"Web" Unsolicited and Incorrect Filtering of Audrie Pott Suicide After Sexual Assault - # HIPAA

9. APPENDIX A.

10. 2/6/24, 3:25 PM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal --> Application for Further Review. Michael Ayele <waacl13@gmail.com> Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal --> Application for Further Review. Michael Ayele <waacl13@gmail.com> To: "Kerrigan, Hilary" <Hilary.Kerrigan@cco.sccgov.org>, rfleming@scscourt.org, lherrick@scscourt.org, tara.lundstrom@cco.sccgov.org, adacoordinator@scscourt.org, sscivilinfo@scscourt.org, sscriminfo@scscourt.org, ssfamilyinfo@scscourt.org, hresources@scscourt.org, ssjuryinfo@scscourt.org, ssjuvinfo@scscourt.org, ADR@scscourt.org, ssprobinfo@scscourt.org, sssclaimsinfo@scscourt.org, sstrafficinfo@scscourt.org, ssweb@scscourt.org Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 3:25 PM W (AACL) Date.: February 06th 2024 Michael A. Ayele P.O.Box 20438 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia E-mail: waacl13@gmail.com ; waacl1313@gmail.com ; waacl42913@gmail.com Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal: Application for Further Review Hello, I am writing this letter in response to your correspondence from February 05th 2024, which I have since reviewed. Please be advised that I continue to have serious concerns with your processing of my PRA request because of your failure not to disclose responsive records detailing [1] the wrongful death complaint, which had been filed on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott that had been assigned Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 by the Santa Clara County Superior Court; [2] the terms and conditions of the non-monetary settlement agreement, which was concluded in the wrongful death complaint that had been assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court the following Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689. According to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concluded between the Superior Court of Santa Clara County and the County of Santa Clara, the “Court recognizes that [your] County is a public agency subject to the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) and must strictly comply with its requirements.” Furthermore, your “County recognizes that the Court is a judicial branch entity subject to the disclosure requirements of Rule 10.500 of the California Rules of Court and must strictly comply with its requirements.”[i]Additionally, the Superior Court of Santa Clara County can “provide access to Electronic Court Records to Authorized County Users in accordance with California Rules of Courts, rule 2.500 et seq., including rules 2.503, 2.507, and 2.540.” [ii] The terms and conditions of the MOU concluded between the Superior Court of Santa Clara County and the County of Santa Clara stipulate that the Santa Clara County Counsel could request from the Superior Court of Santa Clara County documents filed during the processing of the case, which had been numbered: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689. Furthermore, the terms and conditions of the MOU concluded between the Superior Court of Santa Clara County and the County of Santa Clara stipulate that members of the general public could “request access to trial court records that are maintained in electronic form.” Additionally, the terms and https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-121196835237574262&simpl=msg-a:r-121196835237574… 1/4

11. 2/6/24, 3:25 PM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal --> Application for Further Review. conditions of the MOU concluded between the Superior Court of Santa Clara County and the County of Santa Clara stipulate that the “public’s right of access to judicial administrative records (…) must be broadly construed to further the public’s right of access.” Given the above mentioned facts, I request that you disclose responsive records detailing [1] the wrongful death complaint (as well as any amendments made to that complaint), which had been filed on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott that had been assigned Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 by the Santa Clara County Superior Court; [2] the terms and conditions of the non-monetary settlement agreement, which was concluded in the wrongful death complaint that had been assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court the following Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689. As a Black man who has in Calendar Year 2014 spent some time in the State of California, I hope your disclosure of the records I have requested will comply with your obligations under the CPRA as well as your obligations under California Rules of Courts, Rule 2.500 and Rule 10.500. I also hope that you will choose to bolster public confidence in the activities, the engagements and the priorities of the Santa Clara County as well as the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Be well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance. Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist Audio-Visual Media Analyst Anti-Propaganda Journalist Work Cited [i] Rule 10.500. Public access to judicial administrative records This rule clarifies and expands the public’s right of access to judicial administrative records and must be broadly construed to further the public’s right of access. Judicial Council of California.: https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten& linkid=rule10_500 [ii] Rule 2.500. Statement of Purpose The rules in this chapter are intended to provide the public, parties, parties’ attorneys, legal organizations, court-appointed persons, and government entities with reasonable access to trial court records that are maintained in electronic form, while protecting privacy interests. Judicial Council of California.: https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=two& linkid=rule2_500 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-121196835237574262&simpl=msg-a:r-121196835237574… 2/4

12. 2/6/24, 3:25 PM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal --> Application for Further Review. On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 8:34 PM Kerrigan, Hilary <Hilary.Kerrigan@cco.sccgov.org> wrote: Hello, I write in response to your records request dated January 30, 2024, requesting the following documents: [1] the documents Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen has/had access to pertaining to Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 prior/after the enactment of Audrie's Law (on or around) September 30th, 2014. [2] the written/verbal agreements concluded between the Santa Clara County Counsel and the Santa Clara County District Attorney in terms of the Santa Clara County Counsel being given access to files maintained by the Santa Clara County District Attorney [3] the written/verbal agreements concluded between the Santa Clara County Counsel and the Santa Clara County Superior Court in terms of the Santa Clara County Counsel being given access to files maintained by the Santa Clara County Superior Court. With regards to request number 1, the County has identified no responsive documents. Case 1-13-CV-244689 is a civil action between private parties, and the County was not a party to the proceeding. Thus, there are no documents “… containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained…” by the County. (Cal. Gov’t Code § 7920.530.) With regards to request number 2, please see a responsive document accessible at the following link: Board-Policy- 3.70-Policy-Regarding-Public-Records-Requests.pdf (sccgov.org) With regards to request number 3, please see the responsive document attached to this email. This closes your request. Hilary Kerrigan | Deputy County Counsel Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding, East Wing, 9th Floor | San José, CA 95110 Office: (408) 299-6925 Mobile: (669)250-8176 Hilary.Kerrigan@cco.sccgov.org | counsel.sccgov.org Pronouns: she/her/hers NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: The information in this email is confidential and may be protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. If you received this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it is strictly prohibited. Please notify Administration, Office of the County Counsel, of the error immediately at 408-299-5900 and delete this communication and any attached documents from your system. 2 attachments https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-121196835237574262&simpl=msg-a:r-121196835237574… 3/4

13. 2/6/24, 3:25 PM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal --> Application for Further Review. W (AACL) Dec 14th 2023 Rec Req on Suicide After Sexual Assault.docx 51K MOU county and court.pdf 394K https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-121196835237574262&simpl=msg-a:r-121196835237574… 4/4

14. 1/31/24, 7:23 AM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal Michael Ayele <waacl13@gmail.com> Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal Michael Ayele <waacl13@gmail.com> To: taby.kalami@cco.sccgov.org, mona.williams@cco.sccgov.org, adacoordinator@scscourt.org, sscivilinfo@scscourt.org, sscriminfo@scscourt.org, ssfamilyinfo@scscourt.org, hresources@scscourt.org, ssjuryinfo@scscourt.org, ssjuvinfo@scscourt.org, ADR@scscourt.org, ssprobinfo@scscourt.org, sssclaimsinfo@scscourt.org, sstrafficinfo@scscourt.org, ssweb@scscourt.org Cc: Michael Ayele <waacl1313@gmail.com>, Michael Ayele <waacl42913@gmail.com>, "Michael Ayele (W)" <waacl13@gmail.com> Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 8:32 PM W (AACL) Date.: January 30th 2024 Michael A. Ayele P.O.Box 20438 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia E-mail : waacl13@gmail.com ; waacl1313@gmail.com ; waacl42913@gmail.com Public Records Request - Application for Further Review Hello, This is Michael A. Ayele sending this message though I now go by W and I prefer to be referred to as such. I am writing this letter in response to your earlier correspondence, which I have since reviewed. As a Black man who has previously spent some time in the State of California in Calendar Year 2014, your earlier email (from January 30th 2024) gave me the impression that Santa Clara County played no role in the enactment of Audrie's Law. However, that is simply not true. While Santa Clara County was not a named "Defendant" in the judicial proceedings that took place in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, the Office of the District Attorney Jeff Rosen had issued a statement about Audrie's Law on (or around) June 24th 2014. That statement reads as follows: "I am thankful that the Assembly Public Safety Committee unanimously passed Senate Bill 838 ‘Audrie’s Law’ out of committee this morning. Audrie’s Law modernizes the consequences for those who sexually assault intoxicated, incapacitated, and handicapped victims. The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office stands alongside the Pott Family and State Sen. Jim Beall in their efforts to create positive and reasonable changes from the pain of Audrie’s tragedy. I am hopeful that the entire California Legislature will keep the 15-year-old girl’s memory close in their hearts and her legacy in mind when Audrie’s Law is presented for a final vote." If you wish, you can access the uniform resource locator (URL) of that statement here.: https://countyda. sccgov.org/da-rosen-urges-passage-audries-law Furthermore, the Santa Clara County District Attorney is explicitly mentioned (as a 'source') by the legislative branch of the California government in the text of Senate Bill 838 (also known as Audrie's Law). Please see here.: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_838_cfa_20140826_121631_sen_floor.html Based on the statements made by the Santa Clara County District Attorney as well as the legislative branch of California's government, I continue to have concerns with the thoroughness of the search you have performed. In my judgment, the statements made by the Santa Clara County District Attorney and the California legislature suggest that they had access to all documents related to the Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689. The statements also suggest that the Santa Clara County District Attorney and the California legislature have had conversations (in writing and verbally) about Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 alongside the American Association of University Women - California, the Association of Regional Center Agencies, the California District Attorneys Association, the California Police Chiefs Association, the California Protective Parents Association, the Counseling and Support Services for Youth Crime Victims United of California, the Arc of California and the United Cerebral Palsy California. Your processing of my PRA doesn't really bolster public confidence in the activities, the engagements and the priorities of Santa Clara County because the wrongful death complaint, which had been assigned Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 is a matter of public record (alongside all other documents filed with that case) and should be made available to the public/representatives of the media upon request. For the purpose of bolstering public confidence in the activities, the engagements and the priorities of the Santa Clara https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-6463890320601174969&simpl=msg-a:r-64638903206011… 1/7

