You are on page 1of 4
ee a aw & ewe 10) i 12 13 4 15 16| oo 17] 18| 19) 20 a 22) 23) 24 25 26 u 28) l2son9s2 DARREN CHAKER, CITY OF SAN DIEGO, this Stipulation for Judgment based on the following facts: fy SY I 'oE FEB ~ 4 2021 By: R. Cersosimo, Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FILE BY FAX| Case No. 37-2020-00031074-CU-WM-CTL Petitioner and Plainti PROPOSED STIPULATION FOR ENTRY| OF JUDGMENT AND ORDER v. [IMAGED FILE] Respondent and Defendant, 2 ) ) ) ) ) ) i ) VC Judge: Hon. Richard S. Whitney } Dept. 68 }, Complaint filed: September 4, 2020 }) Trial: TBD Plaintiff and Petitioner, Darren Chaker (Plaintiff), and the City of San Diego (City) enter 1, On July 17, 2020, Plaintiff submitted the following Public Records Act Request (the PRA Request): Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I would kindly ask you provide me with the full names of the officers involved in the detention of my sister and the sergeant who came to the scene. I am also requesting the name of each peace officer assigned to Noithem Division. Further, while your officers told my sister they were trying to determine who she was, Iam aware one officer was on his Samsung mobile phone conducting Google searches about my sister. Pursuant to City of San Jose v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California Supreme Court Case No. $218066) police using private phones in the course of his/her duty subjects the phone to the CPRA. As such, I ‘am requesting all browsing data related to the detention and arrest of my sister to be provided to me. Please notify the officer's to not delete any data since it may be deemed a public record, 1 ‘{PROBOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT ee ranweon 10} ul 12 13] 14] 15| 16| 17] 18| 19} 2a 24 25] 26| 21] 2. The City acknowledged receipt of the PRA Request on July 21, 2020 at 12:21 pm. ‘The City immediately began working on the PRA Request. 3. On July 24, 2020 at 1:50 p.m., the City informed Plaintiff that it had identified and uploaded responsive records to the PRA Request. The uploaded documents included a printout of the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) report from the incident involving Plaintif’s sister, which included the identification numbers of all officers involved in Ms. Chaker’s detention. The City indicated that some of the information in the CAD was redacted pursuant to Government Code sections 6254(f) and 6255. This included identifying information of third parties not employed by the City. ‘The City also informed Plaintiff that the person making the decision to redact the records was Captain Jeffrey Jordon, 4, Concurrently, the City informed Pl iff that a further search and review of ‘additional potentially responsive records needed to be conducted and that the City would provide any additional responsive records that are not exempt from disclosure by law by 5:00 p.m. on August 7, 2020. 5. On July 28, 2020, at 2:07 p.m., Plaintiff submitted the following response: “Please review my request and provide all records, including but not limited to the browsing activity on the officers phone(s) for the officers who were present during the detention of V. CChaker. As you know from my request, various officer(s) were doing web searches for V. ‘Chaker. Using private phones in connection with police business makes those records a public record.” 6. On August 6, 2020, at 10:09 a.m., the City notified Plaintiff that the City was withholding the records he requested regarding the names of officers present during his sister’s detention and the Northern Division roster pursuant to Government Code-section 6254(f). Plaintiff was also notified that the person making the decision to withhold the records was Captain Jeffrey Jordon. l2son9s2 2 -(RSGEED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT ee 2 am ew 7, The City conducted a search for the requested phone records and determined that no such records existed, The City notified Plaintiff that there were no responsive records for browsing data on the officers’ cell phones in the response to Plaintiff on August 6, 2020. 8. At3:57 pam. Plaintiff respond I: “This is not Soviet era KGB where police ‘names remain secret, Please find the below request I made weeks ago: I would kindly ask you provide me with the full names of the officers involved in the detention of my sister and the sergeant who came to the scene, I am also requesting the name of each peace officer assigned to Northern Division, Also, again, I am requesting browsing data from the officersfsic] personal phones. My signal intelligence indicates at east two police private phones were searching for ‘Vania Cheker during the detention.” 9. On August 7, 2020, at 2:30 p.m., the City responded to Plaintiff, indicating that the San Diego Police Department stood by its exemptions. 10. Plaintiff filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief on September 4, 2020 (Verified Complaint. 11. The City responded to the Verified Complaint on October 15, 2020. The parties immediately began working towards a resolution. 12, The City provided the names and identification numbers ofthe officers involved in Ms. Chaker’s detention on December 17,2020. 13, The parties compromised regarding Plaintiff's second request for the Northern Division roster and the City provided Plaintiff satisfactory response on December 17, 2020. 14, The City represents that there are no responsive records to Plaintiff's request for personal cell phone data, 15, The City represents that it made a reasonably diligent search and produced all identifiable, responsive records except those that are exempt under the Government Code, 11. Plaintffis satisfied that it has received the records it desired and the PRA Request has been fulfilled, 12, The parties desire to resolve this case without the further incurrence of additional legal fees and have agreed to settle Plaintiff's claim for attomey's fees. [2502952 3