Bluehills 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (33)

• On the post: California Legislators Want To Make It More Difficult For Records Requesters To Get Documents From The Government

  

  Bluehills ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2019 @ 09:50am

  Re: Re: Not that onerous.

  It could have some impact on those attorneys whose business model is to submit requests and quickly file suit for the fees. It is not as big an issue here as in some areas, but it does happen. It can also give you something to show people representing themselves to get past their suspicion that you are calling to put something over on them and actually have a conversation about the issues raised.

• On the post: California Legislators Want To Make It More Difficult For Records Requesters To Get Documents From The Government

  

  Bluehills ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2019 @ 09:44am

  Re: Re: Not that onerous.

  Under California law a requester can file suit at any time. The public agency is already required to initiate contact and confer with the requester in many cases. Frankly, I think the meet and confer requirement is unlikely to have much impact. I just said it isn’t particularly onerous. People should be more concerned with the proposed additions as to the findings required to prevail in the legal action.

• On the post: California Legislators Want To Make It More Difficult For Records Requesters To Get Documents From The Government

  

  Bluehills ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2019 @ 09:11am

  Re: Re: Not that onerous.

  I represent clients in California on both sides of PRA litigation on a regular basis. I also utilize PRA requests regularly to gather information for other litigation.

• On the post: California Legislators Want To Make It More Difficult For Records Requesters To Get Documents From The Government

  

  Bluehills ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2019 @ 04:09pm

  Not that onerous.

  California law requires meeting and conferring in good faith in a lot of areas. Face to face meetings are not required, and a declaration establishing the opposing side has refused, whether outright or unreasonable delay in responding, is generally sufficient. Usually a couple of calls over the course of a week would be sufficient. Such calls are often far more efficient in resolving disputes than you would think. The line between records subject to mandatory disclosure and those that are not can be quite unclear at times, and a conversation is more likely to lead to resolution of the dispute than an exchange of letters.

• On the post: California Sheriff's Dept. Tells Journalists It Will Cost $350,000 To Process 48 Use Of Force Cases [Updated]

  

  Bluehills ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2019 @ 08:43pm

  Re:

  No, they didn’t. Inglewood authorized the destruction of files which could be legally destroyed. Depending on the files that would mean those 3 to 5 years old.

• On the post: California Sheriff's Dept. Tells Journalists It Will Cost $350,000 To Process 48 Use Of Force Cases [Updated]

  

  Bluehills ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2019 @ 07:47pm

  Re: Subpoenas

  The laws authorizing access to records via subpoenas predate most records in the possession of California public entities.

• On the post: California Sheriff's Dept. Tells Journalists It Will Cost $350,000 To Process 48 Use Of Force Cases [Updated]

  

  Bluehills ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2019 @ 07:44pm

  Re: Re: WaPo reported SCOTUS limit on state-imposed fines, etc.

  It does not apply, but it also does not matter. Under California law public entities cannot generally charge for the manpower involved in processing or redacting public records for release. Only the actual copying costs may be charged. I don’t believe 1421 contained any special provision in that regard.

• On the post: California Sheriff's Dept. Tells Journalists It Will Cost $350,000 To Process 48 Use Of Force Cases [Updated]

  

  Bluehills ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2019 @ 07:49pm

  Gore more likely talked to his attorney.

  Public shaming only goes so far. His County Counsel probably told him he couldn’t charge for redacting.

• On the post: California AG Steps Up To Help Cops Pretend New Public Records Law Doesn't Apply To Past Misconduct Docs

  

  Bluehills ( profile ), 09 Feb, 2019 @ 09:27pm

  Re: 'You think the laws you write apply to us? How quaint.'

  They destroyed records over 5 years old. Existing law requires they be maintained for that long.

• On the post: California AG Steps Up To Help Cops Pretend New Public Records Law Doesn't Apply To Past Misconduct Docs

  

  Bluehills ( profile ), 09 Feb, 2019 @ 07:20am

  Re: Re: Back to the legislation session boys and girls

  generally the agencies aren’t filing, the unions are.

• On the post: Author Of California's Public Records Law: The Law Covers Old Police Misconduct Files, Not Just The New Ones

  

  Bluehills ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2019 @ 04:38pm

  Re:

  Article I section 10, see the reference to ex post facto laws.

• On the post: Author Of California's Public Records Law: The Law Covers Old Police Misconduct Files, Not Just The New Ones

  

  Bluehills ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2019 @ 04:33pm

  Re:

  All this law does is designate that certain categories of documents are public documents which previously were not so categorized. Every public agency routinely purges documents because there is a cost to maintaining them. There are laws requiring retention of different types of documents for specified periods. If you want them kept longer, you have to come up with the storage and maintenance budget to do so.

• On the post: Author Of California's Public Records Law: The Law Covers Old Police Misconduct Files, Not Just The New Ones

  

  Bluehills ( profile ), 06 Feb, 2019 @ 04:27pm

  Re: Wording matters, offer to claim more excuses

  The law does not say that all the documents you reference are public. In California personnel files are generally not public records outside of position and compensation. AB1421 made certain categories of personnel documents regarding peace officers public records. However, it is very limited in scope.