COPYING NOT PERMITTED, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION (D)

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 DEPARTMENT 85 HON. JAMES C. CHALFANT, JUDGE 4 5 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, ) ) 6 PETITIONER, ) ) 7 VS. ) NO. BS136663 ) 8 CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND ) POWER, ) 9 RESPONDENT. ) ) 10 11 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 12 13 14 15 APPEARANCES MAY 21, 2013 16 FOR THE PETITIONER: LAW OFFICES OF KELLY A. AVILES BY: KELLY A. AVILES 17 1502 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SUITE 103-140 18 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA 91750 19 20 FOR THE RESPONDENT: CITY ATTORNEY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER 21 BY: TINA SHIM 111 NORTH HOPE STREET 22 ROOM 340 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 23 MEYERS, NAVE 24 BY: AMRIT KULKARNI 555 12TH STREET 25 SUITE 1500 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94607 26 27 DINA L. LIDIS, CSR #11340, CRR OFFICIAL REPORTER 28

2 1 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2013 2 P.M. SESSION 3 DEPARTMENT 85 HON. JAMES C. CHALFANT, JUDGE 4 --OOO-- 5 THE COURT: SAN DIEGO WATER AUTHORITY VERSUS LOS 6 ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, BS136663, NO. 5 7 ON CALENDAR. 8 MS. AVILES: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. KELLY AVILES 9 FOR PETITIONERS. 10 MS. SHIM: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. DEPUTY CITY 11 ATTORNEY TINA SHIM ON BEHALF AND COMBINED THROUGH THE 12 LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER. 13 MR. KULKARNI: AMRIT KULKARNI ON BEHALF OF L.A. 14 D.W.P. AS WELL. 15 THE COURT: THIS IS HERE FOR -- THIS CASE THE 16 DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER AGREED TO COMPLY WITH THE 17 C.P.R.A. REQUEST OF PETITIONER AND THEN DECIDED THAT IT 18 WAS IMPOSING A BURDEN BECAUSE THE RECORDS WERE NOT 19 REASONABLY DESCRIBED BY THE WATER AUTHORITY. 20 AT THIS STAGE I AGREE WITH THAT. THAT IS, 21 D.W.P. DEMONSTRATES THAT IT IS THE NATURE OF THE SEARCH 22 IT HAS CONDUCTED WOULD BE WHAT I CALL A WORD SEARCH 23 THROUGH FIVE DIFFERENT UNIVERSES OF DOCUMENTS THAT IT 24 MAINTAINS. THE REQUESTS, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE ONLY NINE 25 OF THEM, ARE BOTH UNDULY VAGUE WHICH PROBABLY DIDN'T 26 MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO D.W.P. BECAUSE IT WAS DOING A 27 WORD SEARCH AND NOT SEARCHING FOR CONTENT AND OVERBROAD 28 IN THE SENSE THAT INSOFAR AS THEY WERE CLEAR, THEY

3 1 CALLED FOR SO MANY DOCUMENTS AND ALSO REQUIRE THE -- 2 CALL FOR SO MANY DOCUMENTS THAT THE WAY D.W.P. HAS FOR 3 SEARCHING JUST WILL NOT WORK. 4 THIS SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED BECAUSE IT SEEMS 5 OBVIOUS FROM PETITIONER'S PAPERS THAT WHAT THEY'RE 6 LOOKING FOR IS REALLY VERY DISCRETE, NARROW DOCUMENTS 7 PERTAINING TO A DISCRETE, NARROW ISSUE WHICH IS WHAT 8 THIS SO-CALLED SECRET COMMITTEE WAS DOING WHICH 9 CONSISTED OF D.W.P. AND OTHER WATER AGENCIES THAT WERE 10 MEMBERS OF A LARGER AUTHORITY, THE METROPOLITAN WATER 11 DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. 12 AT THIS POINT IT IS AN UNDUE BURDEN ON D.W.P. 13 AND THEREFORE, THE TENTATIVE IS TO STOP THE SEARCH AND 14 TO PERMIT THE WATER AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT THE D.W.P.'S 15 RECOMMENDATION THAT IT SUBMIT MODIFIED SEARCH TERMS AND 16 PHRASES GEARED TOWARD PRODUCTION OF A DISCRETE AND 17 REASONABLE SET OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS THAN THOSE THAT 18 HAVE ALREADY BEEN PRODUCED. 19 THE D.W.P. WILL RUN THAT SEARCH AND RUN 20 NONPRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS AND ANY PRIVILEGE LOG THAT 21 PERTAINS TO PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS WITHIN A REASONABLE 22 TIME WHICH I THINK SHOULD HAPPEN WITHIN THE NEXT 30 23 DAYS. 24 THE SECONDARY ISSUE IS ENTITLEMENT TO 25 ATTORNEYS' FEES. ATTORNEYS' FEES ARE MANDATORY IN A 26 C.P.R.A. ACTION. THERE IS AUTHORITY THAT ATTORNEYS' 27 FEES ARE EXCUSED IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS TYPICALLY WHERE 28 THE LAWSUIT DOES NOT RESULT IN THE DISCLOSURE BUT IS,

4 1 RATHER, COINCIDENT WITH THE DISCLOSURE. 2 I CANNOT SAY THAT IS TRUE HERE NO MATTER THE 3 FACT THAT I FIND D.W.P. HAS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND THAT 4 THE WATER AUTHORITY HAS MADE THE PRODUCTION DIFFICULT 5 THROUGH VAGUENESS AND OVERBREADTH OF ITS REQUEST BECAUSE 6 D.W.P. STOOD AT THE TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE AND TOLD ME 7 THEY WERE DONE. AND THAT WAS OVER A YEAR AGO, AND 8 CLEARLY THEY WEREN'T DONE. 9 TWO MORE PRODUCTIONS HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THEN, 10 AND NOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A THIRD AFTER THEY TOLD ME 11 THAT THEY WERE DONE. SO CLEARLY THE LAWSUIT TRIGGERED 12 THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO THE REQUEST, AND 13 THE FAILURES OF THE WATER AUTHORITY GO TO THE 14 REASONABLENESS OF THE ATTORNEYS' FEES, NOT THE 15 ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEYS' FEES, IN OTHER WORDS, THE 16 AMOUNT, NOT THE ENTITLEMENT. THAT'S WHAT THE TENTATIVE 17 SAYS. HAVE YOU SEEN IT? 18 MS. AVILES: YES, YOUR HONOR. 19 THE COURT: DO YOU WISH TO BE HEARD? 20 MS. AVILES: YES, YOUR HONOR. 21 THE COURT: GO AHEAD. 22 MS. AVILES: THANK YOU FOR THE TENTATIVE. I 23 APPRECIATE HOW DETAILED IT WAS. THERE WERE JUST A 24 COUPLE OF POINTS THAT WE'D LIKE TO MAKE FOR THE RECORD. 25 AS TO THE BREADTH OF THE SEARCH, YOU KNOW, LOOKING BACK, 26 HINDSIGHT IS 20/20. AND WE REALIZE NOW THAT, IF WE HAD 27 KNOWN MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE WORKING GROUP THAT WE WERE 28 SEEKING INFORMATION ABOUT, WE COULD HAVE NARROWED THAT

5 1 REQUEST. 2 BUT AT THE TIME THE REQUEST WAS MADE, WE HAD NO 3 SUCH KNOWLEDGE, ONLY VAGUELY KNEW OF A GROUP, DIDN'T 4 KNOW OF THE NAME, DIDN'T KNOW OF THE PARTICIPANTS, 5 DIDN'T KNOW OF ITS ACTIVITIES. AND SO WE ALSO TEMPERED 6 THAT BECAUSE THE PARTIES WERE IN LITIGATION. AND SO 7 THERE WAS ALREADY SOME FEELING THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING 8 TO WANT TO FULLY COMPLY. 9 SO THE REQUEST WAS MAYBE LOOKING BACK MORE 10 BROAD THAN IF WE HAD ALL THAT INFORMATION, BUT WE DIDN'T 11 AT THAT TIME. BUT I UNDERSTAND THE COURT DISAGREES WITH 12 US ON THAT. SO I'D RATHER JUST -- 13 THE COURT: I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE INITIAL 14 REQUEST. 15 MS. AVILES: OKAY. 16 THE COURT: YOU ASKED FOR EVERYTHING -- 17 MS. AVILES: SURE. 18 THE COURT: -- PERTAINING TO -- AND YOU WANT TO BE 19 ALL INCLUSIVE IN YOUR REQUEST. 20 MS. AVILES: RIGHT. 21 THE COURT: THAT'S CLEAR. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT 22 ALTHOUGH YOU USED ONE OF MY PET PEEVES WHICH IS 23 "RELATING TO" WHICH IS SO VAGUE AS TO BE MEANINGLESS. 24 THAT'S A CONTENT-BASED VERB, AND I'M NOT SURE YOU 25 KNEW -- I CERTAINLY DIDN'T KNOW HOW THE D.W.P. WAS GOING 26 TO SEARCH FOR THE DOCUMENTS. AND IT TURNS OUT THAT THEY 27 DO WORD SEARCHES OR PHRASE SEARCHES. ONCE YOU FOUND 28 THAT OUT, IT'S THE CONTENT OF YOUR REQUEST, THE CONTENT

