k), the core work product privilege. To the extent that your request seeks records that are preliminary drafts or interagency memoranda, those records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government Code section 6254, subdivision (a) and will not be produced. We have identified records responsive to this request. transmission from Patrick Dixon, Esq. to Sr. ADA Tanizaki re: "Committee" dated 6/16/15-2 pages 15

16 transmission from Sr. ADA Tanizaki to Robert Gerard, Esq. re: "Administrative Paperwork" dated 6/25/15-2 pages transmission re: "Blithe Leece, Esq." and draft contract dated 7/6/15-2 pages transmission re: "Press Release Contact Person" dated 7/6/15-3 pages Response to Voice of OC by Robert Gerard, Esq. dated 7/6/15 re: "scope of review" - 2 pages transmission between Sr. ADA Tanizaki and 1PPEC re: "July 24 and 31 Interviews" dated 7/20/15-4 pages transmission to Sr. ADA Tanizaki from Robert Gerard, Esq. re: "interviews 7/24 and 7/31" dated 7/20/15-2 pages transmission to Sr. ADA Tanizaki from Robert Gerard, Esq. re: "Questions from the IPPEC" 7/22/15-2 pages transmission to/from IPPEC and Sr. ADA Tanizaki re: "IPPEC" dated 7/23/15-3 pages from Sr. ADA Tanizaki to IPPEC re: meeting with Sheriff Hutchens dated 8/5/15-2 pages transmission from Sr. ADA Tanizaki to IPPEC regarding "8/5/15 Schedule" dated 8/6/15-2 pages transmission from Robert Gerard, Esq. to Sr. ADA Tanizaki re: "NYT Editorial" dated 9/30/15-1 page transmission between IPPEC and Sr. ADA Tanizaki re: NYT Editorial dated 10/5/15-8 pages transmission to Sr. ADA Tanizaki from Robert Gerard, Esq. regarding including Perkins Operations in surveys of DDAs dated 10/5/15-2 pages transmission re: "Thursday Meeting" dated 11/17/15-3 pages transmission between Sr. ADA Tanizaki and Blithe Leece, Esq. re: "Dekraai Appeal" dated 12/8/15-2 pages transmission to Sr. ADA Tanizaki from Blithe Leece, Esq. re: "Jailhouse Informant numbers" dated 12/14/15-3 pages transmission between Sr. ADA Tanizaki and Blithe Leece, Esq. re: "jailhouse Informants" dated 12/15/15-2 pages transmission between Sr. ADA Tanizaki and Blithe Leece, Esq. re: "jailhouse Informants" and release of statistics dated 12/15/15-3 pages transmission from IPPEC requesting the number of DDAs in the office dated 12/18/15-1 page transmission from Robert Gerard, Esq. to DA Rackauckas with a copy of the final report dated 1/3/16-1 page with IPPEC Report of 12/30/15 attached; Please note that the name on the "To" portion is redacted to protect Mr. Rackauckas' privacy and the release of his personal address. For publicly available records responsive to this request, please see this office's website for the following records: (1) The Orange County District Attorney Appellate and Training Unit 2015 Training Performance Report and Plan at: 16

17 (2) July 6, 2015 Press Release Announcing IPPEC: Request No. 25: Any records, including retainer agreements, contracts, memorandums of understanding, agreements, internal policies, internal memoranda, guidelines, directions, instructions or communications, including anything contained in electronic mail, regarding the services to be rendered and/or any communication provided to individual members of the IPPEC and the IPPEC as a whole; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 25: Our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3" and our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 24" are incorporated herein by reference along with the following objections. We have identified the following responsive records to your request: The responsive records under "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 24" are referred to and incorporated herein along with the following records: transmission re: "Blithe C Leece" dated 7/6/15 with Purchasing Requisition and Sole Source Form - 5 pages transmission between Sr. ADA Tanizaki and Robert Gerard, Esq. re: "Quick Question" dated 7/6/15-2 pages re: "committee contracts" dated 7/14/15 with contracts for Blithe Leece, Esq. and Friedman Stroffe and Gerard, P.C. attached - 35 pages Record of Master Agreement #MA page Record of Invoice dated 8/1/15-3 pages Record of Purchase Order #D page to Sr. ADA Tanizaki dated 10/13/15 with Invoice attached - 6 pages Record of Invoice dated 10/1/15-2 pages Master Agreement Modification and Amendment Number One for Contract MA pages Record of Invoice dated 12/1/15-4 pages Record of Invoice dated 2/1/16-4 pages Request No. 26: All materials provided to IPPEC for their review; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 26: Our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3" and our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 24" are incorporated herein by reference along with the following objections. 17