15. 1/31/24, 7:23 AM County government, I hope you will answer the following questions. Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal 1) Is it your testimony that the Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen did not have access to the wrongful death complaint assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 at the time he issued the June 24th 2014 statement mentioned above? Is it your testimony that the Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen did not have access to the wrongful death complaint assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 when dealing with members of California's legislature and other stakeholders to have Audrie's Law enacted by the California government? 2) Is it also your testimony that the Santa Clara County District Attorney does not keep copies of the wrongful death complaint (and related documents), which was assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 (in the event members of the general public/representatives of the media wish to examine them)? 3) Does the Santa Clara County Counsel have access to files maintained by the Santa Clara County District Attorney? Has the Santa Clara County Counsel reached out to the Santa Clara County District Attorney to see if they'd be able to provide copies of documents related to the Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 after I submitted my PRA request? If yes, can you provide the discussions you have had with the Santa Clara County District Attorney? 4) Even if the Santa Clara County District Attorney did not maintain copies of the wrongful death complaint (and related documents) filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court during the processing of Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689, could the Santa Clara County Counsel not request these documents to the Santa Clara County Superior Court and provide them to members of the general public/representatives of the media who wish to review them? In the event you are either unable or unwilling to answer my questions, I hope you will perform a de novo review of my PRA request for responsive records detailing [1] the documents Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen has/had access to pertaining to Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689 prior/after the enactment of Audrie's Law (on or around) September 30th 2014; [2] the written/verbal agreements concluded between the Santa Clara County Counsel and the Santa Clara County District Attorney in terms of the Santa Clara County Counsel being given access to files maintained by the Santa Clara County District Attorney; [3] the written/verbal agreements concluded between the Santa Clara County Counsel and the Santa Clara County Superior Court in terms of the Santa Clara County Counsel being given access to files maintained by the Santa Clara County Superior Court. I do hope you reconsider your response in a manner that will bolster public confidence in the activities, the engagements and the priorities of your local government. Be well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance. Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist Audio-Visual Media Analyst Anti-Propaganda Journalist On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 7:19 PM Kalami, Taby <taby.kalami@cco.sccgov.org> wrote: Dear Mr. Ayele: The County of Santa Clara (County) has conducted a thorough search in response to your California Public Records Act (CPRA) request dated December 19, 2023, and your follow-up request dated January 27, 2024, requesting: [1] the wrongful death complaint that had been filed on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, which ended up being assigned Case No.: 1 - 13 – CV – 244689; [2] the terms and conditions of the non-monetary settlement agreement, which was concluded in the wrongful death complaint that had been assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court the following Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-6463890320601174969&simpl=msg-a:r-64638903206011… 2/7

16. 1/31/24, 7:23 AM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal The County disclosed all non-exempt responsive documents on January 26, 2024. Case 1-13-CV-244689 is a civil action between private parties, and the County was not a party to the proceeding. Thus, there are no documents “…containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained…” by the County. (Cal. Gov’t Code § 7920.530.) The County now considers your request closed. Thank you, Taby Kalami | Deputy County Counsel Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor | San José, CA 95110 Office: (408) 299-5917 | Facsmile: (408) 292-7240 taby.kalami@cco.sccgov.org | counsel.sccgov.org NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: The information in this email is confidential and may be protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. If you received this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it is strictly prohibited. Please notify Administration, Office of the County Counsel, of the error immediately at 408-299-5900 and delete this communication and any attached documents from your system. From: Michael Ayele <waacl13@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 7:05 PM To: Kalami, Taby <taby.kalami@cco.sccgov.org>; Williams, Mona <mona.williams@cco.sccgov.org>; adacoordinator@scscourt.org; sscivilinfo@scscourt.org; sscriminfo@scscourt.org; ssfamilyinfo@scscourt.org; hresources@scscourt.org; ssjuryinfo@scscourt.org; ssjuvinfo@scscourt.org; ADR@scscourt.org; ssprobinfo@scscourt.org; sssclaimsinfo@scscourt.org; sstrafficinfo@scscourt.org; ssweb@scscourt.org Cc: Michael Ayele <waacl1313@gmail.com>; Michael Ayele (W) <waacl13@gmail.com>; Michael Ayele <waacl42913@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal W (AACL) Date.: January 27th 2024 Michael A. Ayele P.O.Box 20438 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia E-mail: waacl13@gmail.com ; waacl1313@gmail.com ; waacl42913@gmail.com Public Records Act (PRA) Request Appeal Hello, I am writing this letter in response to your earlier correspondence, which I have since reviewed. Please be advised that I have concerns with the thoroughness of the search you have performed for my California Public Records Act (PRA) request. One of my major concerns with your correspondence from earlier is because of your failure to disclose any records related to [1] the wrongful death complaint that had been filed on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, which ended up being assigned Case No.: 1 - 13 – CV – 244689; [2] the terms and conditions of the non-monetary settlement agreement, which was concluded in the wrongful death complaint that had https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-6463890320601174969&simpl=msg-a:r-64638903206011… 3/7

17. 1/31/24, 7:23 AM been assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court the following Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689. Via email dated October 02nd 2023, the Santa Clara County Counsel had disclosed court documents that had been filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in the matter of People of the State of California v Brock Allen Turner. However, no such documents were produced during the processing of my PRA request, which I had submitted to Santa Clara County on (or around) December 19th 2023. Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal For the purpose of bolstering public confidence in the activities, the engagements and the priorities of the Santa Clara County Counsel, I hope you will perform a more thorough search for responsive records detailing [1] the wrongful death complaint that had been filed on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, which ended up being assigned Case No.: 1 - 13 – CV – 244689; [2] the terms and conditions of the non-monetary settlement agreement, which was concluded in the wrongful death complaint that had been assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court the following Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689. I hope you reconsider your response. Be well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance. Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist Audio-Visual Media Analyst Anti-Propaganda Journalist From: Kalami, Taby <taby.kalami@cco.sccgov.org> Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 12:52 AM Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request Response To: waacl13@gmail.com <waacl13@gmail.com> Dear Mr. Ayele, Attached please find non-exempt records that are responsive to your December 19, 2023 request. Personal contact information has been redacted pursuant to section 1, article 1, of the California Constitution and Government Code section 7922.000. This completes the County’s response to your request. Thank you, Taby Kalami | Deputy County Counsel Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor | San José, CA 95110 Office: (408) 299-5917 | Facsmile: (408) 292-7240 taby.kalami@cco.sccgov.org | counsel.sccgov.org NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: The information in this email is confidential and may be protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. If you received this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it is strictly prohibited. Please notify Administration, https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-6463890320601174969&simpl=msg-a:r-64638903206011… 4/7

18. 1/31/24, 7:23 AM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal Office of the County Counsel, of the error immediately at 408-299-5900 and delete this communication and any attached documents from your system. From: Kalami, Taby Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 4:20 PM To: waacl13@gmail.com Subject: RE: Public Records Act Request Response Dear Mr. Ayele, The County of Santa Clara (“County”) has identified responsive records and is currently in the process of reviewing them for any exceptions. The County anticipates updating you on the status of your request within two weeks. Thank you, Taby Kalami | Deputy County Counsel Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor | San José, CA 95110 Office: (408) 299-5917 | Facsmile: (408) 292-7240 taby.kalami@cco.sccgov.org | counsel.sccgov.org NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: The information in this email is confidential and may be protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. If you received this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it is strictly prohibited. Please notify Administration, Office of the County Counsel, of the error immediately at 408-299-5900 and delete this communication and any attached documents from your system. From: Kalami, Taby Sent: Friday, December 29, 2023 2:45 PM To: waacl13@gmail.com Subject: Public Records Act Request Response Dear Mr. Ayele: The County of Santa Clara is in receipt of your California Public Records Act (CPRA) request dated December 19, 2023, requesting: 1.Your discussions about the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) failing to prohibit (i) current/former U.S healthcare workers from expressing a verbal and/or written objections if they believe that a patient has been subjected to medical treatment that offends their https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-6463890320601174969&simpl=msg-a:r-64638903206011… 5/7

19. 1/31/24, 7:23 AM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal conscience; (ii) current/former U.S healthcare workers from expressing a verbal and/or written objections if they believe that a patient has been subjected to medical treatment they consider to be discriminatory and/or racist and/or sexist; (iii) representatives of the media and/or members of the general public from requesting the personal health information (PHI) of a patient in a medical facility who may have been the victim of discrimination, racism and/or sexism; 2.The wrongful death complaint that had been filed on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, which ended up being assigned Case No.: 1 - 13 – CV – 244689; 3.The terms and conditions of the non-monetary settlement agreement, which was concluded in the wrongful death complaint that had been assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court the following Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689; 4.Your discussions about Audrie Taylor Pott as a Caucasian girl, (i) who was 15 (fifteen) years of age, when she was sexually assaulted on September 04th 2012; (ii) who attempted suicide 6 (six) days after her sexual assault on (or around) September 04th 2012; (iii) who was declared deceased on September 12th 2012 following her attempted suicide on (or around) September 10th 2012; vi (iv) whose suicide led the California legislature to enact Audrie’s Law on (or around) September 30th 2014; (v) whose name, image and likeness is extensively linked with Catherine Daisy Coleman in part because of the 2016 Netflix documentary entitled Audrie and Daisy; 5.Your discussions about Catherine Daisy Coleman as a Caucasian woman, (i) who was victim of a sexual assault on (or around) January 08th 2012 when she was 14 (fourteen) years of age; (ii) who was under American national microscopic scrutiny because of the January 08th 2012 sexual assault she was the victim of in the State of Missouri; (iii) attempted suicide following her very much publicized sexual assault on January 08th 2012 in the State of Missouri; (iv) who has been noted to have spent some time at Missouri Girls Town: a facility that has concluded many contracts with the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH); (v) who was on (or around) January 09th 2014 noted by the State of Missouri to have been “put at substantial risk” when she was left “outside of her home in below freezing temperatures” even though she was “incapable of protecting or caring for herself;” (vi) whose suicide didn’t inspire legislative action in the State of Missouri even though it was in many ways similar to the suicide of Audrie Taylor Pott; 6.Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black man, who (i) has never denied previously being employed for the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH) Fulton State Hospital (FSH) as a healthcare worker; (ii) has previously corresponded with his former employers on the subject of Catherine Daisy Coleman personal health information (PHI) upon learning of her suicide on (or around) August 04th 2020; (iii) was provided by his former employers the contractual agreements that were concluded between the MODMH and Missouri Girls Town: a facility, where Catherine Daisy Coleman was reported to have stayed in following the sexual assault she was the victim of on (or around) January 08th 2012; (iv) has had his written publications on the subject of World Suicide Prevention Day (WSPD) distorted in such a way that would give the impression that his conscience was not offended by the “investigation,” which had been launched against him between October 26th 2013 and November 21st 2013 (even though he was very much vexed by that); (v) has had his written publications on the subject of WSPD distorted in such a way that would give the impression that he has not officially demanded for the MODMH to disclose the PHI of Catherine Daisy Coleman of the time she has spent at Missouri Girls Town following the sexual assault she was victim of on (or around) January 08th 2012 (even though he has asked for that document to be made available to him); (vi) has had his written publications on the subject of WSPD distorted in such a way that would give the impression that his conscience was not shocked by the very lenient criminal charges filed by the State of Missouri on behalf of Catherine Daisy Coleman on (or around) January 09th 2014 (even though he is still very much dismayed by the way Missouri government authorities handled the sexual assault Catherine Daisy Coleman was the victim of on January 08th 2012);viii (vii) was very much annoyed to learn that his written publications on the subject of the National Council on Disability (NCD) January 30th 2018 report were being distorted on the Internet by the so-called “Web;” https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-6463890320601174969&simpl=msg-a:r-64638903206011… 6/7