6 1 BASE IS LESS IMPORTANT. AND THEN THE OVERBREADTH ISSUE 2 BECOMES VERY IMPORTANT. 3 SO NOTHING WRONG WITH YOUR INITIAL REQUEST, BUT 4 ONCE YOU KNEW THE WAY THEY DID THE SEARCH -- 5 MS. AVILES: SURE. 6 THE COURT: -- YOU NEED TO TAILOR THE WAY THEY DO 7 THE SEARCH TO AVOID THIS UNDUE BURDEN PROBLEM. 8 MS. AVILES: LET ME ADDRESS THAT POINT. WE 9 DEFINITELY TRIED THROUGHOUT THIS LITIGATION TO DO THAT. 10 WE'VE MET AND CONFERRED ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES, A NUMBER 11 OF TIMES. EVERYTHING -- I BELIEVE EVERY CORRESPONDENCE 12 THAT WE SENT TO TRY TO MEET AND CONFER RAISED THIS ISSUE 13 ABOUT WE NEED TO GET A SET OF SEARCH TERMS THAT'S NOT SO 14 NARROW LIKE THE INITIAL SEARCH TERMS THAT THEY WERE 15 USING SUCH AS RON R. GASTELUM. IF YOU SEARCH FOR THAT 16 PHRASE -- LET'S TAKE A DIFFERENT EXAMPLE. IF I WAS 17 SEARCHING ONLINE FOR YOUR NAME AND I SAID JAMES C. 18 CHALFANT, IT WOULDN'T COME UP WITH A NUMBER OF THINGS 19 RELATED TO YOU. 20 SO WHEN THEY CAME UP WITH THIS IDEA OF 21 SEARCHING TERMS, WE SAID, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. THAT'S NOT 22 REASONABLE TO SAY THAT IT HAS TO BE THIS SPECIFIC 23 PHRASE. CAN WE FIND A WAY TO SEARCH BY E-MAIL ADDRESS? 24 MAYBE WE CAN SEARCH BY HIS E-MAIL ADDRESS. MAYBE WE CAN 25 SEARCH FOR RON BUT LIMITED TO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF 26 PEOPLE. WHEN WE DO THIS, WE WOULD EITHER GET NO 27 RESPONSE, OR THEY WOULD THEMSELVES BROADEN THE SEARCH 28 TERMS TO A RIDICULOUS POINT.

7 1 SO WHEN WE SAY, YOU KNOW, THEY SEARCH FOR 2 SOMETHING LIKE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT, WELL, IF 3 SOMEBODY REFERRED TO THEM AS M.W.D. OR MET, THEY 4 WOULDN'T CAPTURE THAT. THEY EXPANDED THEIR SEARCH TO 5 MET WHICH COULD MEAN WHEN WE MET, WHEN HARRY MET SALLY. 6 IT COULD GET TO THE POINT OF ABSOLUTE RIDICULOUSNESS. 7 WE TRIED TO SAY -- WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. WE DON'T 8 WANT YOUR THREE PAGES OF SEARCH TERMS THAT YOU'VE NOW 9 CREATED. WE DON'T WANT YOU TO SEARCH FOR ALL THOSE, BUT 10 THEN THEY IGNORED US. IT SEEMS AS THOUGH -- I'D LIKE TO 11 GET BACK TO THE ACT AS WELL. IF WE WERE OVERLY BROAD OR 12 IF WE WERE NOT FOCUSED AND THEY NEEDED ASSISTANCE, IT'S 13 THEIR DUTY UNDER THE ACT 6253.1 REQUIRES THEM TO ASSIST 14 THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO MAKE A FOCUSED AND EFFECTIVE 15 REQUEST. 16 THE COURT: WAIT. WHAT ABOUT THAT? THERE ARE A LOT 17 OF LETTERS FROM THE WATER AUTHORITY SAYING HERE'S WHAT'S 18 WRONG WITH WHAT YOU'RE DOING. HERE'S WHAT WE NEED. 19 THERE AREN'T THAT MANY LETTERS ON THE COMEBACK SAYING 20 OKAY. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. AND IT IS YOUR 21 DUTY TO NARROW THE REQUEST. WHAT ABOUT THAT? 22 MS. SHIM: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I BELIEVE THE 23 COURT'S ASKING US WHY WE DIDN'T NARROW OUR SEARCHES. IS 24 THAT THE COURT'S -- 25 THE COURT: I LOOKED AT THE LETTERS. I WON'T SAY I 26 READ EVERY LETTER ALL THE WAY THROUGH. BUT I LOOKED AT 27 THE LETTERS, AND THEY ARE TYPICAL LAWYER LETTERS. 28 THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, BY THE WAY, BUT THEY'RE

8 1 LAWYER LETTERS SAYING LOOK. HERE'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING 2 WRONG. JULY 31, 2012 TO DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS. 3 THREE-AND-A-HALF PAGE LETTER SAYING HERE'S -- YOU SAY 4 IT'S COMPLETE. HERE'S WHAT'S -- WHY IT'S NOT COMPLETE. 5 PLEASE GIVE US EVERYTHING. AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE 6 CALENDARS, AND WE DON'T HAVE THE CALENDARS. THEY'RE 7 INCOMPLETE ON THEIR FACE. SO THEY'RE TELLING YOU THAT 8 IT'S NOT COMPLETE BASICALLY. AND THERE ARE OTHER 9 LETTERS WHERE THEY EVEN TALK ABOUT SEARCH TERMS. 10 AND THERE ARE SOME RESPONSIVE LETTERS, BUT ONE 11 OF THE THINGS YOU ARGUED THAT THE WATER AUTHORITY 12 VEHEMENTLY DENIES IS THAT -- I PUT IT IN A FOOTNOTE. 13 THAT YOU ASKED THEM TO NARROW THEIR REQUEST, AND THEY 14 VEHEMENTLY DENIED THAT YOU EVER ASKED THEM TO CLARIFY OR 15 NARROW THE REQUEST. 16 I HAVE EVIDENCE -- I HAVE A CONCLUSION FROM 17 D.W.P. THAT THEY ASKED THE WATER AUTHORITY TO NARROW THE 18 REQUESTS OR CLARIFY, AND I HAVE A FLAT DENIAL IN REPLY 19 THAT YOU EVER DID THAT. AND I SAID OKAY. LET ME LOOK 20 FOR THE LETTERS, SEE IF I CAN FIND A REQUEST TO NARROW. 21 AND I COULDN'T FIND ONE. 22 MS. SHIM: JUST TO START, YOUR HONOR, DURING THE 23 LAST HEARING AT THE TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE, THE COURT 24 SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT YOU WERE DISINCLINED TO SEE 25 CONTENTIOUS LETTERS THAT WENT BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE 26 PLAINTIFFS. 27 MS. AVILES: THE TRANSCRIPT'S INCLUDED IN ONE OF 28 THE -- I CAN TELL YOU WHERE IN THE TRANSCRIPT IT IS,

9 1 YOUR HONOR. AND IT DOES NOT SAY THAT AT ALL. EXHIBIT Y 2 IS OUR LAST STATUS CONFERENCE, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU 3 SAID. 4 THE COURT: THE BATTLE OF LETTERS -- LAWYERS THINK 5 IT'S VERY MEANINGFUL. IT IS NOT ALL THAT MEANINGFUL, 6 BUT IF I SAID THAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE YOUR LETTERS, 7 IT'S POSSIBLE I SAID THAT. BUT ARE YOU TELLING ME THERE 8 ARE LETTERS WHICH YOU ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION? 9 MS. SHIM: LET ME GIVE YOU A BROADER ANSWER TO YOUR 10 QUESTION IF I MAY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I NOTICED IN 11 THE COURT'S TENTATIVE RULING WHICH LIKE WAS EXTREMELY 12 HELPFUL. THE COURT LIKENED THE SITUATION TO BELTH IN 13 TERMS OF OUR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION. I THINK THE KEY 14 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS CASE AND BELTH IS THE DEPARTMENT 15 OF WATER AND POWER HAS NEVER REFUSED ANY SEARCHES. IN 16 THAT WAY -- 17 THE COURT: UNTIL NOW YOU MEAN. 18 MS. SHIM: EVEN NOW WE'RE NOT SAYING NO. EVEN -- 19 THE COURT: YOU'RE SAYING IT'S AN UNDUE BURDEN; 20 RIGHT? 21 MS. SHIM: CORRECT. WE ARE SAYING IT'S UNDUE 22 BURDEN. AND WHAT I'D LIKE THE COURT TO -- WHAT I'D 23 INVITE THE COURT TO DO IS TO STEP BACK TO THE BEGINNING 24 OF THIS REQUEST. NOW, IT IS THE DEPARTMENT'S POSITION 25 THAT THIS CASE IS MORE LIKE MOTOROLA BECAUSE LIKE 26 MOTOROLA, THERE WAS NEVER A REFUSAL TO PROVIDE RECORDS. 27 AND I THINK THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT TRIGGERING KIND OF 28 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO CASES.