18 To the extent there are records responsive to your request, they will not be provided because they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government Code section 6254, subdivision (k), the core work product privilege. To the extent that your request seeks records that are preliminary drafts or interagency memoranda, those records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government Code section 6254, subdivision (a) and will not be provided. The responsive records under "Specific Response and Objections to Requests Nos. 24 and 25" are referred to and incorporated herein as responsive records to this request. Request No. 27: All case names and numbers provided by the office to IPPEC for review; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 27: We do not have a record responsive to your request for "All case names and numbers provided by the office to IPPEC for review." Request No. 28: All Office personnel who provided interviews to 1PPEC for review; Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 28: To the extent that this request calls for the identities of persons who provided interviews to the IPPEC, that information will not be disclosed as doing so would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy for those individuals who voluntarily spoke to the IPPEC. (Gov. Code 6255(a)) The identities of these persons would not contribute significantly to the public understanding of the activities of the OCDA nor shed light on the OCDA's performance of our statutory duties. (See Los Angeles Unified School District v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 222.) There was a reasonable expectation of privacy by these individuals in speaking to the committee in not having their names revealed to the public. These individuals spoke to the committee voluntarily with an agreement that their conversations and their identities would be kept confidential; publicly identifying them would stymie further discussion on office issues and discourage people from coming forward and speaking honestly. The public interest in non-disclosure so that individuals will come forward in the future is clearly outweighed by identifying who actually was interviewed by the committee. To the extent that there are records responsive to your request, they will not be provided because they are protected by the deliberative process exemption. (Gov. Code 6255) The "deliberative process privilege" is a qualified, limited privilege not to disclose or to be examined concerning not only the mental processes by which a given decision was reached, but the substance of conversations, discussions, debates, deliberations, and like materials reflecting advice, opinions, and recommendations by which government policy is processed and formulated. (Caldecott v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 212.) It covers records that are purely factual if such records are actually related to the process by which policies are formulated, or inextricably intertwined with policy-making processes. (American Civil Liberties Union of N. Cal. v. Superior Court (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 55.) Disclosing such materials would expose the OCDA's decision making process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the office and thereby undermine our office's ability to ensure the fair administration of justice. The public interest in nondisclosure, the interest in ensuring that those who are formulating such policies and directions have the freedom from criticism to engage in open dialogue, debate and deliberation with other attorneys in order to create effective and efficient policies and procedures, clearly outweighs the interest of the public in disclosing those thought processes. (Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Ca1.3d 1325; Rogers v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469; Wilson v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1136.) The disclosure of this information is also exempted under the Official information privilege under Evidence Code Section 1040 et seq. as it was information what was acquired in confidence by the committee who was 18

19 acting under the District Attorney's direction to complete this review. This information was not disclosed to the public then, in the report or now. As such, it is exempt from disclosure under the Official Information privilege exemption. The public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public's interest in nondisclosure. Request No. 29: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, operational manuals, internal training materials, directions, or instructions, including anything contained in electronic mail, relating to the implementation of the recommendations made by IPPEC, including but not limited to, the creation of a Confidential Informant Review Committee and a Conviction Integrity Unit. Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 29: Our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 3" and our "Specific Response and Objections to Request No. 24" are incorporated herein by reference along with the following objections.: To the extent there are records responsive to your request, they will not be provided because they are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government Code section 6254, subdivision (k), the core work product privilege. To the extent that there are records responsive to your request, they will not be provided because they are exempt from disclosure as preliminary drafts or interagency memoranda pursuant to Government Code section 6254, subdivision (a.) To the extent that your request seeks records that contain records of the "deliberative process" as to the implementation of the recommendations made by IPPEC, the creation of a Confidential Informant Review Committee and/or a Conviction Integrity Unit, those records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government Code section 6255 as they are protected under the deliberative process privilege previously discussed in this response and will not be produced. The public interest served in nondisclosure is clearly outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of those records. The public has an interest in encouraging active discussion, debate and deliberation among the members of this office about the information contained in the IPPEC Report. Releasing the requested records would cause a chilling effect on future advice, opinions and recommendations from members of this office if persons knew that such information would be public. We have identified records responsive to this request. For publicly available records responsive to this request, please see this office's website for the following records: (1) The Orange County District Attorney Appellate and Training Unit 2015 Training Performance Report and Plan at (2) "Orange County Informant Policy: D= (3) July 6, 2015 Press Release Announcing IPPEC: /// 19