20. 1/31/24, 7:23 AM Gmail - Public Records Act (PRA) Appeal 7.Your discussions about the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH) as a state government agency, which has a history of citing HIPAA for the purpose of (i) shielding their employees from criticism for the medical treatment they provide that is in reality discriminatory and/or racist and/or sexist; (ii) not providing the personal health information (PHI) of their patients/prisoners who have been subjected to medical treatment that is in reality discriminatory and/or racist and/or sexist; 8.Your discussions about the National Council on Disability (NCD) as a federal agency of the U.S government, which has on January 30th 2018 decided to recognize that sexual assault (i) “is a public health and public safety concern with far reaching implications;” (ii) “is a deeply personal violation,” which “leaves physical and emotional impacts that change the lives of victims;” (iii) causes “long term physical, psychological, and emotional effects, including depression, post-traumatic stress, thoughts of suicide, flashbacks, and sleep disorders;” 9.Your discussions about the decision of Joseph Biden / Kamala Harris White House Administration to recognize on (or around) September 09th 2022 that (i) they “are still in the early stages of learning about the conditions that can lead to suicide, including job strain or loss, serious illnesses, and financial, criminal, legal, and relationship problems;” (ii) “suicide accounts for 1 (one) of every 100 (one hundred) deaths globally;” (iii) suicide is “the second leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 10 (ten) and 34 (thirty four).” The County of Santa Clara has designated the Office of the County Counsel as the office responsible for receiving and coordinating public records requests, and as such, I am providing an initial response to your request. Pursuant to California Government Code section 7922.535(c)(1), the County extends its time for responding to your request by an additional 14 days to search for and collect requested records from offices other than the Office of the County Counsel. The County will provide a response to your request by January 12, 2024. Thank you. Taby Kalami | Deputy County Counsel Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor | San José, CA 95110 Office: (408) 299-5917 | Facsmile: (408) 292-7240 taby.kalami@cco.sccgov.org | counsel.sccgov.org NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: The information in this email is confidential and may be protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. If you received this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it is strictly prohibited. Please notify Administration, Office of the County Counsel, of the error immediately at 408-299-5900 and delete this communication and any attached documents from your system. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=be10e4fd3f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a:r-6463890320601174969&simpl=msg-a:r-64638903206011… 7/7

21. 1/28/24, 4:27 PM SB 838 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis BILL ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 838| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 838 Author: Beall (D), et al. Amended: 8/18/14 Vote: 27 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 4/29/14 AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Knight, Liu, Mitchell, Steinberg NO VOTE RECORDED: De León SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 5/23/14 AYES: De León, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg SENATE FLOOR : 35-0, 5/28/14 AYES: Anderson, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Knight, Lara, Leno, Lieu, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nielsen, Padilla, Pavley, Roth, Steinberg, Torres, Vidak, Walters, Wolk, Wyland NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Hancock, Liu, Wright, Yee ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 8/25/14 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Crimes: sex offenses: juvenile hearing SOURCE : Santa Clara County District Attorney DIGEST : This bill reduces confidentiality protections and makes ineligible for deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) juveniles who have committed or who are alleged to have committed specified sex crimes involving an unconscious or disabled CONTINUED SB 838 Page 2 victim, as specified. Assembly Amendments remove the mandatory two-year out of home placement and the one-year sentence enhancement; and add a requirement for a juvenile who commits specified sex crimes to complete a sex offender treatment program as part of their probation. ANALYSIS : Existing law: 1.Makes it an offense for a person to willfully threaten to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, and causes that person reasonably to be in fear for his/her own safety or for his/her immediate family's safety. 2.Makes it an offense for a person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another, identifiable person who may be in a state of full or partial undress, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, in any area in which that other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of that other person. 3.Provides that any person under 18 years of age who commits a crime is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, except as specified. www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_838_cfa_20140826_121631_sen_floor.html 1/4

22. 1/28/24, 4:27 PM SB 838 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis 4.Enumerates certain crimes for which a minor 14 years of age or older may be prosecuted under the general law in a court of criminal jurisdiction. 5.States, as amended by Proposition 21, an initiative statute approved by the voters at the March 7, 2000 primary election, juvenile court hearings are closed to the public, except for juvenile court hearings alleging the commission of specified felonies. The Legislature may amend Proposition 21 by a CONTINUED SB 838 Page 3 statute passed in each house by a 2/3-vote. 6.Sets forth a list of 30 offense categories, commonly referred to as "707(b) offenses," which carry a number of consequences in terms of how a minor and his/her alleged criminal act is handled in the juvenile system, including remand to adult criminal court, as specified. This bill: 1.Adds to the list of felonies, to which the public may be admitted for the juvenile court proceedings, certain sex offenses accomplished because the person is prevented from resisting due to being rendered unconscious by any intoxicating, anesthetizing, or controlled substance, or when the victim is at the time incapable, because of a disability, of giving consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the offense. 2.Requires the court, in cases where a minor is adjudged or continued as a ward of the court for the commission of certain sex offenses, to order the minor to complete a sex offender treatment program, if the court determines, in consultation with the county probation officer, that suitable programs are available. 3.Provides, in determining what type of treatment is appropriate, the court shall consider specified factors and any other relevant information presented. 4.States if ordered by the court to complete a sex offender treatment program, the minor shall pay all or a portion of the reasonable costs of the sex offender treatment program after a determination is made if the ability of the minor to pay. 5.Prohibits eligibility for DEJ minors charged with specified sex offenses where the victim was prevented from resisting due to being rendered unconscious by any intoxicating, anesthetizing, or controlled substance, or when the victim was at the time incapable, because of mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving consent, and that was known or reasonably should have been known to the minor at the time of the offense. CONTINUED SB 838 Page 4 6.States that this bill shall be known, and may be cited as, Audrie's Law. Background This bill is the direct result of the tragic death of Audrie Pott, a 15-year-old Saratoga High student who committed suicide after she was sexually assaulted while unconscious and photos of her were disseminated electronically. Her assailants were tried as juveniles. The allegations against them were sustained and they handed down sentences of 30 to 45 days, news reports said. Despite the severity of their crimes, they are freed from having to register sex offenders due to an omission in the law. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, unknown, likely minor, potentially in excess of $1 million statewide, local costs to require juvenile sex offenders to complete a sex offender treatment program, to the extent suitable programs are available and offenders are unable to pay. www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_838_cfa_20140826_121631_sen_floor.html 2/4

23. 1/28/24, 4:27 PM SB 838 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Unknown, likely minor state and local incarceration and probation costs to the extent additional offenders are excluded from DEJ. Unknown, likely minor state trial court administrative costs for opening additional juvenile cases to the public. SUPPORT : (Verified 8/25/14) Santa Clara County District Attorney (source) American Association of University Women-California Association of Regional Center Agencies California District Attorneys Association California Police Chiefs Association, Inc. California Protective Parents Association Counseling and Support Services for Youth Crime Victims United of California The Arc California The United Cerebral Palsy California OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/25/14) CONTINUED SB 838 Page 5 California Public Defenders Association Youth Law Center ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author: Senate Bill 838 is the direct result of the tragic death of Audrie Pott, a 15-year-old Saratoga High student who committed suicide after she was sexually assaulted while unconscious and photos of her were disseminated electronically. The perpetrators, according to news reports, were tried as juveniles and the allegations against them were sustained, and released after serving 30- to 45-day sentences. They are free to continue their lives, education, and careers in anonymity thanks to outdated laws after publically destroying a young women's life. The incidents surrounding Audrie's death are not isolated but reflect a disturbing trend. Her case is eerily similar to the suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons, a 17-year-old student in Canada, who suffered nearly two years of bullying as photos of her sex assault were circulated by students, and the photographed rape of an unconscious 16-year-old girl by two high school football players in Steubenville, Ohio. It should be noted that the identities of the convicted football players, both 16, were released by the juvenile court. The nature of the crimes against Audrie, coupled with the growing use of social media to bully victims, demands that our statutes and codes be amended to reflect the severity of these offenses in the 21st century to not only give justice but to act as a deterrent. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Youth Law Center writes: While it is very good that S.B. 838 no longer includes the original provisions expanding transfer to adult court, adding new crimes that would disproportionately affect juveniles, and mandatory minimum terms of confinement, the provisions that are still in the bill are objectionable and not in keeping with our mission and values. The provision of S.B. 838 that would open juvenile cases to CONTINUED SB 838 Page 6 the public in cases involving certain sex offenses ignores the very reason we have a separate juvenile court system. Unlike the adult criminal system, where punishment is the stated purpose, our juvenile court law requires individualized "care, treatment and guidance" in which punishment is permitted, but the overarching purpose is rehabilitation of the young person. The expansion of open proceedings for juveniles is antithetical to those goals. Moreover, the specific expansion of open proceedings for sex offenses is troubling. Cases involving alleged sex offenses invariably involve a great deal www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_838_cfa_20140826_121631_sen_floor.html 3/4

24. 1/28/24, 4:27 PM SB 838 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis of sensitive information and should not automatically be open to the public. ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 79-0, 8/25/14 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, John A. Pérez, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, Atkins NO VOTE RECORDED: Vacancy JG:k 8/26/14 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_838_cfa_20140826_121631_sen_floor.html 4/4