10 1 AND THE MOTOROLA COURT SPECIFICALLY STATED 2 THAT, WHEN A REQUEST IS DEEMED VAGUE AND BURDENSOME, 3 DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, IMPOSSIBLE TO READ, THEN THE 4 RESULT IS THAT A VAGUE REQUEST INVITES A RESPONSE WHICH 5 IS EITHER OVERINCLUSIVE OR UNDERINCLUSIVE AND THAT 6 MOTOROLA'S REQUESTS AREN'T SUSCEPTIBLE TO THE 7 INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO THEM BY THE PUBLIC AGENCY THAT 8 THE DEPARTMENT APPARENTLY THOUGHT IT UNDERSTOOD THE 9 SCOPE OF THE REQUESTS AND PROCEEDED ACCORDINGLY. 10 NOW, AT THE START OF RECEIPT OF THIS REQUEST, 11 THE DEPARTMENT, I WOULD SAY, PERFORMED AN UNDERINCLUSIVE 12 SEARCH. IT DID ITS BEST TO UNDERSTAND THE SEARCH 13 PARAMETERS OR THE SEARCH TERMS AS THE COURT RECOGNIZED A 14 VERY VAGUE REQUEST. WE PRODUCED THOSE DOCUMENTS. UPON 15 RECEIVING A MARCH LETTER FROM COUNSEL FROM THE PLAINTIFF 16 STATING WHY THE PRODUCTION WAS INSUFFICIENT, THE 17 DEPARTMENT THEN ON ITS OWN PERFORMED A SECOND SEARCH FOR 18 DOCUMENTS, A QUITE EXHAUSTIVE SEARCH THAT PRODUCED TENS 19 OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS. 20 THAT SEARCH WAS UNDER WAY AT THE TIME THIS 21 LITIGATION WAS FILED, AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY 22 IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE. THE DEPARTMENT -- 23 THE COURT: IMPORTANT ON WHAT ISSUE? 24 MS. SHIM: BECAUSE WE WERE CONTINUING TO LOOK FOR 25 RECORDS AND UPON -- 26 THE COURT: ARE YOU ARGUING ATTORNEYS' FEES, OR ARE 27 YOU ARGUING COMPLIANCE? WHICH ARE YOU ARGUING HERE? 28 MS. SHIM: I WAS TRYING TO RESPOND TO THE COURT'S

11 1 SUGGESTION THAT WHY WE DIDN'T ASK FOR MORE NARROW SEARCH 2 TERMS, AND I WOULD SAY THAT IT TOOK SEVERAL SEARCHES 3 BEFORE WE GOT THERE AND THAT CURRENTLY THE WORLD OF 4 DOCUMENTS THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS NOW SEARCHING FOR COMES 5 DIRECTLY FROM SEARCH PARAMETERS THAT WERE FROM WARREN 6 BRAUNIG THAT WORKS FOR KEKER & VAN NEST. EVEN THE WORLD 7 OF DOCUMENTS THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY LOOKING FOR WHICH WE 8 IDENTIFIED IN OUR BRIEF AS 200 GIGABYTES, THOSE WERE THE 9 RESULTS OF SEARCH PARAMETERS THAT WERE AGREED UPON 10 BETWEEN MS. JANICE FROM THIS OFFICE AND MR. WARREN 11 BRAUNIG. I THINK THAT'S REALLY CRITICAL TO 12 UNDERSTANDING. 13 WE USED HIS PRECISE SEARCH TERMS FROM 14 JANUARY 4, 2013. IS THE COURT FAMILIAR WITH GIGABYTES 15 AND ALL THAT NONSENSE? BECAUSE, IF I MAY MAKE A BRIEF 16 RECORD ABOUT THAT. 17 THE COURT: GIGABYTE IS LESS THAN A TERABYTE. 18 THAT'S ALL I KNOW. 19 MS. SHIM: IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THIS 20 MYSELF BECAUSE I JUST NEED TO MAKE CLEAR THIS WAS NOT A 21 TYPICAL REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT. WE HAD NO IDEA WE'D 22 BE ASKED TO BE PERFORMING EVEN SEARCHES CULLING OUR 23 SERVERS. A SINGLE GIGABYTE ISN'T EXACTLY TRANSLATABLE 24 BECAUSE IT CAN CONTAIN BOTH WORD FILES, PDF FILES, POWER 25 POINT PRESENTATIONS, AND ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT THINGS. 26 IF WE WERE TALKING SIMPLY WORD FILINGS, 64,782 27 PAGES. USING MR. BRAUNIG'S SEARCH PARAMETERS, THE WORLD 28 OF DOCUMENTS WE ARE CURRENTLY 12,956,400 PAGES OF

12 1 DOCUMENTS IF THEY WERE JUST WORD FILES. THE BATCH OF 2 DOCUMENTS WERE IMMEDIATELY PRODUCED BEFORE THE FILING OF 3 PLAINTIFF'S OPENING BRIEF WAS ONE SECTION OF THOSE. 4 SO WHEN THE COURT ASKED US TO PERFORM A SECOND 5 SEARCH, WHAT THAT MEANS IS WE HAVE TO PERFORM ANOTHER 6 SEARCH WHILE ONE SEARCH IS UNDERGOING, AND THAT'S WHAT 7 HAS MADE THIS PROCESS -- 8 THE COURT: I DIDN'T ASK YOU TO DO ANY SEARCHES. 9 ARE YOU SAYING I ASKED YOU TO SEARCH? 10 MS. SHIM: SORRY. BY YOU I MEAN HER. 11 THE COURT: I DIDN'T ASK ANYBODY TO SEARCH. YOU 12 JUST TOLD ME YOU PERSONALLY, BUT D.W.P. TOLD ME THEY 13 WERE DONE. THAT WAS DISPUTED, AND THEN THEY WEREN'T. 14 LOOK, THIS IS -- OKAY. 15 MS. AVILES: CAN I JUST RESPOND TO A COUPLE THINGS 16 REALLY QUICKLY? I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. 17 THE COURT: YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SECRET COMMITTEE, YOU 18 KNOW, CONSPIRACY DOCUMENTS. CONSPIRACIES ARE GENERALLY 19 SMALL GROUPS OF PEOPLE. NO MATTER HOW BIG THE AGENCY IS 20 IF THEY'RE CONSPIRING WITH OTHER AGENCIES TO CHEAT THE 21 WATER AUTHORITY WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE ARGUING THEY DID, 22 THERE CAN'T BE A LOT OF PEOPLE AT D.W.P. INVOLVED IN 23 THIS. THIS SHOULD BE A VERY DISCRETE SET OF DOCUMENTS. 24 WHAT YOU REALLY WANT IS THE FILES OF MR. GASTELUM AND 25 MR. PETTIJOHN AND ALL THAT PERTAIN TO THIS SECRET 26 COMMITTEE. THAT'S WHAT YOU REALLY WANT. THIS SHOULDN'T 27 BE HARD. 28 MS. SHIM: AND, YOUR HONOR, CAN I MAKE JUST ONE

