[Editor’s Note: As a thinker, journalist, activist and role model, the considerably talented Damien Goodmon is our candidate for the sharpest 26-year-old in Los Angeles. Readers are reminded that Mr. Goodmon has been an intrepid leader in an uphill campaign to convince the MTA to build an above-grade light rail crossing near Dorsey High School, for safety’s sake, instead of the more dangerous ground-level crossing that is planned.
[A bulldog when he seizes on an issue, Mr. Goodmon currently is pursuing a precise accident report from the MTA involving young people.Yesterday, he sent to the newspaper his latest critical letter to the MTA for assertedly being non-responsive for almost 4 months, accompanied by a letter from the MTA to Mr. Goodmon, dated Aug. 19.
[The MTA’s letter struck us as reasonable. We held Mr. Goodmon’s copy while challenging his contention that the MTA was non-co-operative. Here is Mr. Goodmon’s answer to us:
[“Most public agencies respond within 10 days, 30 days max. The MTA has supplied no document about the accident forms after 120 days and would have us give them 70 more.
“Some of the other documents requested are readily available, but they just don’t want to supply them. They’re in the business of obstructing access to their accident reports, and use as their basis a statement that they could lead to future litigation. It’s an incorrect interpretation as stated in the email.”
[We present Mr. Goodmon’s letter of yesterday followed directly by the MTA’s Aug. 19 reesponse.]
Dear Mr. Joe Parise, Records Management Supervisor of the MTA, and the MTA Board of Directors:
Today marks the 118th day since the initial request of this agency for accident/incident reports for each Blue Line and Gold Line accident/incident, in particular those involving youths and youngsters, and still not one report has been supplied.
Since UCA/Fix Expo's letter titled, “MTA’s Failure to Respond to Fix Expo/UCA's California Public Records Act Requests of 6 May 2008, 13 May 2008, 14 July 2008, & 24 July 2008” (attached with exhibits), which was hand-delivered to MTA Records Management Center on August 14, 2008, we have received your response of August 19, 2008 (also attached).
Much of our response to your August 19 letter, in particular your interpretation of the series of communication/events stated in the “Procedural History” section, will be addressed in a follow-up to this email. This email is a specific response to your contention that: “A public records request is not a discovery request and therefore, MTA is not required to participate in a fishing expedition,” and status inquiry.
First, I object to your implication that this California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request is a “fishing expedition.” This is a detailed request for information involving the accidents, injury, maiming and deaths of people, in particular children, by your light rail vehicles, which are operated with public funds, and were built with taxpayers dollars.
Second, with respect to your assertion that the CPRA provides your agency greater leniency as compared to discovery, the law states quite the reverse, and rulings have been issued, specific to cases in which MTA was a party. Indeed, the ruling in Wilder v. LACMTA indicates that even if this were “a fishing expedition,” the constitution of the State of California entitles us to partake and MTA is legally mandated to supply us with the information requested.
In case you have forgotten, Wilder v. LACMTA of 1998 involved a woman injured at a Blue Line station, who requested through the California Public Records Act, among other information, the accident report for her accident, the accident reports of all crossings, and crossing maintenance information. MTA refused to supply the information to Wilder, stating as your basis that the request was “in anticipation of litigation.” When Wilder filed a writ of mandate in Superior Court, MTA demurred that she was seeking to “circumvent the discovery process.”
The California Court of Appeals for the 2nd District interjected stating the basis of the CPRA, and that Wilder “did not cease to be a ‘member of the public’ when she was struck by the Blue Line.” The Court of Appeals for the 2nd District also stated:
“Putting aside for the moment the time, effort, and financial resources required to institute a lawsuit against a governmental entity and to promulgate discovery requests, discovery is limited to matters ‘relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action,’ which are themselves ‘admissible in evidence’ or ‘appear[] reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017, subd. (a).) A CPRA request can cover anything the person making the request suspects the agency might have in its files. As a member of the public, petitioner is entitled to the broader categories of documents available under the CPRA.”
I have both generally and specifically requested each accident/incident report for Blue Line and Gold Line incidents/accidents, going so far as identifying some of the form codes and filing locations:
- Initial request of May 6 #4-7 (see Exhibit A),
- Modified request of May 13 #1-4 (see Exhibit B)
- Clarified request of July 14 #1-4, 6-9 (see Exhibit E)
- July 24 request #11-16 (see Exhibit G)
It has been 118 days since the initial request. I have written, responded, clarified and specified and yet I have not received a single report of an accident/incident involving a Blue Line and Gold Line train.
In the 4 months since the initial request, has MTA identified and is ready to supply a single piece of paper since the initial request?
If MTA has, please respond by the close of business tomorrow, the 119th day since the initial request, with information as to when these documents will be available for pick-up.
If MTA has not, or if MTA continues to assert that you will not or need more time to supply these individual accident/incident reports, please respond by the close of business Friday, September 5, with your interpretation of what constitutes the “delay and obstruct[ion]” referenced in California Public Records Act Section 6253(d): “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.”
Finally, as you are well aware given the heightened discussion in South L.A. and the media in general regarding light rail safety, the public need for this information is paramount.
Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Damien Wesley Clark Goodmon
Chair, United Community Associations
Coordinator, Fix the Expo Rail Line Campaign
P.O. Box 781267, Los Angeles, CA 90016
CC:
Law Firm of Sonneschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP
Law Firm of Heller & Edwards
Law Firm of Strumwasser & Woocher, LLP
FTA Administrator James Simpson
FTA Region IX Administrator Leslie Rogers
FTA Los Angeles Office
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
Congresswoman Diane Watson
State Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass
Assembly Member Mike Davis
Expo Line Construction Authority Board of Directors
Los Angeles City Board of Education
Via mail/fax:
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer
California Attorney General Edmund C. Brown, Jr.
Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley
Mr. Parise’s earlier reponse:
[img]176|left|MTA Response Letter, 080819||popup[/img]