25. 1/31/24, 7:27 AM DA Rosen Urges Passage of Audrie's Law - Office of the District Attorney - County of Santa Clara County Services Departments About the County County of Santa Clara O?ice of the District Attorney Search... Menu  For release on June 24, 2014 DA ROSEN URGES PASSAGE OF AUDRIEʼS LAW A statement from Santa Clara County District Attorney Je? Rosen regarding the passage of ʻAudrieʼs Lawʼ out of a state legislative committee today: “I am thankful that the Assembly Public Safety Committee unanimously passed Senate Bill 838 ʻAudrieʼs Lawʼ out of committee this morning.” “Audrieʼs Law modernizes the consequences for those who sexually assault intoxicated, incapacitated, and handicapped victims. The Santa Clara County District Attorneyʼs O?ice stands alongside the Pott Family and State Sen. Jim Beall in their e?orts to create positive and reasonable changes from the pain of Audrieʼs tragedy. I am hopeful that the entire California Legislature will keep the 15-year-old girlʼs memory close in their hearts and her legacy in mind when Audrieʼs Law is presented for a final vote.” ###  Report a problem on this page  COUNTY SERVICES DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES BOARD AGENDAS, MINUTES, AND WEBCASTS VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES CAREERS CONTACT US COUNTY HOLIDAYS ACCESSIBILITY LINKS POLICY PRIVACY POLICY TERMS OF USE https://countyda.sccgov.org/da-rosen-urges-passage-audries-law 1/2

26. 1/31/24, 7:27 AM DA Rosen Urges Passage of Audrie's Law - Office of the District Attorney - County of Santa Clara ©2024 County of Santa Clara. All rights reserved. https://countyda.sccgov.org/da-rosen-urges-passage-audries-law 2/2

27. DocuSign Envelope ID: D9369B10-EE61-48FD-81EF-EDE758229855 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is entered into between the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (“Court”) and the County of Santa Clara (“County”) for the purposes of (1) setting forth Court’s and County’s (each a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”) mutual understandings regarding data integrations between County and Court electronic record systems and (2) defining the County’s access to electronic court records and criminal justice data created or maintained in Court systems. 1.Effective Date. This MOU shall be effective beginning on November 6, 2018, shall continue in effect until November 5, 2023, and shall be automatically renewed for five-year periods thereafter, unless terminated or amended by the Parties. Prior to the expiration of any five-year period, each Party shall evaluate whether any changes to the MOU should be made and provide notice to the other Party. 2.Applicable Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to the terms of this MOU: a.Electronic Court Record.The term “Electronic Court Record” refers to a “Court Record”—as that term is defined in Government Code section 68151 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.502—created, maintained, or preserved in electronic form, as set forth in Government Code section 68150 and rule 2.502. “Electronic Court Record” includes data created by the Court that is transmitted electronically to County Departments from the Court. b.Criminal Justice Data.The term “Criminal Justice Data” refers to data transmitted electronically to Court from County Justice Partners. It includes the standard data elements listed in Penal Code section 13125. It also includes “criminal offender record information” and “local summary criminal history information” as those terms are defined in Penal Code sections 13102 and 13300. c.County Justice Partners.The term “County Justice Partners” refers to the Office of the District Attorney, the Office of the Sheriff, the Department of Correction, the Probation Department, and the Office of Pretrial Services. d.County Departments.The term “County Departments” refers to all County departments, including but not limited to County Justice Partners. e.Court Services. The term “Court Services” refers to data integrations and file transfers between Court and County Systems through interfaces with County’s Law Enforcement Information Sharing Environment (“ISE”), Multi-Agency Electronic Sharing, Tracking, Results, and Outcomes (“MAESTRO”), and Criminal Justice Information Control (“CJIC”) system. Approved: 11/06/2018 1

28. DocuSign Envelope ID: D9369B10-EE61-48FD-81EF-EDE758229855 f.Court Systems. The term “Court Systems” refers to the Court’s Case Management System. g.County Systems.The term “County Systems” refers to all existing and future County technology systems, including CJIC. h.Authorized County Users.The term “Authorized County Users” refers to current County employees who have been authorized by their County Department to receive a specified level of access to Court Systems and who have completed training and backgrounding requirements required by law, regulation, County policy, or the terms of this MOU. i.IT Support Staff. The term “IT Support Staff” refers to County employees, contractors, and vendors who have been authorized by a County Department to provide IT and related services for County Systems and Court Services. 3.Scope of Agreement. This MOU applies to electronic access by County Departments to Electronic Court Records and to Criminal Justice Data maintained in Court Systems and electronically provided by Court to County through the following: a.Court’s Case Web Portal; and b.Court Services. 4.Description of Services. Court shall provide electronic access to Electronic Court Records, Criminal Justice Data, and related Court Services to the County and Authorized County Users in accordance with the terms of this MOU. 5.Authorized Access to Criminal Justice Data. Court shall provide access to Criminal Justice Data maintained in Court Systems to Authorized County Users and others in accordance with Penal Code section 13300 and related statutory provisions governing access to criminal offender record information and summary criminal history. Court recognizes that Authorized County Users from certain County Departments may be eligible to receive access to Electronic Court Records under the California Rules of Court, but may not be eligible to receive access to Criminal Justice Data under the Penal Code. a.Court shall not provide greater access to Criminal Justice Data than is provided via the County’s CJIC system on the date of executing this MOU, unless that expanded access is first approved by the County through its designated criminal justice data sharing governance structure. The County’s Technology Services and Solutions (“TSS”) department shall, upon request, provide the Court with any additional information the Court may need regarding the restrictions and permissions governing the sharing of Criminal Justice Data that are in place in CJIC on the date of executing this MOU. 2

29. DocuSign Envelope ID: D9369B10-EE61-48FD-81EF-EDE758229855 b.Before a County Department, agent, or employee may request expanded access to Criminal Justice Data maintained by the Court, that department or individual shall apply and receive written approval through the County’s designated criminal justice data sharing governance structure. c.Court recognizes that the County is in the process of reconfiguring its criminal justice data sharing governance structure following the dissolution of the former CJIC Steering Committee. County agrees to keep Court apprised, through the Office of the County Counsel, of which body or individual(s) are responsible for reviewing and approving requests under Section 6.a and 6.b. 6.Authorized Access to Electronic Court Records.Court shall provide access to Electronic Court Records to Authorized County Users in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 2.500 et seq., including rules 2.503, 2.507, and 2.540.1 a.Electronic Court Records may be accessed in juvenile cases only if the Authorized County User is authorized by Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 and California Rules of Court, rule 5.552. b.Court shall provide Electronic Court Records to County through Court Services. Prior to the date on which CJIC is decommissioned, the Court shall also provide some information from Electronic Court Records to County through data entry directly into CJIC. As part of the decommissioning of CJIC, County shall provide Court with the data specifications for Electronic Court Records in existing Electronic Report Distribution (“ERD”) and transaction reports compiled by County. After CJIC is decommissioned, Court shall ensure that these Electronic Court Records continue to be made available to (1) County through Court Services, and/or (2) Authorized County Users through the Case Web Portal. 7.Case Web Portal. Court may use its Case Web Portal to display Electronic Court Records and Criminal Justice Data to Authorized County Users in accordance with the Penal Code, California Rules of Court, and the terms of this MOU. Court agrees to exercise caution and notify the County and provide the County an opportunity to provide input about changes in configuring the display of Electronic Court Records to Authorized County Users who are not entitled to summary criminal history information under the Penal Code. Court recognizes that where a defendant has multiple criminal cases filed with the Court, displaying Electronic Court Records for all cases relevant to that individual may generate summary criminal history information that is subject to greater restrictions on access under the Penal Code. 8.Court Services. Parties shall work reasonably and collaboratively in integrating County and Court Systems. Parties shall solicit and incorporate the input of relevant County 1 Rules 2.540, 2.541, 2.542, 2.543, 2.544, and 2.545—governing remote access to electronic court records by government entities—were adopted by the Judicial Council of California on September 20, 2018. Although the effective date of these new rules is January 1, 2019, the Parties agree that these rules, and any subsequent amendments, shall apply to the terms of this MOU at the time the MOU goes into effect and until its termination or expiration. 3

30. DocuSign Envelope ID: D9369B10-EE61-48FD-81EF-EDE758229855 Departments in designing and planning for the integration and any subsequent changes to ensure their business needs are accounted for. After implementation of the Court’s Case Management System for criminal cases, Court technical staff shall be available to support the County’s goal of implementing a new Jail Management System in 2019. 9.Terms of Use/Confidentiality. County acknowledges that information accessed through Court Systems is restricted and may be confidential. Access shall be governed by all applicable laws, statutes, rules, and regulations, including those related to privacy. County shall use Electronic Court Records, Criminal Justice Data, and Court Services received under this MOU only to perform its official duties, including for statistical and research purposes as expressly permitted by law, or for fulfilling employment, certification, or licensing duties as expressly permitted by law. For criminal and juvenile justice cases, County accepts sole responsibility for ensuring that its employees (a) access Court Systems solely for legitimate criminal and/or juvenile justice purposes; (b) do not sell, assign, misuse, or make any unauthorized disclosures of Electronic Court Records or Criminal Justice Data obtained from Court Systems; (c) transfer, distribute, or disseminate Electronic Court Records only if authorized by law; (d) transfer, distribute, or disseminate Criminal Justice Data only if authorized by law and approved under the County’s data sharing governance structure; and (e) comply with all other provisions of this MOU. Each Party agrees to notify the other immediately whenever any form of data breach occurs related to the services provided under this MOU. In the event that such a data breach occurs to a County System, the County bears sole responsibility for notifying the affected person(s) as required by Civil Code section 1798.29. 10.Identity Management and Access Control. Court Systems that provide access to Electronic Court Records and/or Criminal Justice Data shall verify the identity of the Authorized County User seeking access, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 2.541, in collaboration with the County Departments. Named user accounts shall be used to authenticate Authorized County Users and permit their access to Electronic Court Records and/or Criminal Justice Data. Sharing of user accounts by multiple individuals is prohibited. County agrees to notify Court whenever a County employee (1) no longer requires access to Court Systems as part of his/her job duties or (2) is no longer employed by the County by removing the user account associated with the County employee. Each County Department shall provide a primary and secondary point of contact who shall be responsible for maintaining County user accounts and periodically reviewing their authorized users. 11.County User and IT Support Staff Training and Backgrounding. County agrees to appropriately educate and train Authorized County Users and IT Support Staff regarding the terms of use set forth in this MOU. Before any Authorized County User may access Criminal Justice Data or systems containing or transmitting Criminal Justice Data, he or she must ensure the training and backgrounding requirements set forth in California DOJ’s CLETS Policies, Practices, and Procedures are satisfied. Each County Department is 4