13 1 POINT? 2 THE COURT: YES. 3 MS. SHIM: THE COURT POINTED TO THE PETITION AS 4 DESCRIBING HOW THEY WANTED DOCUMENTS REGARDING A SECRET 5 SOCIETY. THE WORD "SECRET SOCIETY" OR SECRET 6 MEETINGS -- 7 THE COURT: I'M NOT SUGGESTING YOUR -- THERE IS NO 8 CONSPIRATOR ON EARTH THAT REFERS TO THEMSELVES AS A 9 CONSPIRATOR OR AS A SECRET SOCIETY. THERE MAY BE A FEW, 10 BUT THEY'RE REALLY DUMB. 11 MS. SHIM: ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS WE DID NOT KNOW 12 FROM THE INCEPTION OF THE REQUEST THAT THAT'S THE KIND 13 OF DOCUMENT WHICH WE WERE SEEKING. WE WERE GIVEN A 14 REQUEST THAT ASKED FOR DOCUMENTS ABOUT WATER RATES. AND 15 SO JUST TO DOVETAIL INTO CLARIFICATION, I'M HOPING THE 16 COURT CAN PROVIDE WHEN THE COURT STATES THAT THEY WOULD 17 LIKE TO SEE D.W.P. PERFORM A SEARCH THAT HAS A LIMITED 18 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, COULD I GET SOME CLARITY ON 19 THAT BECAUSE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PETITION ITSELF -- 20 THE COURT: WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO BACK TO THE, YOU 21 KNOW, TERABYTE, GIGABYTE STUFF. I'M NOT GOING TO DO 22 THAT. 23 MS. SHIM: THAT SOUNDS GREAT. 24 THE COURT: THEY'RE GOING TO ASK FOR WHAT THEY 25 REALLY WANT NOW BECAUSE ELIMINATING THE BABY PICTURES 26 AND THE OTHER IRRELEVANT MATERIAL, YOU HAVE SOME IDEA OF 27 WHAT YOU REALLY WANT. YOU ALSO UNDERSTAND HOW THEIR 28 SEARCH PROCESS WORKS WHICH FRANKLY I DON'T REALLY. I

14 1 JUST ASSUMED IT WAS LIKE A LEXIS-NEXIS KIND OF SEARCH. 2 AND SO YOU WILL ASK FOR PHRASES OR NAMES OF AUTHORS OF 3 DOCUMENTS AS PART OF YOUR SEARCH IN ORDER TO GET THE 4 DOCUMENTS THAT RELATE TO THE SO-CALLED -- NOT RELATE TO. 5 THAT MEMORIALIZE OR DISCUSS THINGS THAT THIS SECRET 6 CABAL HAS DONE. 7 MS. SHIM: BECAUSE HAVING -- 8 THE COURT: AND I EXPECT THIS TO BE DONE WITHIN 30 9 DAYS, DONE, DONE, DONE, NOT JUST SOUGHT FOR BUT ACTUALLY 10 ALL PRODUCED WITHIN 30 DAYS. I'M NOT TRYING TO IMPOSE A 11 MAJOR BURDEN ON D.W.P. I'M TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT THE 12 NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS SEARCHED FOR AND SOUGHT WILL BE 13 LIMITED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT LIMITED MEANS IN THIS 14 CONTEXT, BUT INSOFAR AS THE WATER AUTHORITY HAS GOTTEN, 15 YOU KNOW, 48 DOCUMENTS FROM EACH OF THE OTHER ENTITIES 16 THAT ARE IN THIS SO-CALLED SECRET SOCIETY, THEN THERE 17 OUGHT TO BE SOME 48 DOCUMENTS CREATED BY D.W.P. 18 THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME PARALLEL SITUATIONS THAT 19 WE CAN LOOK TO SEE HOW MANY MORE DOCUMENTS YOU REALLY 20 NEED. 21 MR. KULKARNI: AMRIT KULKARNI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF 22 L.A. D.W.P. I'M REPRESENTING L.A. D.W.P. IN THE OTHER 23 LITIGATION AS WELL. I WANTED TO CLARIFY JUST FOR THE 24 RECORD THAT DECIDING -- WE'D BE HAPPY TO PRODUCE 25 REASONABLE DOCUMENTS WITHIN 30 DAYS. THE CRITICAL PART 26 OF THAT IS THAT WE REQUIRE A REASONABLE SET OF 27 PARAMETERS FROM WHICH TO SEARCH. 28 SO FOR EXAMPLE, TAKING EVEN 10 MILLION

15 1 DOCUMENTS AND NARROWING THEM DOWN TO 1 MILLION DOCUMENTS 2 IS STILL A RIDICULOUS SEARCH. 3 THE COURT: FORGET THE MILLIONS STUFF. CAN'T WE GO 4 RIGHT TO THE FILES OF THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE INTERESTED 5 IN? 6 MR. KULKARNI: WE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT SO, YOUR HONOR. 7 ACTUALLY A CLARIFICATION THAT BRINGS IT DOWN TO THOSE 8 FILES. 9 THE COURT: DO WE KNOW WHO THE INDIVIDUALS AT D.W.P. 10 ARE, ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THIS AT ALL? 11 MS. AVILES: GENERALLY WE DO NOW AT THE TIME -- YOU 12 KNOW, AS WE STAND HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY, WE DO HAVE AN 13 IDEA. DAVID PETTIJOHN WAS BASICALLY THE GO-TO PERSON AT 14 L.A. D.W.P. THAT WENT TO ALL THE MEETINGS. HE HAD A 15 LIMITED NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HE REPORTED TO AS WELL 16 ABOUT THESE MEETINGS AND WHAT OCCURRED. 17 SO INSOFAR AS THERE IS ONE PERSON WHO WOULD 18 HAVE THE MAJORITY OF RECORDS, IT'S HIM. UNFORTUNATELY 19 HE WAS APPARENTLY LESS THAN HELPFUL IN DIRECTING L.A. 20 D.W.P. TO THOSE RECORDS. SO FOR EXAMPLE, WE TOOK THE 21 DEPOSITION OF THE P.M.K. WHO WAS THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF 22 THE SEARCH. I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A DECLARATION FROM 23 HIM -- JOHN RUDEK. 24 AND IN HIS DEPOSITION HE TOLD US THAT HE WENT 25 TO PETTIJOHN AND SAID, "HI. CAN YOU GIVE ME YOUR 26 DOCUMENTS?" AND WHAT HE GOT WASN'T NEARLY THE UNIVERSE 27 OF DOCUMENTS THAT RELATED SPECIFICALLY TO THIS TOPIC. 28 IF THE L.A. D.W.P. EMPLOYEES WHO WERE INVOLVED ARE

16 1 UNWILLING TO DIRECT THEIR COUNSEL OR THEIR SUPERVISORS 2 TO THE MATERIALS, WE CAN'T BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT 3 THEY HAD TO DO AS A RESULT OF THAT. 4 AND SO -- AND I WANT TO MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY 5 CLEAR. EVEN ON DECEMBER 11 IF YOU LOOK AT OUR 6 DECEMBER 11 LETTER, WE SAID WHY DON'T YOU JUST SEARCH BY 7 E-MAILS. THEY HAD GIVEN US A LIST OF SOMETHING LIKE 8 THREE PAGES' WORTH OF SEARCH TERMS, AND WE SAID WHY 9 DON'T YOU LIMIT IT TO SPECIFIC E-MAIL ADDRESSES? 10 DECEMBER 11 CAME AND WENT AND INTO JANUARY. WE HAD 11 NEVER HEARD A WORD BACK FROM L.A. D.W.P. ABOUT HOW, IF 12 THEY WOULD DO THAT, IF THEY WOULDN'T DO THAT, IF THEY 13 THOUGHT IT WAS OVERBROAD. 14 THE COURT: I SAW THAT LIST OF E-MAIL ADDRESSES. 15 ARE YOU SAYING THAT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE UNIVERSE 16 YOU WANTED, JUST THAT? 17 MS. AVILES: AFTER -- AT THAT POINT OF TIME, I 18 BELIEVE SO, YES. THERE WERE SOME OTHER -- THERE WERE 19 SOME OTHER PEOPLE, BUT I THINK THAT THEY HAD PRODUCED 20 THOSE EXCEPT FOR OTHER SPECIFIED DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAD 21 ASKED FOR. FOR EXAMPLE, IN OUR REQUEST NO. 4, WE ASKED 22 FOR DOCUMENTS RELATED TO BUDGETS AND -- SORRY ABOUT THE 23 "RELATED TO." THAT'S JUST THE FACTS RIGHT NOW -- 24 RELATED TO THE EXPENDITURES FOR THIS WORKING GROUP. 25 SO INVOICES, PAYMENTS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. 26 AND WE'VE RAISED THAT ISSUE. EVERY SINGLE TIME WE'VE 27 TALKED TO L.A. D.W.P. FROM JULY TO OCTOBER TO OUR 28 NOVEMBER IN-PERSON MEET AND CONFER AND IN OUR DECEMBER

