ROBERT D SKEELS July 31, 2021

Attorney and Counselor


at Law Jennifer Mansfield
132 North Westlake Avenue Citizens of the World Charter School Corporation 5
Los Angeles, CA 90026 19452 Hart St.
Reseda, CA 91335-3735
rdsathene@alumni.ucla.edu
<jmansfield@cwclosangeles.org>
rdsathene@sbcglobal.net
(213) 234-8561
SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: <jmansfield@cwclosangeles.org>; 

<mkleger-heine@cwclosangeles.org>
PCL JD ’18
UCLA BA ’14
Re: Meet and Confer letter in regards to response to June 27, 2021 California
USN ESWS ’85
Public Records Act Request to Citizens of the World Charter School
SBN 325896 Corporation

Dear Citizens of the World Charter School Corporation:

I received, on behalf of my client, your July 30, 2021 response to their June 27, 2021
California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) Request. It’s encouraging that Citizens of the
World Charter School 5 (“CWC Corporation”) has made an initial attempt to comply
with California law and disclose a portion of the records it is required to disclose
under the CPRA. To the extent that you partially complied with the law, my client is
carefully scrutinizing the records to see if they comport with the requests they made.

I write this letter as a good faith attempt to meet and confer with you regarding this
matter, and resolve the issues identified herein. There are serious concerns with the
record production that are detailed below. We want to provide you an opportunity to
cure the various defects and deficiencies, address the omissions in production, and
provide the required documentation for exempted records. It is very much my client’s
preferred course that you comply fully with the law, and that we settle this matter
without resorting to costly litigation. Ultimately ”the general policy of the PRA favors
disclosure.” Cook v. Craig (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 773, 781 [127 Cal.Rptr. 712].

I. Issues with Production of Records

A. Boilerplate Claims of Privilege in Response to Requests Nos. 1, 6, and 7

Your blanket assertions of attorney client privilege (“ACP”) are neither supported by
the language of Evid. Code § 952, nor any associated case law. As a principle matter,
not all communications between a client and attorney are privileged. Costco Wholesale
Corp. v. Superior Ct., 47 Cal. 4th 725, 743, 219 P.3d 736, 748 (2009)[“…in order to be
privileged, the information transmitted between the lawyer and the client must be
similar in nature to the enumerated examples—namely, the lawyer's legal opinion or
advice.”]; see also Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court, 242 Cal.App.4th 1116,
1130, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 694, 704[“Even assuming all of the documents were
communications with an attorney, not all communications with an attorney are
privileged. Instead, the attorney-client privilege attaches only to confidential 

 communication made in the course of or for the purposes of facilitating the attorney-
client relationship.” [citations omitted]].

Even the authority you cite as the basis for your overly broad and expansive claims of
privilege is far more specific than your boilerplate objections allow for. Again, not all
communications between a client and attorney are privileged, only confidential
communications are and “’[c]onfidential communication’ is defined as including ‘a
legal opinion formed and the advice given by the lawyer in the course of that
[attorney-client] relationship.’ (Evid.. Code, § 952.) (1c)” Roberts v. City of Palmdale, 5
Cal. 4th 363, 371, 853 P.2d 496 (1993).

Because CWC Corporation has made no effort to indicate which potentially responsive
records are actually subject to ACP versus which are merely communications with its
attorneys, it has not stated an exception sufficient under the CPRA, but merely recited
boilerplate and conclusory responses to records requests. Golden Door Properties, LLC v.
Superior Ct. of San Diego Cty., 53 Cal. App. 5th 733, 790, 267 Cal. Rptr. 3d 32, 76 (2020),
as modified on denial of reh'g (Aug. 25, 2020), review denied (Nov. 10, 2020)
[“conclusory or boilerplate assertions that merely recite the statutory standards”]. As
such, you are now being provided the opportunity to supplement your responses to
CPRA requests numbers 1, 6, and 7 with responsive non-privileged records and to
produce a privilege log or Vaughn Index for any and all of the records you are
claiming privilege. Voluntarily complying with the law and providing responsive
records and/or a privilege log is far more cost effective than defending against a
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, where the Court will order you to produce a
privilege log for my client to examine. The court may also examine the disputed
records in camera pursuant to Govt. Code § 6259(a).