31. DocuSign Envelope ID: D9369B10-EE61-48FD-81EF-EDE758229855 responsible for ensuring that their Authorized County Users and IT Support Staff have completed the backgrounding and training requirements. 12.Court Audits. Court shall have the ability to generate an audit trail of a County User’s access to Electronic Court Records and Criminal Justice Data, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.543. Court shall provide limited audit trails to County upon request. Court reserves the right to perform audits as necessary to determine compliance with this MOU. 13.Accuracy of ElectronicCourt Records. When Electronic Court Records are accessed by Authorized County Users, the records and data are intended to be copies of current court records and data at the time the documents are accessed. Parties shall mutually agree on the structure and validation of data being sent through interfaces between County and Court Systems. County shall provide Court in real time with error logs identifying the message, error, and data received. Court and County shall review the error logs to determine which Party is responsible for the error and the responsible Party will clear error logs, including any manual data entry and correction in Court Systems and CJIC, on a timely basis to ensure that County Systems continue to provide timely and accurate information supporting critical law enforcement and criminal justice functions. As the official court record may be updated, the Electronic Court Records may not reflect the official court record. Court Systems, internal Court processes, and Court Services may be designed such that there is an expected built-in delay between the time that an Electronic Court Record is updated and the time that an Authorized County User may access that updated record through Court Systems or Court Services. Court shall not be liable to the County for any claims arising from such delay so long as (1) the delay is not the result of the Court’s negligence or misconduct, (2) the delay does not arise from Court’s failure to timely review and clear error logs as described in Paragraph 13, including any manual data entry and correction in Court Systems and CJIC, (3) when making changes to the Court Services, Court notifies and consults with TSS’s Director of the Public Safety and Justice vertical (at o365-isd-psjspmanagement@sccconnect.onmicrosoft.com), or designee, and employs industry standard change management processes and techniques; and (4) the following conditions are satisfied: a.Court displays warnings to notify Authorized County Users when they access an Electronic Court Record through the Case Web Portal of the delay and its expected duration and consequences (e.g., that the Electronic Court Record accessed may not reflect updates made within the past half hour). b.Court continues to provide County with immediate access to critical court records and data by alternative means as provided in the following: i.Warrants. Court shall call the Office of the Sheriff’s Records Division or applicable Law Enforcement Agency immediately upon the recall of a warrant. ii.Warrant Service.Court shall call the Office of the Sheriff’s Record Division 5

32. DocuSign Envelope ID: D9369B10-EE61-48FD-81EF-EDE758229855 or applicable Law Enforcement Agency if the Court sees an active warrant on the case when it enters warrant service information into Court Systems. iii.Court Scheduling. Court shall schedule all inmates that require a physical appearance in court in the Court System and CJIC. When Court requires the appearance of an inmate to AM Court, Court shall schedule the hearing in Court Systems and CJIC before close of business the day before, except that if Court schedules the hearing on the same morning as the AM Court, Court shall call the Sheriff’s Office Court Risk Assessment Unit to manually arrange for the transportation and appearance of the inmate. When Court requires the appearance of an inmate to PM Court and the hearing has not been scheduled in the Court’s System and CJIC by 10:00 a.m. on the day of the hearing, Court shall call the Sheriff’s Office Court Risk Assessment Unit to manually arrange for the transportation and appearance of the inmate. Court shall also notify the Deputy assigned to the courtroom for any manual/late additions. iv.Court Orders. Court shall continue to provide the County, including the Sheriff’s Office and Probation Department, with court orders in paper form for those court orders that are provided in paper form at the time this MOU is executed until the Court implements electronic court orders and after such time as both Parties agree that implementation has been successful. 14.Suspension of Court Services to County. Court reserves the right to suspend Court Services to County if Court determines that County has violated this MOU through willful misconduct or negligence. Before suspending Court Services, Court shall provide timely notice of the violation to County and give County a reasonable opportunity to correct the violation and take measures to prevent future violations. 15.Suspension of Access to Electronic Court Records and Criminal Justice Data to Authorized County Users. Court reserves the right to immediately suspend an Authorized County User’s access to Electronic Court Records and Criminal Justice Data if that Authorized County User violates the terms of this MOU or accesses such records or data for any unauthorized purpose in violation of the Penal Code, California Rules of Court, or any other law, regulation, or policy. County shall inform Court of any such violation within a reasonable period of learning of such violation. 16.Fees and Transaction Volumes. Court will provide Court Services to the County without charge and will not limit transaction volumes. However, Court may monitor County’s usage and the costs required to provide the Court Services. In the event that Court deems that the costs associated with maintaining the services are excessive or otherwise unmanageable, Court reserves the right to terminate or amend this MOU as provided herein. 17.Liability and Indemnification. In lieu of and notwithstanding the pro rata risk allocation, which might otherwise be imposed between the Parties pursuant to Government Code Section 895.6, the Parties agree that all losses or liabilities incurred by either Party or both Parties shall not be shared pro rata but, instead, the Parties agree that, pursuant to 6

33. DocuSign Envelope ID: D9369B10-EE61-48FD-81EF-EDE758229855 Government Code Section 895.4, each of the Parties hereto shall fully indemnify and hold the other Party, their officers, board members, employees, and agents, harmless from any claim, expense or cost, damage or liability imposed for injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying Party, its officers, employees or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to such party under this MOU. No Party, nor any officer, board member or agent thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the other Party hereto, their officers, board members, employees, or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to such other Parties under this MOU. 18.Severability. If any provision of this MOU shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 19.Amendment. This MOU may only be amended by a written instrument signed by the Parties. 20.Waiver. No delay or failure to require performance of any provision of this MOU shall constitute a waiver of that provision as to that or any other instance. Any waiver granted by a Party shall be in writing and shall apply to the specific instance expressly stated. 21.Assignment. No assignment of this MOU or of the rights and obligations hereunder shall be valid without the prior written consent of the other Party. 22.Termination of MOU. Court may terminate this MOU’s provisions governing the Case Web Portal at any time and for any reason, with or without cause. Either Party may otherwise terminate this MOU by giving at least 90 days written notice prior to the intended date of termination by specifying the effective date and scope of termination. County and Court recognize the mutual benefit of integrating County and Court Systems and transmitting Criminal Justice Data between County Justice Partners and the Court to ensure seamless, timely, and accurate coordination in the County’s criminal justice system. 23.Dispute Resolution. Parties shall attempt to resolve issues arising from this MOU informally between County’s Chief Operating Officer, or designee, and Court Executive Officer, or designee. 24.Governing Law and Venue. This MOU has been executed and delivered in, and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. Proper venue for legal action regarding this MOU shall be in the Superior Courts of the State of California. 25.Third-Party Beneficiaries. This MOU does not, and is not intended to, confer any rights or remedies upon any person or entity other than the Parties. 7

34. DocuSign Envelope ID: D9369B10-EE61-48FD-81EF-EDE758229855 26.Notices. All notices required or permitted under this MOU shall be in writing and delivered in person or by mail or email as follows: Court: Rebecca J. Fleming, Chief Executive Officer Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara 191 N. First Street San José, California 95113 rfleming@scscourt.org With a copy to: Lisa Herrick, Assistant Executive Officer and General Counsel Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara 191 N. First Street San José, California 95113 lherrick@scscourt.org County: Miguel Márquez, Chief Operating Officer Office of the County Executive, County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, Eleventh Floor San José, California 95110 miguel.marquez@ceo.sccgov.org With a copy to: Tara Lundstrom, Deputy County Counsel Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, Ninth Floor San José, California 95110 tara.lundstrom@cco.sccgov.org Each Party shall notify the other in writing within fourteen days of electing to designate another person to receive notices under this MOU. 27.Public Records. Court recognizes that County is a public agency subject to the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) and must strictly comply with its requirements. County recognizes that Court is a judicial branch entity subject to the disclosure requirements of Rule 10.500 of the California Rules of Court and must strictly comply with its requirements. 28.Contract Execution. Unless otherwise prohibited by law or County policy, the parties agree that an electronic copy of a signed contract, or an electronically signed contract, has the same force and legal effect as a contract executed with an original ink signature. The term “electronic copy of a signed contract” refers to a transmission by facsimile, electronic mail, or other electronic means of a copy of an original signed contract in a portable document format. The term “electronically signed contract” means a contract that is executed by applying an electronic signature using technology approved by the County. 8

36. 2/7/24, 8:03 AM California Rules of Court: Title Two Rules << Previous Rule [ Back to Title Index ] Next Rule >> | Printer-friendly version of this page 2024 California Rules of Court Rule 2.500. Statement of purpose (a) Intent The rules in this chapter are intended to provide the public, parties, parties' attorneys, legal organizations, court- appointed persons, and government entities with reasonable access to trial court records that are maintained in electronic form, while protecting privacy interests. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2019.) (b) Benefits of electronic access Improved technologies provide courts with many alternatives to the historical paper-based record receipt and retention process, including the creation and use of court records maintained in electronic form. Providing access to trial court records that are maintained in electronic form may save the courts, the public, parties, parties' attorneys, legal organizations, court-appointed persons, and government entities time, money, and effort and encourage courts to be more efficient in their operations. Improved access to trial court records may also foster in the public a more comprehensive understanding of the trial court system. (Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2019.) (c) No creation of rights The rules in this chapter are not intended to give the public, parties, parties' attorneys, legal organizations, court- appointed persons, and government entities a right of access to any record that they are not otherwise legally entitled to access. (Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2019; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.) Rule 2.500 amended effective January 1, 2019; adopted as rule 2070 effective July 1, 2002; previously amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007. Advisory Committee Comment The rules in this chapter acknowledge the benefits that electronic records provide but attempt to limit the potential for unjustified intrusions into the privacy of individuals involved in litigation that can occur as a result of remote access to electronic records. The proposed rules take into account the limited resources currently available in the trial courts. It is contemplated that the rules may be modified to provide greater electronic access as courts' technical capabilities improve and knowledge is gained from the experience of providing electronic access under these rules. [ Back to Top ] https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=two&linkid=rule2_500 1/1

37. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules << Previous Rule [ Back to Title Index ] Next Rule >> | Printer-friendly version of this page 2024 California Rules of Court Rule 10.500. Public access to judicial administrative records (a) Intent (1) The Judicial Council intends by this rule to implement Government Code section 68106.2(g), added by Senate Bill X4 13 (Stats. 2009-10, 4th Ex. Sess. ch. 22), which requires adoption of rules of court that provide public access to nondeliberative and nonadjudicative court records, budget and management information. (2) This rule clarifies and expands the public's right of access to judicial administrative records and must be broadly construed to further the public's right of access. (b) Application (1) This rule applies to public access to judicial administrative records, including records of budget and management information relating to the administration of the courts. (2) This rule does not apply to, modify or otherwise affect existing law regarding public access to adjudicative records. (3) This rule does not restrict the rights to disclosure of information otherwise granted by law to a recognized employee organization. (4) This rule does not affect the rights of litigants, including parties to administrative proceedings, under the laws of discovery of this state, nor does it limit or impair any rights of discovery in a criminal case. (5) This rule does not apply to electronic mail and text messages sent or received before the effective date of this rule. (c) Definitions As used in this rule: (1) "Adjudicative record" means any writing prepared for or filed or used in a court proceeding, the judicial deliberation process, or the assignment or reassignment of cases and of justices, judges (including temporary and assigned judges), and subordinate judicial officers, or of counsel appointed or employed by the court. (2) "Judicial administrative record" means any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the people's business that is prepared, owned, used, or retained by a judicial branch entity regardless of the writing's physical form or characteristics, except an adjudicative record. The term "judicial administrative https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 1/10

38. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules record" does not include records of a personal nature that are not used in or do not relate to the people's business, such as personal notes, memoranda, electronic mail, calendar entries, and records of Internet use. (3) "Judicial branch entity" means the Supreme Court, each Court of Appeal, each superior court, and the Judicial Council. (4) "Judicial branch personnel" means justices, judges (including temporary and assigned judges), subordinate judicial officers, members of the Judicial Council and its advisory bodies, and directors, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents of a judicial branch entity. (5) "Person" means any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, firm, or association. (6) "Writing" means any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photographing, photocopying, electronic mail, fax, and every other means of recording on any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, symbols, or combinations, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored. (Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2016.) (d) Construction of rule (1) Unless otherwise indicated, the terms used in this rule have the same meaning as under the Legislative Open Records Act (Gov. Code, § 9070 et seq.) and the California Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) and must be interpreted consistently with the interpretation applied to the terms under those acts. (2) This rule does not require the disclosure of a record if the record is exempt from disclosure under this rule or is the type of record that would not be subject to disclosure under the Legislative Open Records Act or the California Public Records Act. (e) Public access (1) Access (A) A judicial branch entity must allow inspection and copying of judicial administrative records unless the records are exempt from disclosure under this rule or by law. (B) Nothing in this rule requires a judicial branch entity to create any record or to compile or assemble data in response to a request for judicial administrative records if the judicial branch entity does not compile or assemble the data in the requested form for its own use or for provision to other agencies. For purposes of this rule, selecting data from extractable fields in a single database using software already owned or licensed by the judicial branch entity does not constitute creating a record or compiling or assembling data. (C) If a judicial administrative record contains information that is exempt from disclosure and the exempt portions are reasonably segregable, a judicial branch entity must allow inspection and copying of the record after deletion of the portions that are exempt from disclosure. A judicial branch entity is not required to allow inspection or copying of the portion of a writing that is a judicial administrative record unless that portion is reasonably segregable from the portion that constitutes an adjudicative record. (D) If requested, a superior court must provide a copy of the certified judicial administrative record if the judicial administrative record requested has previously been certified by the superior court. (2) Examples https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 2/10

39. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules Judicial administrative records subject to inspection and copying unless exempt from disclosure under subdivision (f) include, but are not limited to, the following: (A) Budget information submitted to the Judicial Council after enactment of the annual Budget Act; (B) Any other budget and expenditure document pertaining to the administrative operation of the courts, including quarterly financial statements and statements of revenue, expenditure, and reserves; (C) Actual and budgeted employee salary and benefit information; (D) Copies of executed contracts with outside vendors and payment information and policies concerning goods and services provided by outside vendors without an executed contract; (E) Final audit reports; and (F) Employment contracts between judicial branch entities and their employees. (3) Procedure for requesting records A judicial branch entity must make available on its public Web site or otherwise publicize the procedure to be followed to request a copy of or to inspect a judicial administrative record. At a minimum, the procedure must include the address to which requests are to be addressed, to whom requests are to be directed, and the office hours of the judicial branch entity. (4) Costs of duplication, search, and review (A) A judicial branch entity, on request, must provide a copy of a judicial administrative record not exempt from disclosure if the record is of a nature permitting copying, subject to payment of the fee specified in this rule or other applicable statutory fee. A judicial branch entity may require advance payment of any fee. (B) A judicial branch entity may impose on all requests a fee reasonably calculated to cover the judicial branch entity's direct costs of duplication of a record or of production of a record in an electronic format under subdivision (i). The fee includes: (i) A charge per page, per copy, or otherwise, as established and published by the Judicial Council, or as established by the judicial branch entity following a notice and comment procedure specified by the Judicial Council, representing the direct costs of equipment, supplies, and staff time required to duplicate or produce the requested record; and (ii) Any other direct costs of duplication or production, including, but not limited to, the costs incurred by a judicial branch entity in retrieving the record from a remote storage facility or archive and the costs of mailing responsive records. (C) In the case of requests for records for commercial use, a judicial branch entity may impose, in addition to the fee in (B), a fee reasonably calculated to cover the actual costs of staff search and review time, based on an hourly rate for salary and benefits of each employee involved. (D) For purposes of this rule: (i) "Commercial use" means a request for a use or purpose that furthers the commercial, trade, or profit interests of the requester or the person on whose behalf the request is being made. A request from a representative of the news media that supports its news-dissemination function is not a request for a commercial use. https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 3/10

40. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules (ii) "Representative of the news media" means a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain. (iii) "Search and review time" means actual time spent identifying and locating judicial administrative records, including material within documents, responsive to a request; determining whether any portions are exempt from disclosure; and performing all tasks necessary to prepare the records for disclosure, including redacting portions exempt from disclosure. "Search and review time" does not include time spent resolving general legal or policy issues regarding the applicability of particular exemptions. (E) By January 1, 2012, the Judicial Council will review and evaluate the numbers of requests received, the time necessary to respond, and the fees imposed by judicial branch entities for access to records and information. The Judicial Council's review will consider the impact of this rule on both the public's access to records and information and on judicial branch entities' ability to carry out and fund core judicial operations. (5) Inspection A judicial branch entity must make judicial administrative records in its possession and not exempt from disclosure open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the judicial branch entity provided that the record is of a nature permitting inspection. (6) Time for determination of disclosable records A judicial branch entity, on a request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, must determine, within 10 calendar days from receipt of the request, whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks disclosable judicial administrative records in its possession and must promptly notify the requesting party of the determination and the reasons for the determination. (7) Response If a judicial branch entity determines that a request seeks disclosable judicial administrative records, the judicial branch entity must make the disclosable judicial administrative records available promptly. The judicial branch entity must include with the notice of the determination the estimated date and time when the records will be made available. If the judicial branch entity determines that the request, in whole or in part, seeks nondisclosable judicial administrative records, it must convey its determination in writing, include a contact name and telephone number to which inquiries may be directed, and state the express provision of this rule justifying the withholding of the records not disclosed. (8) Extension of time for determination of disclosable records In unusual circumstances, to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request, a judicial branch entity may extend the time limit prescribed for its determination under (e)(6) by no more than 14 calendar days by written notice to the requesting party, stating the reasons for the extension and the date on which the judicial branch entity expects to make a determination. As used in this section, "unusual circumstances" means the following: (A) The need to search for and collect the requested records from multiple locations or facilities that are separate from the office processing the request; (B) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of records that are included in a single request; or https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 4/10

41. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules (C) The need for consultation, which must be conducted with all practicable speed, with another judicial branch entity or other governmental agency having substantial subject matter interest in the determination of the request, or with two or more components of the judicial branch entity having substantial subject matter interest in the determination of the request. (9) Reasonable efforts (A) On receipt of a request to inspect or obtain a copy of a judicial administrative record, a judicial branch entity, in order to assist the requester in making a focused and effective request that reasonably describes an identifiable judicial administrative record, must do all of the following to the extent reasonable under the circumstances: (i) Assist the requester in identifying records and information responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated; (ii) Describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist; and (iii) Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying inspection or copying of the records or information sought. (B) The requirements of (A) will be deemed to have been satisfied if the judicial branch entity is unable to identify the requested information after making a reasonable effort to elicit additional clarifying information from the requester that helps identify the record or records. (C) The requirements of (A) do not apply to a request for judicial administrative records if the judicial branch entity makes the requested records available or determines that the requested records are exempt from disclosure under this rule. (10) No obstruction or delay Nothing in this rule may be construed to permit a judicial branch entity to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of judicial administrative records that are not exempt from disclosure. (11) Greater access permitted Except as otherwise prohibited by law, a judicial branch entity may adopt requirements for itself that allow for faster, more efficient, or greater access to judicial administrative records than prescribed by the requirements of this rule. (12) Control of records A judicial branch entity must not sell, exchange, furnish, or otherwise provide a judicial administrative record subject to disclosure under this rule to a private entity in a manner that prevents a judicial branch entity from providing the record directly under this rule. A judicial branch entity must not allow a private entity to control the disclosure of information that is otherwise subject to disclosure under this rule. (Subd (e) amended effective January 1, 2016.) (f) Exemptions Nothing in this rule requires the disclosure of judicial administrative records that are any of the following: (1) Preliminary writings, including drafts, notes, working papers, and inter-judicial branch entity or intra-judicial branch entity memoranda, that are not retained by the judicial branch entity in the ordinary course of business, if the public interest in withholding those records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure; https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 5/10

42. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules (2) Records pertaining to pending or anticipated claims or litigation to which a judicial branch entity is a party or judicial branch personnel are parties, until the pending litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise resolved; (3) Personnel, medical, or similar files, or other personal information whose disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, including, but not limited to, records revealing home addresses, home telephone numbers, cellular telephone numbers, private electronic mail addresses, and social security numbers of judicial branch personnel and work electronic mail addresses and work telephone numbers of justices, judges (including temporary and assigned judges), subordinate judicial officers, and their staff attorneys; (4) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to develop, administer, and score examinations for employment, certification, or qualification; (5) Records whose disclosure is exempted or prohibited under state or federal law, including provisions of the California Evidence Code relating to privilege, or by court order in any court proceeding; (6) Records whose disclosure would compromise the security of a judicial branch entity or the safety of judicial branch personnel, including but not limited to, court security plans, and security surveys, investigations, procedures, and assessments; (7) Records related to evaluations of, complaints regarding, or investigations of justices, judges (including temporary and assigned judges), subordinate judicial officers, and applicants or candidates for judicial office. This exemption does not apply to any settlement agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2010 for which public funds were spent in payment of the settlement, including any settlement agreement arising from claims or complaints of sexual harassment or sexual discrimination. The names of judicial officers may not be redacted from any settlement agreement that is produced under this rule; however, the names of complainants or witnesses, and other information that would identify complainants or witnesses, may be redacted. (8) The contents of real estate appraisals or engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations made for or by the judicial branch entity related to the acquisition of property or to prospective public supply and construction contracts, until all of the property has been acquired or the relevant contracts have been executed. This provision does not affect the law of eminent domain; (9) Records related to activities governed by Government Code sections 71600 et seq. and 71800 et seq. that reveal deliberative processes, impressions, evaluations, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work products, theories, or strategy or that provide instruction, advice, or training to employees who are not represented by employee organizations under those sections. Nothing in this subdivision limits the disclosure duties of a judicial branch entity with respect to any other records relating to the activities governed by the employee relations acts referred to in this subdivision; (10) Records that contain trade secrets or privileged or confidential commercial and financial information submitted in response to a judicial branch entity's solicitation for goods or services or in the course of a judicial branch entity's contractual relationship with a commercial entity. For purposes of this rule: (A) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (ii) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy; https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 6/10

43. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules (B) "Privileged information" means material that falls within recognized constitutional, statutory, or common law privileges; (C) "Confidential commercial and financial information" means information whose disclosure would: (i) Impair the judicial branch entity's ability to obtain necessary information in the future; or (ii) Cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained. (11) Records whose disclosure would disclose the judicial branch entity's or judicial branch personnel's decision-making process, provided that, on the facts of the specific request for records, the public interest served by nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record; or (12) If, on the facts of the specific request for records, the public interest served by nondisclosure of the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. (Subd (f) amended effective June 1, 2018.) (g) Computer software; copyrighted materials (1) Computer software developed by a judicial branch entity or used by a judicial branch entity for the storage or manipulation of data is not a judicial administrative record under this rule. For purposes of this rule "computer software" includes computer mapping systems, computer graphic systems, and computer programs, including the source, object, and other code in a computer program. (2) This rule does not limit a judicial branch entity's ability to sell, lease, or license computer software for commercial or noncommercial use. (3) This rule does not create an implied warranty on the part of any judicial branch entity for errors, omissions, or other defects in any computer software. (4) This rule does not limit any copyright protection. A judicial branch entity is not required to duplicate records under this rule in violation of any copyright. (5) Nothing in this subdivision is intended to affect the judicial administrative record status of information merely because the information is stored in a computer. Judicial administrative records stored in a computer will be disclosed as required in this rule. (h) Waiver of exemptions (1) Disclosure of a judicial administrative record that is exempt from disclosure under this rule or provision of law by a judicial branch entity or judicial branch personnel acting within the scope of their office or employment constitutes a waiver of the exemptions applicable to that particular record. (2) This subdivision does not apply to disclosures: (A) Made through discovery proceedings; (B) Made through other legal proceedings or as otherwise required by law; (C) Made to another judicial branch entity or judicial branch personnel for the purposes of judicial branch administration; (D) Within the scope of a statute that limits disclosure of specified writings to certain purposes; or (E) Made to any governmental agency or to another judicial branch entity or judicial branch personnel if the material will be treated confidentially. https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 7/10

44. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules (i) Availability in electronic format (1) A judicial branch entity that has information that constitutes an identifiable judicial administrative record not exempt from disclosure under this rule and that is in an electronic format must, on request, produce that information in the electronic format requested, provided that: (A) No law prohibits disclosure; (B) The record already exists in the requested electronic format, or the judicial branch entity has previously produced the judicial administrative record in the requested format for its own use or for provision to other agencies; (C) The requested electronic format is customary or standard for records of a similar type and is commercially available to private entity requesters; and (D) The disclosure does not jeopardize or compromise the security or integrity of the original record or the computer software on which the original record is maintained. (2) In addition to other fees imposed under this rule, the requester will bear the direct cost of producing a record if: (A) In order to comply with (1), the judicial branch entity would be required to produce a record and the record is one that is produced only at otherwise regularly scheduled intervals or; (B) Producing the requested record would require data compilation or extraction or any associated programming that the judicial branch entity is not required to perform under this rule but has agreed to perform in response to the request. (3) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to require a judicial branch entity to reconstruct a record in an electronic format if the judicial branch entity no longer has the record available in an electronic format. (j) Public access disputes (1) Unless the petitioner elects to proceed under (2) below, disputes and appeals of decisions with respect to disputes with the Judicial Council or a superior court regarding access to budget and management information required to be maintained under rule 10.501 are subject to the process described in rule 10.803. (2) Any person may institute proceedings for injunctive or declarative relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce his or her right to inspect or to receive a copy of any judicial administrative record under this rule. (3) Whenever it is made to appear by verified petition that a judicial administrative record is being improperly withheld from disclosure, the court with jurisdiction will order the judicial branch entity to disclose the records or show cause why it should not do so. The court will decide the case after examining the record (in camera if appropriate), papers filed by the parties, and any oral argument and additional evidence as the court may allow. (4) If the court finds that the judicial branch entity's decision to refuse disclosure is not justified under this rule, the court will order the judicial branch entity to make the record public. If the court finds that the judicial branch entity's decision was justified, the court will issue an order supporting the decision. (5) An order of the court, either directing disclosure or supporting the decision of the judicial branch entity refusing disclosure, is not a final judgment or order within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 from which an appeal may be taken, but will be immediately reviewable by petition to the appellate court for the issuance of an extraordinary writ. Upon entry of an order under this subdivision, a party must, https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 8/10

45. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules in order to obtain review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service of a written notice of entry of the order or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the court may for good cause allow. If the notice is served by mail, the period within which to file the petition will be extended by 5 days. A stay of an order or judgment will not be granted unless the petitioning party demonstrates it will otherwise sustain irreparable damage and probable success on the merits. Any person who fails to obey the order of the court will be cited to show cause why that is not in contempt of court. (6) The court will award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff should the plaintiff prevail in litigation filed under this subdivision. The costs and fees will be paid by the judicial branch entity and will not become a personal liability of any individual. If the court finds that the plaintiff's case is clearly frivolous, it will award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the judicial branch entity. (Subd (j) amended effective January 1, 2016.) Rule 10.500 amended effective June 1, 2018; adopted effective January 1, 2010; previously amended effective January 1, 2016. Advisory Committee Comment Subdivision (a). By establishing a public access rule applicable to all judicial administrative records, the proposed rule would expand public access to these records. The Judicial Council recognizes the important public interest in access to records and information relating to the administration of the judicial branch. The Judicial Council also recognizes the importance of the privacy rights of individuals working in or doing business with judicial branch entities and the public's interest in an effective and independent judicial branch of state government. The report on this rule includes the Judicial Council's findings on the impact of this rule on these interests, and how these interests are protected by the rule. Subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2). This rule does not apply to adjudicative records, and is not intended to modify existing law regarding public access to adjudicative records. California case law has established that, in general, subject to specific statutory exceptions, case records that accurately and officially reflect the work of the court are public records open to inspection. (Estate of Hearst (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 777, 782-83.) However, documents prepared in the course of adjudicative work and not regarded as official case records, such as preliminary drafts, personal notes, and rough records of proceedings, are not subject to public access because the perceived harm to the judicial process by requiring this material to be available to the public is greater than the benefit the public might derive from its disclosure. (Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 106.) Subdivision (c)(2). The application of this rule is intended to reflect existing case law under the California Public Records Act that exempts from the definition of "public record" certain types of personal records and information. The concept was first discussed in the California Assembly and establishes that if personal correspondence and information are "unrelated to the conduct of the people's business" they are therefore not public records. (San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 762, 774, citing Assembly Committee on Statewide Information Policy California Public Records Act of 1968, section B, page 9, Appendix to Assembly Journal (1970 Reg. Sess.).) Case law has further established that only records necessary or convenient to the discharge of official duty, or kept as necessary or convenient to the discharge of official duty, are public records for the purposes of the California Public Records Act and its predecessors. (Braun v. City of Taft (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 332; City Council of Santa Monica v. Superior Court (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 68.) Subdivision (e)(4). The fees charged by a judicial branch entity under this rule are intended to allow the entity to recover an amount not to exceed the reasonable costs of responding to a request for records or information. In accordance with existing practice within the judicial branch and the other branches of government, the Judicial Council intends agencies and entities of the executive and legislative branches of the California state government to receive records or information requested from judicial branch entities for the agency's or entity's use free of charge. This subdivision is intended to provide, however, that requesters of records or information for the purpose of furthering the requester's commercial interests will be charged for costs incurred by the judicial branch entity in responding to the request, and that such costs will not be a charge against the budget of the judicial branch of the state General Fund. Subdivision (f)(3). In addition to the types of records and information exempt from disclosure under the corresponding provision of the California Public Records Act, Government Code section 6254(c), this provision includes a further nonexclusive list of specific information that is exempt under this rule. The rule does not attempt to list each category of information that is specific to judicial branch entities and that may also be exempt under this rule. For example, although they are not specifically listed, this provision exempts from disclosure records maintained by any court or court-appointed counsel administrator for the purpose of evaluating attorneys seeking or being considered for appointment to cases. https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 9/10