17 1 LETTER, AND WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN IT. THEY SAY NOW IT'S IN 2 THE 200,000 PAGES THAT THEY GAVE US THE DAY OUR OPENING 3 BRIEF WAS DUE. AND WHEN WE STARTED GOING THROUGH THE 4 200 PAGES, WE FOUND THE CAT PICTURE. 5 THE COURT: I WANT TO CONVERT THIS -- I WANT TO 6 CONVERT THIS C.P.R.A. REQUEST TO A TOTALLY DIFFERENT 7 VIEW. I WANT TO MAKE IT MORE LIKE A DISCOVERY IN A 8 CIVIL LAWSUIT IN THE SENSE THAT WE WANT 9 MR. PETTIJOHN'S -- WELL, LET'S BACK UP. I SEE NOTHING 10 WRONG WITH GOING STRAIGHT TO THOSE E-MAIL ADDRESSES THAT 11 WERE LISTED AND DOING A REASONABLE SEARCH WITHIN THOSE 12 E-MAIL ADDRESSES. 13 MR. KULKARNI: YOUR HONOR, THAT'S PRECISELY THE 14 PROBLEM HERE. THEY TELL QUITE A TALE THAT THE FACTS 15 JUST DON'T BEAR OUT IN THE THING. THEY DEPOSED 16 MR. PETTIJOHN. WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE UNIVERSE OF 17 MR. PETTIJOHN'S DOCUMENTS. MANY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS HAVE 18 BEEN HANDED OVER TO THEM. THEY AREN'T SATISFIED WITH 19 WHAT THEY'VE GOTTEN, AND THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE. 20 THE COURT: THE ALL-INCLUSIVE NATURE, THAT'S GONE BY 21 THE WAY SIDE. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET EVERYTHING. 22 MR. KULKARNI: WE'RE IN AGREEMENT THAT, IF YOU 23 IDENTIFY SIX PEOPLE AND SAY LOOK. YOU WANT THE STUFF 24 FROM THESE SIX PEOPLE, ALL THEIR STUFF, ALL THEIR OFFICE 25 STUFF THAT -- 26 THE COURT: LET'S NOT OVERWHELM THEM WITH DOCUMENTS 27 THAT ARE IRRELEVANT. LET'S GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT, 28 AND, YES, THERE'S A RISK THAT IT WON'T BE ALL INCLUSIVE.

18 1 AT LEAST WHAT THEY GET WON'T BE CAT PICTURES. 2 MR. KULKARNI: THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY'RE ASKING 3 L.A. D.W.P. TO GO THROUGH DOCUMENTS TO IDENTIFY WHAT 4 COULD CONSTITUTE CONSPIRACY. THAT'S AN ABSURD REQUEST. 5 THE COURT: NO. THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING TO CRAFT IT 6 RIGHT NOW AS TO WHAT -- SO THEY GAVE YOU A LIST OF 7 E-MAIL ADDRESSES IN ONE OF THESE LETTERS. I SAW IT. IS 8 THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH -- AND LEAVE ASIDE THE BUDGET 9 DOCUMENTS AND THE INVOICE DOCUMENTS OF THE WORKING GROUP 10 WHICH THEY SHOULD GET. IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH -- 11 I'M LOOKING AT A LETTER THAT'S DATED -- 12 MS. AVILES: DECEMBER 11, 2012. 13 THE COURT: DECEMBER 11, 2012. 14 MS. AVILES: EXHIBIT EE, YOUR HONOR. 15 THE COURT: AND THIS LETTER ON -- THE PAGES AREN'T 16 NUMBERED, BUT IT LISTED FACILITATORS OF THE AGENCY 17 MANAGER'S WORKING GROUP, MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY MANAGER 18 WORKING GROUP, AND M.W.D. EMPLOYEES, L.A. D.W.P. 19 OFFICIALS COMMUNICATED WITH THE MEMBER AGENCY'S WORKING 20 GROUP. IF WE JUST USE THOSE E-MAIL ADDRESSES AS LISTED 21 AND WE ASK FOR DOCUMENTS -- BACK IN MY DAY I USED THE 22 TERM "PERTAINING TO" RATHER THAN "RELATING TO" -- 23 DISCUSSING OR MEMORIALIZING WORKING GROUP ISSUES OF ANY 24 KIND, IS THAT GOING TO GENERATE THE MAJORITY OF WHAT YOU 25 WANT? 26 MS. AVILES: WE BELIEVE IT WOULD, YOUR HONOR. 27 MR. KULKARNI: AND WE ARE FINE WITH DOING THAT TYPE 28 OF SEARCH. LET ME JUST EXPLAIN THE MECHANICS OF HOW THE

19 1 SEARCH WORKS BECAUSE THAT HAS BEEN ONE OF THE PROBLEMS. 2 THERE'S BEEN A DISCONNECT. IT'S NOT A MATTER OF 3 ENTERING A LEXIS SEARCH OR TERM. WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN 4 IS THERE'S A UNIVERSE OF DOCUMENTS IN THESE VARIOUS 5 THINGS WE DESCRIBED IN OUR DECLARATIONS. IT'S LITERALLY 6 LIKE HAVING A BUNCH OF BINDERS AGAINST THE WALL WITH NO 7 SPINE ON THEM. THAT'S HOW THEY'RE SET UP, AND THE ONLY 8 WAY TO GET ACCESS TO THEM IS ENTER TERMS OR SEARCHES 9 THAT PULL OUT DOCUMENTS. THEY PULL OUT DOCUMENTS THAT 10 MAY BE IRRELEVANT. 11 WHAT THEN HAS TO HAPPEN IS THOSE UNIVERSE OF 12 DOCUMENTS THAT ARE PULLED OUT WHICH ARE OVERBROAD AND 13 LIKELY CONTAIN A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE IRRELEVANT BASED 14 ON THE NATURE OF THE SEARCH HAVE TO GO THROUGH A COUPLE 15 OF OTHER SCREENS. AND THOSE SCREENS ARE WHAT TAKES 16 TIME. THE SCREEN INVOLVES GO -- L.A. D.W.P. HAS TO LOOK 17 FOR PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS. WE HAVE ALMOST 800 OUTSIDE 18 COUNSEL AND THEIR STAFF THAT NEED TO BE SCREENED FOR 19 ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE FOR DELIBERATIVE PROCESS 20 PURPOSES. THEY HAVE TO LOOK FOR ANY OTHER RATIONAL 21 THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE REMOVED. THEN THE SCREENS OCCUR. 22 THEN YOU GET TO THE VERY DOCUMENT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 23 EVENTUALLY THROUGH INDIVIDUAL SEARCH ENGINE. 24 THERE'S A POINT BODIES HAVE TO BE PUT TO LOOK 25 AT THE DOCUMENTS. THAT'S WHAT I THINK THEY HAVE NOT 26 COMPREHENDED. 27 THE COURT: YOU CAN'T GO TO SOMEBODY'S E-MAIL 28 ADDRESS AND LOOK AT THEIR E-MAILS FOR THE LAST TWO

20 1 YEARS? 2 MR. KULKARNI: WE CAN GO TO INDIVIDUAL COMPUTERS. 3 IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. IT'S THE OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE 4 ON OTHER PARTS OF THE UNIVERSE WHICH ARE NON E-MAIL 5 FILES WHICH ARE -- AND WE ARE HAPPY TO PUT OUR TECH 6 PERSON IN TOUCH WITH THEIR PERSON. THAT'S OUR OFFER, IN 7 FACT -- 8 THE COURT: WHAT KINDS OF OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE WE 9 TALKING ABOUT? 10 MR. KULKARNI: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL OTHER 11 DOCUMENTS -- THE THREE UNIVERSE OF DOCUMENTS, YOUR 12 HONOR, ARE E-MAILS, POSTINI AND SOME OTHER FORMAT, AND A 13 THIRD UNIVERSE OF DOCUMENTS WHICH ENCOMPASSES JUST 14 DOCUMENTS LIKE REPORTS, CHARTS. IT'S IN NATIVE DATA 15 FORM WHICH MEANS IT'S JUST INFORMATION THAT THEN HAS TO 16 BE PULLED OUT OF THE SYSTEM, AND TO VIEW IT IN ITS 17 PROPER FORM, YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY VIEW IT THROUGH THE 18 PROGRAM UNDER WHICH IT WAS CREATED. 19 THE COURT: ANOTHER WAY TO DO IT IS TO GO TO THE 20 GUY'S OFFICE AND LOOK AT THE FILE. 21 MR. KULKARNI: IF THAT'S OKAY -- IF THEY IDENTIFY 22 THE PEOPLE WE CAN IDENTIFY AND -- 23 THE COURT: IDENTIFY THE PEOPLE HERE ON THIS LIST. 24 MR. KULKARNI: WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT. 25 THE COURT: SO YOU'RE WILLING TO LOOK AT THEIR 26 E-MAIL FILES ON THEIR COMPUTER OR SOME OTHER WAY AND 27 THEN GO TO THEIR OFFICE AND CHECK THEIR HARD COPY FILES. 28 MR. KULKARNI: WE CAN DO THAT. WE'LL TRY TO DO