20 In conclusion, state law specifically prohibits disclosure of a wide variety of documents found in many, if not all, of the requested records listed in your letter dated March 4, The OCDA claims for its records, such as might exist, any and all applicable exemptions from the California Public Records Act disclosure. In maintaining the lawful confidentiality of these records, the OCDA claims, enforces, and applies any and all applicable exemptions, privileges, and proscriptions against public disclosure of records, including but not limited to, those listed in Article 2 of Government Code, Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 3.5, the California Evidence and Penal Codes, and the Federal Rules of Evidence. While we have set forth our reasons for any denials, we reserve the right to present additional theories and authority for non-disclosure in the future. If you wish to bring any additional information to our attention concerning the positions taken in this letter, please reply as soon as possible. --Sincerely, #ti-tiget Denise He 41..ndez Deputy District Attorney Special Prosecutions Unit - Read and Approval3rEbrahim Baytieh Assistant District Attorney Supervising Head of Court - Special Prosecutions Unit 20

21 OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA TONY RACKAUCKAS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY JIM TANIZAKI SENIOR ASSISTANT D.A. VERTICAL PROSECUTIONS/ VIOLENT CRIMES JOSEPH D'AGOSTINO SENIOR ASSISTANT D.A. GENERAL FELONIES/ ECONOMIC CRIMES MICHAEL LUBINSKI SENIOR ASSISTANT D.A. SPECIAL PROJECTS VIA TRANSMISSION May 3, 2016 Ms. Caitlin W. Sanderson Mr. Brendan Hamme ACLU 1851 E. First Street, Suite 450 Santa Ana, CA JAIME COULTER SENIOR ASSISTANT DA. BRANCH COURT OPERATIONS CRAIG HUNTER CHIEF BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION JENNY CHAN DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUSAN RANG SCHROEDER CHIEF OF STAFF Dear Ms. Sanderson and Mr. Hamme, I am writing to you regarding your California Public Records Act (Gov. Code 6250 et seq) request (the "Request") that is dated March 4, 2016 and that we formally responded to on March 28, Since the date of our response, we have received records that are responsive to Requests Numbered 24, 25 and 26 from your Request. Request No. 24: Any records, including internal policies and protocols, office memoranda, guidelines, electronic mail, regarding the scope and the authority and the access to information given to the Informants and Practices Evaluation Committee ("IPPEC"); Request No. 25: Any records, including retainer agreements, contracts, memorandums of understanding, agreements, internal policies, internal memoranda, guidelines, directions, instructions or communications, including anything contained in electronic mail, regarding the services to be rendered and/or any communication provided to individual members of the IPPEC and the IPPEC as a whole; Request No. 26: All materials provided to IPPEC for their review; Specific Response: The following records are responsive to the above requests: Billing invoices from IPPEC member Blythe C. Leece, Esq pages Transmission regarding billing invoices dated April 29, pages In conclusion, the OCDA claims for its records, such as might exist, any and all applicable exemptions from the California Public Records Act disclosure. In maintaining the lawful confidentiality of these records, the OCDA claims, enforces, and applies any and all applicable exemptions, privileges, and proscriptions against public disclosure of records, including but not limited to, those listed in Article 2 of Government Code, Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 3.5, the California Evidence and Penal Codes, and the Federal Rules of Evidence. REPLY TO ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WEB PAGE: 0 MAIN OFFICE D NORTH OFFICE 0 WEST OFFICE El HARBOR OFFICE ID JUVENILE OFFICE 0 CENTRAL OFFICE 401 CIVIC CENTER DR W 1275 N. BERKELEY AVE ' STREET 4601 JAMBOREE RD. 341 CITY DRIVE SOUTH 401 CIVIC CENTER DR. W P.O. BOX 808 FULLERTON, CA WESTMINSTER, CA NEWPORT BEACH, CA ORANGE, CA P.O. BOX 808 SANTA ANA, CA (714) (714) (949) (714) SANTA ANA, CA (714) (714)

22 While we have set forth our reasons for any denials regarding your March 4, 2016 Request, we reserve the right to present additional theories and authority for non-disclosure in the future. If you wish to bring any additional information to our attention concerning the positions taken in this letter, please reply as soon as possible. erely, Denise He Deputy Disid,et Attorney Special Prosecutions Unit 2