46. 2/7/24, 8:02 AM California Rules of Court: Title Ten Rules Subdivision (f)(7). The 2018 amendments to (f)(7) clarify that settlement agreements are not exempt from disclosure. All judicial branch entities, including the Judicial Council, must disclose settlement agreements under a rule 10.500 request, given the public nature of these records. (See Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. County of Orange (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 893, 909.) By clarifying the public nature of settlement agreements and judicial branch entities' obligation to disclose them, the amended rule also clarifies that a judicial branch entity's disclosure of these agreements, whether maintained by the entity or its attorneys, would not implicate any ethical or legal obligations under Business and Professions Code section 6068(e)(1) or rule 3-100(A) of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. The duty of a judicial branch entity to disclose public records of settlements is not constrained by which persons, division, or office within the entity maintains the records. The 2018 amendments to rule 10.500 do not apply to records maintained by the Commission on Judicial Performance, an independent state entity established under article VI, section 18 of the California Constitution. Rule 10.500 is not applicable to the Commission on Judicial Performance which has separate rules that apply to its work and records. Subdivision (f)(10). The definition of "trade secret" restates the definition in Civil Code section 3426.1. Subdivision (f)(11). This subdivision is intended to reflect California law on the subject of the "deliberative process" exemption under the California Public Records Act, which is currently stated in the Supreme Court's decision in Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325 and the later Court of Appeal decisions California First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 159 and Wilson v. Superior Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1136. Subdivision (j)(1). Under current rule 10.803 a petitioner may file a writ in a superior court regarding a dispute with a superior court or the Judicial Council with respect to disclosure of records and information required to be maintained under current rule 10.802. The writ petition must be heard on an expedited basis and includes a right to an appeal. The statutory authority for the hearing process set forth in current rule 10.803, Government Code section 71675(b), does not extend this procedure to other disputes with respect to public access. The rule provides that petitioners with a dispute with any other judicial branch entity, or with respect to records that are not required to be maintained under rule 10.802, may follow the procedure set forth in (j)(2) through (j)(6), which is equivalent to the dispute resolution procedure of the California Public Records Act. A petitioner eligible for the dispute resolution process set out in current rule 10.803 may also elect to proceed with his or her dispute under the procedure set forth in (j)(2) through (j)(6). [ Back to Top ] https://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=ten&linkid=rule10_500 10/10

47. APPENDIX B.

48. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023 W (AACL) Michael A. Ayele P.O.Box 20438 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia E-mail : waacl13@gmail.com ; waacl1313@gmail.com ; waacl42913@gmail.com Request for Records Hello, This is Michael A. Ayele sending this message though I now go by W. You may call me W. I am writing this letter to file a request for records with your office.i The bases for this records request are [1] the decision of the California government to enact Audrie’s Law on (or around) September 30th 2014 following the September 12th 2012 suicide of Audrie Taylor Pott, thereby recognizing sexual assault as a factor that could lead a girl (below the age of 18) and/or a woman (above the age of 18) to commit suicide;ii [2] the decision of the National Council on Disability (NCD) to formally recognize sexual assault as a factor increasing the risk of suicide on (or around) January 30th 2018; iii [3] the decision of the Missouri government to remain muted on the subject of sexual violence leading to suicide even after the August 04th 2020 suicide of Catherine Daisy Coleman.iv I) Records Requested What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are records in your possession detailing [1] your discussions about the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) failing to prohibit (i) current/former U.S healthcare workers from expressing a verbal and/or written objections if they believe that a patient has been subjected to medical treatment that offends their conscience; (ii) current/former U.S healthcare workers from expressing a verbal and/or written objections if they believe that a patient has been subjected to medical treatment they consider to be discriminatory and/or racist and/or sexist; (iii) representatives of the media and/or members of the general public from requesting the personal health information (PHI) of a patient in a medical facility who may have been the victim of discrimination, racism and/or sexism;v [2] the wrongful death complaint that had been filed on behalf of Audrie Taylor Pott in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, which ended up being assigned Case No.: 1 - 13 – CV – 244689; [3] the terms and conditions of the non-monetary settlement agreement, which was concluded in the wrongful death complaint that had been assigned by the Santa Clara County Superior Court the following Case No.: 1 – 13 – CV – 244689; [4] your discussions about Audrie Taylor Pott as a Caucasian girl, (i) who was 15 (fifteen) years of age, when she was sexually assaulted on September 04th 2012; (ii) who attempted suicide 6 (six) days after her sexual assault on (or around) September 04th 2012; (iii) who was declared deceased on September 12th 2012 following her attempted suicide on (or around) September 10th 2012; vi (iv) whose suicide led the California legislature to enact Audrie’s Law on (or around) September 30th 2014; (v) whose name, image and likeness is extensively linked with Catherine Daisy Coleman in part because of the 2016 Netflix documentary entitled Audrie and Daisy;vii[5] your discussions about Catherine Date.: December 20th 2023 MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 1

49. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023 Daisy Coleman as a Caucasian woman, (i) who was victim of a sexual assault on (or around) January 08th 2012 when she was 14 (fourteen) years of age; (ii) who was under American national microscopic scrutiny because of the January 08th 2012 sexual assault she was the victim of in the State of Missouri; (iii) attempted suicide following her very much publicized sexual assault on January 08th 2012 in the State of Missouri; (iv) who has been noted to have spent some time at Missouri Girls Town: a facility that has concluded many contracts with the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH); (v) who was on (or around) January 09th 2014 noted by the State of Missouri to have been “put at substantial risk”when she was left “outside of her home in below freezing temperatures” even though she was “incapable of protecting or caring for herself;” (vi) whose suicide didn’t inspire legislative action in the State of Missouri even though it was in many ways similar to the suicide of Audrie Taylor Pott; [6] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as a Black man, who (i) has never denied previously being employed for the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH) Fulton State Hospital (FSH) as a healthcare worker; (ii) has previously corresponded with his former employers on the subject of Catherine Daisy Coleman personal health information (PHI) upon learning of her suicide on (or around) August 04th 2020; (iii) was provided by his former employers the contractual agreements that were concluded between the MODMH and Missouri Girls Town: a facility, where Catherine Daisy Coleman was reported to have stayed in following the sexual assault she was the victim of on (or around) January 08th 2012; (iv) has had his written publications on the subject of World Suicide Prevention Day (WSPD) distorted in such a way that would give the impression that his conscience was not offended by the “investigation,” which had been launched against him between October 26th 2013 and November 21st 2013 (even though he was very much vexed by that); (v) has had his written publications on the subject of WSPD distorted in such a way that would give the impression that he has not officially demanded for the MODMH to disclose the PHI of Catherine Daisy Coleman of the time she has spent at Missouri Girls Town following the sexual assault she was victim of on (or around) January 08th 2012 (even though he has asked for that document to be made available to him); (vi) has had his written publications on the subject of WSPD distorted in such a way that would give the impression that his conscience was not shocked by the very lenient criminal charges filed by the State of Missouri on behalf of Catherine Daisy Coleman on (or around) January 09th 2014 (even though he is still very much dismayed by the way Missouri government authorities handled the sexual assault Catherine Daisy Coleman was the victim of on January 08th 2012);viii (vii) was very much annoyed to learn that his written publications on the subject of the National Council on Disability (NCD) January 30th 2018 report were being distorted on the Internet by the so-called “Web;”ix [7] your discussions about the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH) as a state government agency, which has a history of citing HIPAA for the purpose of (i) shielding their employees from criticism for the medical treatment they provide that is in reality discriminatory and/or racist and/or sexist; (ii) not providing the personal health information (PHI) of their patients/prisoners who have been subjected to medical treatment that is in reality discriminatory and/or racist and/or sexist; [8] your discussions about the National Council on Disability (NCD) as a federal agency of the U.S government, which has on January 30th 2018 decided to recognize that sexual assault (i) “is a public health and public safety concern with far reaching implications;” (ii) “is a deeply personal violation,” which “leaves physical and emotional impacts that change the lives of victims;” (iii) causes “long term physical, psychological, and emotional effects, including depression, post-traumatic stress, thoughts of suicide, flashbacks, and sleep disorders;” [9] your discussions about the decision of Joseph Biden / Kamala Harris MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 2

50. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 12/20/2023 White House Administration to recognize on (or around) September 09th 2022 that (i) they “are still in the early stages of learning about the conditions that can lead to suicide, including job strain or loss, serious illnesses, and financial, criminal, legal, and relationship problems;” (ii) “suicide accounts for 1 (one) of every 100 (one hundred) deaths globally;” (iii) suicide is “the second leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 10 (ten) and 34 (thirty four).”x II) Request for a Fee Waiver and Expedited Processing The requested records do/will demonstrate that [1] the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) fail to prohibit (i) current/former U.S healthcare workers from expressing a verbal and/or written objections if they believe that a patient has been subjected to medical treatment that offends their conscience; (ii) current/former U.S healthcare workers from expressing a verbal and/or written objections if they believe that a patient has been subjected to medical treatment they consider to be discriminatory and/or racist and/or sexist; (iii) representatives of the media and/or members of the general public from requesting the personal health information (PHI) of a patient in a medical facility who may have been the victim of discrimination, racism and/or sexism; [2] Audrie Taylor Pott is a Caucasian girl, (i) who was 15 (fifteen) years of age, when she was sexually assaulted on September 04th 2012; (ii) who attempted suicide 6 (six) days after her sexual assault on (or around) September 04th 2012; (iii) who was declared deceased on September 12th 2012 following her attempted suicide on (or around) September 10th 2012;(iv) whose suicide led the California government to enact Audrie’s Law on (or around) September 30th 2014; (v) whose name, image and likeness is extensively linked with Catherine Daisy Coleman in part because of the 2016 Netflix documentary entitled Audrie and Daisy; [3] Catherine Daisy Coleman is a Caucasian woman, (i) who was subjected to a sexual assault on (or around) January 08th 2012 when she was 14 (fourteen) years of age; (ii) who was under American national microscopic scrutiny because of the January 08th 2012 sexual assault she was victim of in the State of Missouri; (iii) who attempted suicide following her very much publicized sexual assault on January 08th 2012 in the State of Missouri; (iv) who has been noted to have spent some time at Missouri Girls Town: a facility that has concluded many contracts with the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH); (v) who was on (or around) January 09th2014 noted by the State of Missouri to have been “put at substantial risk” when she was left “outside of her home in below freezing temperatures” even though she was “incapable of protecting or caring for herself;” (vi) whose suicide didn’t inspire legislative action in the State of Missouri even though it was in many ways similar to the suicide of Audrie Taylor Pott whose suicide didn’t inspire legislative action in the State of Missouri even though it was in many ways similar to the suicide of Audrie Taylor Pott; [4] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who (i) has never denied previously being employed for the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH) Fulton State Hospital (FSH) as a healthcare worker; (ii) has previously corresponded with his former employers on the subject of Catherine Daisy Coleman personal health information (PHI) upon learning of her suicide on (or around) August 04th 2020; (iii) was provided by his former employers the contractual agreements that were concluded between the MODMH and Missouri Girls Town: a facility, where Catherine Daisy Coleman was reported to have stayed in following the sexual assault she was victim of on (or around) January MICHAEL A. AYELE (A.K.A) W – ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (AACL) 3