B. “[I]nterest in nondisclosure“ Cited in Response to Request No. 6 is

Inapposite and Evasive

After nearly a paragraph of boilerplate objections CWC Corporation asserts that “the
public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure of
this information. [citations omitted].” However, in the absence of a privilege log or
Vaughn Index detailing the specific records and reasons CWC Corporation believes the
records are exempt, any reliance on Govt. Code § 6255 is seemingly inapposite.
Moreover, it is not for the potential respondent, CWC Corporation, no matter how
high it believes itself above the law, to make the determination whether records are in
the “public interest” or not. That determination lies solely in the domain of the Court.
Indeed “[t]he burden of proof is on the proponent of nondisclosure, who must
demonstrate a ‘clear overbalance’ on the side of confidentiality. [Citations.] The
purpose of the requesting party in seeking disclosure cannot be considered…”
California State University v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 810, 831 [108 Cal.Rptr.
2d 870, 884].

Given the high profile of CWC Corporation’s sustained attacks on parent and
community activists around the period records were requested, and its relationships
Page !2 of ! 5
 and correspondence regarding these activities with the California Charter School
Association (“CCSA”) corporate trade group and the Los Angeles Unified School
District (“LAUSD”), the public interest in disclosure is quite high.

CWC Corporation must supplement its response to CPRA request number 6 with
responsive non-privileged records and produce a privilege log or Vaughn Index for
any and all of the records for which it is claiming privilege.

C. Response to Records Request No. 10 is Inadequate

My client instructed me to request “A CERTIFIED COPY OF: Any and all records
pertaining to Charter Corporation current law firm of record.” CWC Corporation did
not provide responsive records, but merely recited their attorney’s information. This
would seem to indicate that CWC Corporation did not conduct adequate search that
was reasonably calculated to locate records responsive to this request. City of San Jose v.
Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal. 5th 608, 627.

CWC Corporation must supplement its response to CPRA request number 10 with
responsive non-privileged records and produce a privilege log or Vaughn Index for
any and all of the records for which it is claiming privilege.

D. Response to Records Request No. 11 is Evasive and Violates the Mandate of

Govt. Code § 6253.1

The combination of boilerplate objections and high-handed prose comprising CWC

Corporation’s response to records request number 11 was somewhat disconcerting
given that the letter relating my client’s request included the following:

We have tried to be as specific as possible to be in designating public records

without having access to all the records themselves. If you find any of these
requests insufficiently focused or effective, we request that you provide that
assistance required by Government Code Section 6253.1.

Govt. Code § 6253.1(a)(3) provides, in part, that CWC Corporation should:

“Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to
the records or information sought.”

At any rate, in a good faith effort to provide CWC Corporation with the “further
specificity” it insists is necessary to respond to the request, my client has instructed me
to modify the records request in number 11 thusly:

11(a) A CERTIFIED COPY OF: Any and all email records pertaining to CWC
Corporation responsive to both the search keywords “Mansfield” and “police”.

Page !3 of ! 5
 11(b) A CERTIFIED COPY OF: A CERTIFIED COPY OF: Any and all email
records pertaining to CWC Corporation responsive to the search keywords
“Mansfield” for the time period of January 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019.

11(c) A CERTIFIED COPY OF: A CERTIFIED COPY OF: Any and all email
records pertaining to CWC Corporation responsive to the search keywords
“Mansfield” for the time period of June 30, 2019 to December 31, 2019.

11(d) A CERTIFIED COPY OF: A CERTIFIED COPY OF: Any and all email
records pertaining to CWC Corporation responsive to the search keywords
“Mansfield” for the time period of January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020.

