Preview
7/16/2021 3:25 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 55437578
2021-43156 / Court: 281 By: Joshua Hall
Filed: 7/16/2021 3:25 PM
Pgs-86
CAUSE NO.
8H
IN THE MATTER OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS §
FOR THE DEPOSITION OF § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ELAINE FINSTAD § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
ORIGINAL PETITION REQUESTING ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA
introduction
This pleading invokes the Harris County District Court’s jurisdiction in connection with
an ongoing proceeding before a California court, in which a Commission was granted for the
deposition of a Texas witness which is necessary to the disposition of the pending California
matter. The pending California matter involves a dispute between petitioner, Samuel A. Perroni,
and respondents Alex Villanueva, in his official capacity as sheriff, the County of Los Angeles
Sheriff's Department, and Does | through 50, arising out of Mr. Perroni’s request to review
records related to the 1981 death of actress Natalie Wagner, a/k/a Natalie Wood, pursuant to the
California Constitution and the California Public Records Act (the “CPRA”) and respondents’
refusal without lawful justification to produce records that are subject to timely production under
the CPRA. Mr. Perroni must compel and therefore subpoena the Texas witness, Elaine Finstad,
to obtain her deposition and discover information regarding Ms. Finstad’s access in November
2000 to a box or boxes consisting of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s “murder
book” for Ms. Wood, as discussed in her daughter Suzanne Finstad’s republished book Natalie
Wood: the Complete Biography. See Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate, attached as Exhibit
1
Request for Issuance of Subpoena
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 201.2 states that if a court of record of any other state
issues a mandate, writ, or commission that requires a witness’s oral or written deposition
IgeSignedDt
APPLIED)**
testimony in this State, the witness may be compelled to appear and testify in the same manner
and by the same process used for taking testimony in a proceeding pending in this State. See
Tex. R. Civ. P. 201.2; see also Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 20.002 (testimony required by
foreign jurisdiction, stating same).
On July 14, 2021, the Clerk of the Court for the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
California, issued a Commission to Take Deposition Outside California (the “Commission”).
See Commission to Take Deposition Outside California, attached as Exhibit 2.
The Commission siates that under California Code of Civil Procedure 2026.010,
California authorizes that a commission to take an out-of-state deposition may be issued by the
clerk of the court or, if the foreign jurisdiction requires it, by order of the court. See Ex. 2. The
Coninission then states that the Superior Court of the State of California requests that process
issue in Texas, “where the examination is to be held, requiring the attendance and enforcing the
obligations of the depouent to produce documents and answer questions.” id.
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 201 25 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Section
20,002 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, Mr. Perroni requests the issuance of a
subpoena, attached as Exhibit 3, to cause Elaine Finstad to appear for deposition at the time and
place named, to answer, under oath, the questions asked of them by Mr. Perroni’s counsel.
Respectfully submitted,
e Le a
YELD s5e
Batty Jewell, Yee. B 3 No. 24033546
“The Youngdahl Law Firm, P.C.
4203 Montrose Bivd., Ste. 280
Houston, Texas 77006-5427
Telephone: (281) 996-0750
Facsimile: (281) 996-0725
E-Mail: biewell@youngdahl.com
Attorneys for Petitioner Samuel A. Perroni
33
Electronically FILED by iperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/14/2021 11:22 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Perez,Deputy Clerk
21STCPO0108
Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: James Chalfant
2021-43156 / Court: 281
Dan L. Longo (SBN 105988)
Suzanna R. Harman (SBN 300669)
MURCHISON & CUMMING, LLP
801 South Grand Avenue, Ninth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017-4613
Telephone: (213) 623-7400
Facsimile: (213) 623-6336
E-Mail dlongo@murchisonlaw.com
sharman@murchisonlaw.com
Attorneys for Petitioner, Samuel A. Perroni
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
10
11 SAMUEL A. PERRONI, CASENO. 2157TCP00108
12 Petitioner, COMPLAINT FOR:
13 vs. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDATE;
14 ALEX VILLANUEVA, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS SHERIFF; THE COUNTY DECLARATORY RELIEF; AND
15 OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT; and DOES INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