21 1 THAT. WE CAN WORK WITH THEM TO GIVE THEM A LEGITIMATE 2 TIME FRAME FOR THIS. 3 MS. AVILES: THAT WOULD WORK EXCEPT FOR THE FACT 4 THAT DOCUMENTS AREN'T NECESSARILY STORED IN PAPER FILE 5 IN THEIR OFFICE. THEY'RE STORED ON A DRIVE FOR THE 6 WATER RESOURCES DIVISION WHICH IS A DIVISION THAT DAVID 7 PETTIJOHN HEADS UP. ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS ARE STORED IN 8 AN ELECTRONIC FILING CABINET IN THE WATER RESOURCES 9 FILING. 10 THE COURT: YOU LOOKED THERE TOO. 11 MR. KULKARNI: WE HAVE LOOKED THERE. THAT'S THE 12 PROBLEM. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN. IT'S NOT 13 JUST A MATTER OF GOING TO THEIR HARD DRIVE BECAUSE THEY 14 DID DEPOSE MR. PETTIJOHN. 15 THE COURT: HAVE YOU PULLED EVERY DOCUMENT THAT -- 16 IN WHICH THIS WORKING GROUP IS REFERENCED? 17 MR. KULKARNI: I WOULD SAY THE SEARCHES WE HAVE RUN 18 BASICALLY HAVE PULLED UP ANYTHING CONCEIVABLY RELATED TO 19 WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO AT THIS POINT. IT'S A MATTER OF 20 GOING THROUGH THAT AND NARROWING IT. THE PROBLEM IS YOU 21 HAVE TO START WITH THE BROADER AMOUNT OF DOCUMENTS, AND 22 UNFORTUNATELY THOSE ARE IN THE 12 MILLION RANGE. 23 THEY'RE HUGE. 24 THE COURT: I'M NOT INTERESTED IN GOING TO THE 25 12 MILLION RANGE. I'M INTERESTED IN GOING TO THE 26 E-MAILS FROM THOSE 15 OR 20 PEOPLE AND THE ELECTRONIC 27 FILING CABINET FOR THAT DIVISION. 28 MR. KULKARNI: MY RECOMMENDATION, YOUR HONOR, IS IF

22 1 I COULD -- I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. I THINK WE COULD 2 WORK WITH OUR I.T. PEOPLE TO COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT 3 WORKS WITH THE TECHNOLOGY. I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT TO 4 COUNSEL, MAKE SURE THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. WE 5 CAN AGREE AND COME BACK TO THE COURT AND IMPLEMENT A 6 APPROACH THAT ACTUALLY EFFECTUATES IT. WE'RE WILLING TO 7 DO IT ON A VERY TIME SENSITIVE BASIS, BUT IT HAS TO BE 8 REALISTIC BEING WHERE WE HAVE TO NARROW FROM. I 9 UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, AND I THINK WE CAN 10 ACCOMPLISH IT. I THINK IT MAY BE DOABLE. WE HAVE TO 11 MAKE THE RIGHT TECH PIECES WORK TOGETHER. 12 THE COURT: WHEN YOU ASK TO GET TOGETHER WITH THE 13 OTHER SIDE, IT HASN'T HAPPENED SO FAR. 14 MR. KULKARNI: BUT THEY'RE ASKING FOR MUCH BROADER 15 STUFF. 16 THE COURT: WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN IS THE PETITIONER HAS 17 TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT "I'M NOT GOING TO GET EVERYTHING." 18 YOU'RE JUST NOT. 19 MR. KULKARNI: EXACTLY. 20 THE COURT: YOU JUST HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, FIND THE 21 GOOD STUFF AND SEPARATE THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF HERE. 22 MR. KULKARNI: WE CAN DO THAT. I THINK 30 DAYS IS A 23 LITTLE TOO QUICK IN LIGHT OF THE PROCESS THAT HAS TO BE 24 DONE TO GET THERE. I THINK WE CAN DO IT, BUT I DON'T 25 THINK 30 DAYS IS JUST POSSIBLE, YOUR HONOR. IT WOULD BE 26 VERY CHALLENGING IN LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE TO 27 SIFT THROUGH. 28 THE COURT: I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE IT OPEN ENDED

23 1 AFTER TODAY. 2 MR. KULKARNI: COULD WE DO 60 DAYS? 3 THE COURT: I'M MORE INTERESTED IN THE PARAMETERS OF 4 THE SEARCH. I WANT A SPECIFIC SEARCH THAT IS ORDERED BY 5 ME THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO DO, AND THERE'S NO -- 6 EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. 7 MS. AVILES: COULD I MAKE A SUGGESTION, YOUR HONOR? 8 INSTEAD OF LEAVING IT FOR A STATUS CONFERENCE IN TWO 9 MONTHS TO SEE WHERE WE ARE IF WE COULD COME BACK IN, 10 SAY, TWO WEEKS AND HAVE AN IDEA OF THE SEARCH TERMS AND 11 WHERE WE ARE ON COMING UP WITH THAT SEARCH TERMS, AND 12 THEN I THINK YOUR HONOR'S ORDER SAID 30 DAYS FROM THE 13 TIME IN WHICH WE HAVE SEARCH TERMS. 14 THE COURT: THAT'S RIGHT. 15 MS. AVILES: I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE A PROBLEM FOR 16 US TO COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS AND SAY LOOK. HERE'S WHERE 17 WE TRIED TO MEET WITH THEM, AND THEY STILL WON'T DO IT 18 AND HAVE THAT ISSUE FIRST BEFORE WE HAVE THE 30 DAYS TO 19 COMPLY. I THINK 30 DAYS TO COMPLY IS MORE THAN 20 REASONABLE GIVEN THE STATUTES IN THE C.P.R.A. AND THE 21 TIME LINES ON WHICH THEY'RE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THE 22 TIME LINES THEY'VE ALREADY HAD. 23 WE'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF THIS COURT FIVE TIMES ON 24 STATUS CONFERENCE, AND EACH TIME THEY SAID, "WAIT. GIVE 25 US A LITTLE MORE TIME." IT NEVER PROVED FRUITFUL. 26 THE COURT: PARTIES HAVE FILED 15-PAGE BRIEFS WHERE 27 THE D.W.P. ACKNOWLEDGES ITS DUTY TO COMPLY, AND YOU'RE 28 STILL FILING 15-PAGE BRIEFS. I WANT YOU TO LEAVE HERE

24 1 WITH THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCOPE OF MY ORDER. ONE, 2 I'M NOT INTERESTED IN TERABYTES OR GIGABYTES OR GIANT 3 UNIVERSES. I'M INTERESTED IN DISCRETE UNIVERSES. THE 4 EMPLOYEES LISTED IN THIS DECEMBER 11 LETTER SEEM TO ME 5 TO BE THE UNIVERSE AND THE DIVISION THEY WORKED IN. 6 MR. KULKARNI: WOULD YOUR HONOR -- 7 THE COURT: THAT'S WHERE YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING. 8 MR. KULKARNI: THAT'S WHERE WE'LL LOOK. I AGREE 9 WITH COUNSEL. WE'RE WILLING TO COME BACK WITH THAT 10 UNIVERSE WITH A DEFINED SET OF TERMS WE COULD BE ORDERED 11 BY THE COURT IN TWO WEEKS AFTER WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO 12 NARROW IT DOWN IN THE PROPER TECH FORMAT AND HAVE YOUR 13 BLESSING ON THAT. 14 THE COURT: HERE'S THE OTHER ISSUE. IF YOU COME 15 BACK -- IF YOU SAT HERE ALL AFTERNOON AND YOU HEARD 16 ME -- I THINK THE VERY FIRST CASE I HAD, I HAD VERY 17 LITTLE RECOLLECTION OF THAT CASE. AND YOU COME BACK IN 18 TWO WEEKS, I'M GOING TO FORGET WHAT I SAID HERE TODAY, 19 GUARANTEE IT. THAT'S WHY I DON'T LIKE CONTINUING THESE 20 THINGS OUT. I'D PREFER TO HAVE AN ORDER THAT YOU 21 UNDERSTAND AND FOLLOW BECAUSE, IF YOU COME BACK IN TWO 22 WEEKS AND SAY, "WELL, WE COULDN'T DO THAT. COULD WE 23 HAVE YOUR INPUT," I WON'T NECESSARILY REMEMBER WHERE WE 24 ARE. 25 MS. AVILES: I DON'T THINK THAT OUR AGREEMENT TO 26 COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS FOR A STATUS UPDATE SHOULD 27 PREVENT THE COURT FROM ORDERING THIS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE 28 WHAT THE COURT ORDERED IS REASONABLE SEARCH TERMS. IN