11(e) A CERTIFIED COPY OF: A CERTIFIED COPY OF: Any and all email
records pertaining to CWC Corporation responsive to the search keywords
“Mansfield” for the time period of June 30, 2020 to December 31, 2020.

11(f) A CERTIFIED COPY OF: A CERTIFIED COPY OF: Any and all email
records pertaining to CWC Corporation responsive to the search keywords
“Mansfield” for the time period of January 1, 2021 to June 30, 2021.

11(g) A CERTIFIED COPY OF: A CERTIFIED COPY OF: Any and all email
records pertaining to CWC Corporation responsive to the search keywords
“Mansfield” for the time period of June 30, 2021 to July 31, 2021.

With these revisions to narrow the request, we have tried to be as specific as possible in
designating public records without having access to all the records themselves. If you
find any of these requests insufficiently focused or effective, we request that you provide
that assistance required by Government Code Section 6253.1.

Although records request number 11 has been modified at your insistence, we will, as
a professional courtesy, treat it as if it is a new request with the standard timeline for
response and production. See City of Los Angeles v. Metro. Water Dist. of S. California, 42
Cal. App. 5th 290, 296, 255 Cal. Rptr. 3d 202, 209 (2019){“An agency has 10 days to
respond to a CPRA request. One 14-day extension is permitted for specified purposes,
including consultation with another agency having ‘substantial interest in the
determination of the request.’” (§ 6253, subd. (c)(3).) No further delays are authorized
by the statute.”}; Motorola Commc'n & Elecs., Inc. v. Dep't of Gen. Servs., 55 Cal. App. 4th
1340, 1349, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 477 (1997)[“Section 6256 requires an agency, upon receipt of
a request for public records, to determine within 10 days whether to comply and to
notify the requesting party of its decision.”]

II. Remedies Sought to Cure Production

A. Informal

As noted above, my client seeks the public records and would prefer not to litigate this
matter. Most of the defects, deficiencies, and omissions in CWC Corporation’s
Page !4 of ! 5
 production can be easily solved though CWC Corporation supplementing its
responses to the CPRA requests with responsive non-privileged records and by it
producing a privilege log or Vaughn Index for any and all of the records for which it is
claiming privilege. “The purpose of a ‘privilege log’ is to provide a specific factual
description of documents in aid of substantiating a claim of privilege in connection
with a request for document production.” (Hernandez v. Sup.Ct. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th
285, 292.) “The purpose of providing a specific factual description of documents is to
permit a judicial evaluation of the claim of privilege.” (Ibid.)

B. Formal

In the case that CWC Corporation refuses to supplement its responses and to provide a
privilege log or Vaughn Index documenting all claimed privileges, I will be forced to
file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Superior Court of California. The petition
will be accompanied by a Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief.

The paucity of records (38 files were provided) in response to an extensive number of
CPRA requests is seemingly prima facie evidence that CWC Corporation did not
comply with the law. Moreover, CWC Corporation’s blanket claims of exemption are
contrary to the law. Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Sup.Ct. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733,
790[“[T]he agency must describe each document or portion thereof withheld, and for
each withholding it must discuss the consequences of disclosing the sought-after
information. Conclusory or boilerplate assertions that merely recite the statutory
standards are not sufficient. A statement is ‘conclusory’ ... where no factual support is
provided for an essential element of the claimed basis for withholding
information.” [citations omitted].]

I have had excellent results litigating against charter school corporations that assert
conclusory or boilerplate exemptions to their duties under the CPRA, but it is both my
client and my sincere hope that these issues can be resolved informally as discussed in
II.A supra. Bear in mind that if CWC Corporation does chose to litigate this matter
rather than comply with the law, then the CPRA provides that CWC corporation shall
pay reasonable attorneys fees should Petitioner prevail. See Govt. Code § 6259.

If you have any questions, please feel free to email <rdsathene@alumni.ucla.edu>.

Thank you in advance for your prompt action regarding this meet and confer letter.

Sincerely,

!
Robert D. Skeels
Attorney and Counselor at Law

Page !5 of ! 5