16 1 through 50, Inclusive,
17 Respondents.
18
19
20 COMES NOW, Petitioner, SAMUEL A. PERRONI, who for causes of action against
21 the Respondents, and each of them, including DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, complain
22 and allege as follows:
23 INTRODUCTION
24 This is a lawsuit to enforce the right to inspect public records pursuant to Article |, §
25 3, of the California Constitution and the California Public Records Act (hereinafter the
26 “CPRA’), Cal. Gov't Code § 6250 et seq. Petitioner, SAMUEL A. PERRONI (hereinafter
27 "Petitioner" or "Mr. Perroni") a book author and retired federal prosecutor and criminal-
28 defense attorney, requested in writing records from Respondent, THE COUNTY OF LOS
1
COMPLAINT
ANGELES SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT (hereinafter “Respondent Sheriff's Department’)
and its sheriff Respondent, ALEX VILLANUEVA (hereinafter “Respondent Villanueva’).
Petitioner is writing a book on a matter of significant public interest, the November 1981
death of actress Natalie Wagner, a/k/a Natalie Wood. Petitioner requested records from
Respondents regarding Respondent Sheriff's Department’s involvement in the
investigation of Ms. Wood's death. Through his work, Petitioner seeks to inform the public
about the circumstances of Ms. Wood’s death. Regrettably, Respondents have met
Petitioner's requests for records with obstruction and delay. Respondents continue without
lawful justification to withhold records that are subject to timely production under the
10 CPRA. Consequently, Petitioner seeks the Court’s intervention and an award of attorneys’
11 fees and costs.
12 THE PARTIES
13 1 Petitioner Mr. Perroni is an author and a retired Arkansas trial lawyer.
14 Among other things, at all times relevant to this complaint and petition, Petitioner has been
15 engaged in the gathering and researching of public records, including information from
16 state and local California government agencies and departments, concerning the death of
17 Ms. Wood.
18 2 Respondent Sheriff's Department is the sheriff's department for Los Angeles
19 County, California, providing patrol services, courthouse security, housing and
20 transportation of inmates within the county jail system, and various other services such as
21 crime laboratories and homicide investigations. Respondent Sheriff's Department
22 maintains or controls the relevant records at issue in this lawsuit because it conducted a
23 homicide investigation into the 1981 death of Natalie Wagner a/k/a Natalie Wood.
24 Respondent Sheriff's Department is the legal custodian of the records at issue in this
25 lawsuit. Respondent Sheriff's Department maintains its primary place of business at 211
26 W. Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, is a legal resident of Los Angeles
27 County, California, and is amenable to service of process in Los Angeles County.
28
2
COMPLAINT
3. Respondent Villanueva is the Los Angeles County Sheriff and he is sued
here in his official capacity only.
4 The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
otherwise of the defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are
unknown to Petitioner who therefore sues said respondents by such fictitious names.
Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of these respondents
fictitiously named herein as a DOE is legally responsible, negligent or in some other
actionable manner liable for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and
proximately and legally caused the damages to Petitioner as hereinafter alleged. Petitioner
10 will seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to insert the true names and/or
11 capacities of such fictitiously-named respondents when the same has been ascertained.
12 5. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times
13 mentioned herein, Respondents, and each of them, including DOES 1 through 50,
14 Inclusive, were the agents, servants, employees, and/or joint venturers of their co-
15 respondents, and were, as such, acting within the course, scope, and authority of said
16 agency, employment, and/or venture.
17 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18 6. This Court has jurisdiction under Cal. Gov't Code § 6258 and Cal. Civ. Proc.
19 Code §§ 1060, 1085.
20 7 Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code § 6259 and Cal.