25 1 TWO WEEKS WE SHOULD HAVE A STATUS CONFERENCE AS TO 2 WHETHER WE HAVE AGREED TO THOSE REASONABLE SEARCH TERMS. 3 I THINK THE COURT'S ORDER SHOULD STAND IN ITS ENTIRETY. 4 I'D HATE TO WAIT UNTIL JULY 18 AND HAVING TO COME BACK 5 TO COURT SAYING THEY'RE UNWILLING TO WORK WITH US ON 6 NARROWING THESE SEARCH TERMS. 7 IF I COULD JUST FOR THE RECORD, I BROUGHT UP 8 THE POINT THAT THEY HAD THE DUTY -- THAT'S SOMETHING 9 THAT WASN'T REALLY ADDRESSED IN THE TENTATIVE. I WANTED 10 TO MAKE SURE WE WERE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD. THEY HAVE A 11 DUTY TO ASSIST US, AND EVEN THOUGH THEY CLAIM THEY HAVE 12 NOWHERE IN THE RECORD CAN IT BE FOUND THAT THEY'VE EVER 13 REQUESTED US TO NARROW OUR SEARCH THAT THEY'VE EVER 14 ASKED FOR ANY CLARIFICATION. ON THE CONTRARY EXHIBIT NN 15 TO THE REPLY BRIEF SHOWS THAT THEY SPECIFICALLY 16 CONTEMPLATED WHETHER THEY SHOULD ASK FOR CLARIFICATION 17 AND DECIDED NOT TO. THAT'S FROM THE ATTORNEY SITTING IN 18 FRONT OF YOU. THAT WAS BACK ALMOST 18 MONTHS AGO. 19 FOR THEM TO TRY TO CAPITALIZE ON THIS FACT, 20 IT'S TOO BROAD. AFTER THEY CAME UP WITH THE SEARCH 21 TERMS, THEY DECIDED WHERE TO SEARCH. THEY WOULDN'T 22 LISTEN TO OUR REQUEST TO NARROW. THEY WOULDN'T LISTEN 23 TO THE SEARCH TERMS WE PROPOSED. TO NOW COME IN AFTER 24 THE FACT, IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR TO ALLOW THEM TO 25 MAKE THOSE KIND OF CLAIMS WITHOUT US BEING ABLE TO 26 REFUTE THEM FOR THE RECORD. 27 MS. SHIM: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A BRIEF RECORD. I WOULD 28 DIRECT THE COURT'S --

26 1 THE COURT: MAKE ALL THE RECORDS YOU WANT. I KNOW. 2 THIS ONE'S NOT GOING TO BE APPEALED. 3 MS. SHIM: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A BRIEF ONE WHICH 4 REFERS TO THE LAST HEARING WHERE THE COURT STATED YOU 5 DON'T REALLY NEED TOO MANY EXHIBITS, CONTENTIOUS LETTERS 6 BACK AND FORTH. BUT MOSTLY I'M INTERESTED IN THE 7 DECLARATIONS AS TO WHAT WAS DONE, WHAT CAN BE DONE, WHY 8 IT'S UNDIVERTING. 9 THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF ALLEGATIONS MADE 10 AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT HERE TODAY AND IN THESE MOVING 11 PAPERS THAT HAVE BEEN QUITE OUTRAGEOUS. CALLING THE 12 DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER ARE OUTRIGHT LIARS. I 13 WOULD LIKE TO SAY AT THIS TIME OUR CLIENT BELIEVES IN 14 TRANSPARENCY. THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER HAS 15 DONE EVERYTHING IN ITS POWER TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN ITS 16 REQUEST TO THE TUNE OF OVER $250,000. THOUSANDS AND 17 THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEE AND ATTORNEY STAFF TIME. I'M 18 GOING TO ADDRESS THIS FURTHER THAN THAT -- 19 THE COURT: I ALREADY FOUND YOU'RE ACTING IN GOOD 20 FAITH. 21 MS. SHIM: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 22 MR. KULKARNI: REALLY SIMPLY I DON'T WANT TO RETREAD 23 THIS ISSUE BECAUSE I DON'T SEE WHAT THE POINT OF IT IS. 24 I TEND TO AGREE. WE WOULD LIKE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS. 25 THE GOAL IS TRANSPARENCY. I THINK YOU'RE HEARING A 26 COMMITMENT FROM OUR END TO DO THE SEARCH IN THE NARROWED 27 FORMAT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN AND DO IT WITHIN A SET TIME 28 FRAME. I THINK THE ONLY ISSUE I'VE EXPRESSED, I DON'T

27 1 WANT TO SPEAK AS A LAWYER FROM A TECHNOLOGY PERSPECTIVE 2 AND OFFERING SOMETHING WE CAN'T ACCOMPLISH. I THOUGHT 3 WHAT COUNSEL SUGGESTED IS COMING BACK WITH AN ACTUAL SET 4 OF SEARCH TERMS THAT HAVE BEEN BLESSED BY THE TECH 5 PEOPLE AND AGREEING TO PULL THOSE DOCUMENTS AND GIVE 6 THEM WITHIN 30 DAYS IS COMPLETELY REASONABLE. THAT'S 7 ALL WE'RE REQUESTING. I THINK WE CAN NARROW IT, MAKE IT 8 HAPPEN, AND I THINK THAT WOULD SOLVE ALL THESE ISSUES. 9 THE COURT: WHAT THE PETITIONERS ARE GIVING UP IS 10 THE ALL-INCLUSIVE NATURE OF THEIR REQUEST. THEY'RE 11 GIVING UP SOME STUFF THAT THEY WON'T GET. WHAT YOU'RE 12 GIVING UP IS YOU'RE GOING TO PRODUCE TO THEM WHAT THEY 13 REALLY WANT, NOT A GIANT STACK OF DOCUMENTS THAT HAS NO 14 MEANING TO THEM. YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY 15 REALLY WANT. THAT'S WHAT I'M ORDERING. WHETHER YOU 16 WANT IT OR NOT, THAT'S WHAT I'M ORDERING. 17 MR. KULKARNI: ALL I CAN SAY, WE WILL PRODUCE 18 ANYTHING RESPONSIVE TO THOSE SEARCHES -- 19 THE COURT: I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA -- I UNDERSTAND 20 YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR SEARCHES ELECTRONICALLY, BUT I DON'T 21 KNOW. I'M THINKING OF FILING CABINETS AND GOING THROUGH 22 THEM. YOU KNOW THE INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE -- 23 MR. KULKARNI: WE DO. YOUR HONOR, WE'VE TURNED OVER 24 THOSE -- 25 THE COURT: -- WHO ARE GOING TO BE SEARCHED. MAYBE 26 YOU TURNED IT OVER IN -- HOW MANY IN THE -- THAT 27 METAPHOR? MAYBE THE HAYSTACK IS SO LARGE THAT THEY 28 CAN'T FIND THE NEEDLE. YOU NEED TO PROVIDE THE NEEDLE

28 1 OR A SET OF NEEDLES THAT ARE DISCRETE. THE DOCUMENTS 2 THEY REALLY WANT, NOT IN A LARGE 50,000 DOCUMENT THING. 3 MS. SHIM: YOUR HONOR, CAN I JUST GET CLARITY? FROM 4 COUNSEL'S DECEMBER 11 E-MAIL, YOU'D LIKE US TO LOCATE 5 ANY E-MAIL FROM ANY OF THESE E-MAIL ADDRESSES, AND 6 THAT'S IT. IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? 7 MS. AVILES: TO OR FROM. 8 THE COURT: COUNSEL ALSO WANTS IT FROM THE 9 ELECTRONIC FILING CABINET ON THIS DIVISION THAT THEY 10 WORK IN DOCUMENTS FROM THAT. 11 MS. AVILES: AND THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVEN'T 12 NECESSARILY -- THEIR ENTIRE SEARCH HAS FOCUSED ON 13 E-MAILS WHICH IS WHY WE HAVEN'T GOT THE CONTRACTS -- THE 14 PAYMENT RECORDS THAT WE SOUGHT BECAUSE THEIR ENTIRE 15 SEARCH FOCUSED INITIALLY ON E-MAILS. EVEN THOUGH THEY 16 HAD TO MAKE THEIR SEARCH BROADER AND BROADER BECAUSE IT 17 WAS SO NARROW FROM THE BEGINNING, BUT THEIR SEARCH HAS 18 FOCUSED ON E-MAILS JUST USING TERMS THAT WERE NOT 19 DESIGNED TO PRODUCE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. WE THOUGHT IF 20 WE TOOK THE E-MAILS OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE IN THE 21 WORKING GROUP, THEN CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AT 22 L.A. D.W.P. AND THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE WORKING GROUP 23 WOULD COME UP RESPONSIVE TO THAT SEARCH. 24 THERE WASN'T ANYTHING CRAZY ABOUT THAT IDEA, 25 JUST THAT WE WANTED COMMUNICATION FROM THIS E-MAIL 26 ADDRESS TO SOME E-MAIL ADDRESS, SOMETHING THEY JUST 27 NEVER DID. WE ASKED FOR THAT, AND WE ASKED -- THERE 28 WERE SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS WE REITERATED TIME AND TIME

29 1 AGAIN WEREN'T PRODUCED AND ANY DOCUMENTS IN THEIR 2 ELECTRONIC FILING CABINETS THAT THEY HAVE NOT SEARCHED. 3 WHAT THEY DID WAS PRODUCE -- I THINK YOU PROBABLY SAW A 4 REFERENCE TO LOGS THAT WE WOULD NOT REVIEW. 5 WHAT THEY DID WAS SAY OKAY. WE PUT IN A SEARCH 6 FOR "MET." HERE'S A LOG OF JUST THE FILE NAME. YOU CAN 7 GO THROUGH AND PICK WHAT YOU WANT. THERE'S NO WAY WE 8 CAN PICK WHAT WE WANT. WE CAN'T TELL WHAT THESE RECORDS 9 ARE. THAT'S WHY WE'D LIKE THIS ELECTRONIC FILE OF THE 10 WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, AND WE'D LIKE FOR THEM TO 11 JUST PRODUCE THE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS. YOUR HONOR IS 12 RIGHT -- 13 THE COURT: THE WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT IS THE 14 DIVISION -- 15 MS. AVILES: YES. 16 MR. KULKARNI: THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. THE 17 DISCRETE PINGS YOU SPOKE ABOUT TO ALL OF A SUDDEN 18 EXPANDING AGAIN BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE 19 DISCRETE PINGS. 20 THE COURT: YOUR LIBRARY -- I'M GOING TO CALL IT A 21 LIBRARY, NOT THE UNIVERSE -- ARE THE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE 22 LISTED IN THE DECEMBER 11 LETTER PLUS THE ELECTRONIC 23 FILING CABINET OF THEIR DEPARTMENT. THAT'S YOUR 24 LIBRARY. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK IN, NOTHING 25 ELSE. 26 MR. KULKARNI: BUT THAT'S ALL OF IT, YOUR HONOR. 27 THE COURT: WHAT DO YOU MEAN THAT'S ALL OF IT? 28 MR. KULKARNI: THAT'S WHAT I KEEP TRYING TO EXPLAIN.

30 1 THAT ENCOMPASSES -- THOSE FILING CABINETS AS YOU CALL 2 THEM ARE BASICALLY PART OF DATABASES THAT YOU HAVE TO 3 LOOK IN THE DATABASE. YOU CAN'T CULL OUT AND SAY THIS 4 DIVISION HAS ITS OWN SEPARATE DATABASE. THAT'S THE 5 PROBLEM. 6 THE COURT: STOP. THE ELECTRONIC FILING CABINET, 7 YOU'RE SAYING, IS THE WHOLE DEPARTMENT'S FILING CABINET. 8 MR. KULKARNI: IT'S IN THE DECLARATION. 9 THE COURT: IN THE FILING CABINET THE ONLY THING 10 YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR ARE THESE REPORTS, THESE 11 INVOICES, AND BUDGET INFORMATION FOR THIS WORKING GROUP. 12 THAT'S THE ONLY THING YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR -- 13 MR. KULKARNI: FOR THE WORKING GROUP. OKAY. WE CAN 14 TRY THAT, YES, YOUR HONOR. 15 THE COURT: THE E-MAILS YOU WILL LOOK FOR WHAT THE 16 PETITIONER TELLS YOU TO LOOK FOR BY WAY OF SEARCH TERMS. 17 MR. KULKARNI: IF THOSE SEARCH TERMS STILL PRODUCE A 18 LARGE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS -- 19 THE COURT: HOW CAN THEY? THE E-MAILS OF THESE 20 GROUP OF PEOPLE? HOW COULD THEY? 21 MR. KULKARNI: THEY'RE ASKING YEARS AND YEARS BACK, 22 YOUR HONOR. 23 THE COURT: AND 20 PEOPLE WRITING E-MAILS IF THEY 24 DID IT ALL DAY EVERY DAY WOULD BE -- AMOUNT TO A FEW 25 THOUSAND E-MAILS, MAYBE 10,000 E-MAILS -- 26 MR. KULKARNI: WE'LL LOOK AND TURN OVER WHATEVER IS 27 THERE -- 28 THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO COME BACK.

31 1 YOU ARE GOING TO LOOK FOR THE BUDGET REPORTING AND 2 INVOICE INFORMATION OF THE WORKING GROUP IN THE 3 ELECTRONIC FILING CABINET. YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK IN THE 4 E-MAIL OF THE INDIVIDUALS LISTED IN THE DECEMBER 11 5 LETTER FOR WHATEVER PETITIONER TELLS YOU TO LOOK FOR. 6 AND THEY WILL GIVE YOU A LIST OF SEARCH TERMS THAT THEY 7 WANT YOU TO USE. THAT'S IT, ISN'T IT? 8 MS. AVILES: WE BELIEVE SO, YOUR HONOR. 9 THE COURT: THAT'S MY ORDER. YOU DON'T NEED TO COME 10 BACK. DO THAT IN 30 DAYS. IN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE YOU 11 GET THE LIST OF SEARCH TERMS. 12 MS. SHIM: OKAY. I WAS GOING TO SAY ONCE 30 DAYS 13 ONCE THEY GIVE US THE SEARCH TERMS FOR THE E-MAILS ONLY. 14 THE COURT: IN 30 DAYS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF WHAT I 15 JUST SAID. HOW HARD CAN IT BE TO PRODUCE REPORTS, 16 BUDGETS, AND INVOICES FOR A PARTICULAR WORKING GROUP? 17 CAN'T BE MORE THAN THIS HIGH (INDICATING). MAYBE THIS 18 HIGH (INDICATING). MAY BE EXTENSIVE REPORTS. 19 MS. SHIM: I HOPE THE COURT IS CORRECT. 20 THE COURT: THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SECRET CABAL. 21 SECRET CABALS DON'T GENERATE A LOT OF REPORTS. ALL 22 RIGHT. I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO COME BACK EXCEPT ON 23 THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DATE THAT'S LISTED HERE TO MAKE 24 SURE EVERYTHING'S DONE. 25 MS. AVILES: CAN WE RESERVE THAT FOR OUR MOTION FOR 26 ATTORNEYS' FEES IF WE'RE UNABLE TO STIPULATE? 27 THE COURT: YOU CAN MAKE THAT MOTION AT THAT TIME. 28 IT CAN BE AFTER THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED. YOU CAN TAKE A

32 1 POST JUDGMENT MOTION, OR YOU CAN DO IT ON JULY 18. YOU 2 HAVE TO CLEAR IT WITH THE COURT ATTENDANT. I HAVE A 3 CERTAIN NUMBER. 4 MS. AVILES: THE COURT'S ADOPTING ITS TENTATIVE. 5 THE COURT: I AM. AS MODIFIED ORALLY BY WHAT I SAID 6 AT THE END. 7 MS. AVILES: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 8 MR. KULKARNI: WE WILL MEET AND CONFER. SHE'S GOING 9 TO GIVE US THE FINAL SEARCH TERMS. 10 MS. SHIM: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 11 MS. AVILES: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 12 THE COURT: WAIVE NOTICE? 13 MR. KULKARNI: WAIVE NOTICE. 14 MS. AVILES: NOTICE WAIVED. THANK YOU. 15 (PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28