21 Civ. Proc. Code §§ 393, 394(a).
22 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
23 8. Respondent Sheriff's Department is an agency of the State of California, and
24 as such, is governed by the public disclosure requirements of Article |, § 3 of the California
25 Constitution and the CPRA, Cal. Gov't Code § 6250 et seq.
26 9. Respondent Villanueva is the Sheriff for Respondent Sheriff's Department.
27 The agency designated this position as a reasonable authority to receive and respond on
28 behalf of Respondent Sheriff's Department to requests for public records under the CPRA.
3
COMPLAINT
10. The involved parties have litigated before. Petitioner initiated a prior action in
2015 against the Respondent Sheriff's Department and the Medical Examiner's Office
pursuant to the CPRA, seeking various records relating to the death of Ms. Wood. See
Perroni v. Fajardo et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, Case No. BS 159430. Petitioner - through both orders of this Court and
settlement — prevailed in this action, receiving some records that the defendants in that
case had failed to produce in response to CPRA requests.
11. On October 8, 2020, Petitioner submitted a new written CPRA request to
Respondent Sheriff's Department seeking the disclosure of ten (10) categories of
10 additional public records. A true and correct copy of the written CPRA request is attached
11 to this Complaint as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. Specifically, the request sought
12 the disclosure of the following specific categories of public records related to the 1981
13 death of Natalie Wood Wagner:
14 a. First, copies of all records regarding Vidal Herrera’s statement to the Sheriff's
15 Department that is referenced at endnote 481 of Suzanne Finstad’s
16 republished book, Natalie Wood: The Complete Biography;
17 Second, copies of an 8"x11" divider file card for the Sheriff's Department’s
18 file regarding the death of Ms. Wood (identified by Detective Louis Danoff’s
19 August 17, 2020, declaration that was filed in Perroni v. Fajardo et al.,
20 Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles,
21 Central District; Case No. BS 159430) and any other records showing who
22 removed, checked out, or otherwise received access to this file;
23 Third, copies of Respondent Sheriff's Department's computer program
24 records regarding the Sheriff Department's file concerning the death of Ms.
25 Wood, including any records regarding the identity of persons or entities who
26 have removed, checked out, or otherwise received access to this file from the
27 library described by Detective Danoff in his August 17, 2020, declaration;
28
4
COMPLAINT
Fourth, copies of all personnel records reflecting discipline, admonition, or
demotion of Detective Danoff for the period November 1, 2000, through
December 31, 2010;
e. Fifth, copies of all records reflecting communications between Respondent
Sheriff's Department (including but not limited to Deputy Ralph Hernandez
and counsel for Respondent Sheriff Department) and Ms. Finstad for the
period November 10, 2015, through October 8, 2020;
Sixth, copies of all records reflecting communications between Respondent
Sheriff's Department (including but not limited to Detective Danoff) and Ms.
10 Finstad for the period of November 1, 2000, through November 30, 2000;
11 Seventh, copies of all records reflecting communications between
12 Respondent Sheriff's Department (including but not limited to counsel for
13 Respondent Sheriff Department) and Detective Danoff for the period March
14 1, 2020, through October 8, 2020;
15 Eighth, copies of all personnel records reflecting discipline, admonition, or
16 demotion of Deputy Hernandez for the period January 1, 2016, through
17 October 8, 2020;
18 Ninth, copies of Respondent Sheriff's Department's file regarding the death
19 of Ms. Wood (also known as the “murder book” or “blue book”) as it existed in
20 November 2000 when Ms. Finstad claimed on pages 452 and 458-59 of her
21 book Natalie Wood: The Complete Biography that she received access to a
22 box or boxes consisting of the entire murder book for Ms. Wood;
23 Tenth, a copy of the Marilyn Wayne pink phone message that is referenced
24 in Ms. Finstad’s book.
25 See Ex. A. A check in the amount of $200.00 was enclosed to cover the cost of
26 production.
27 12. Notwithstanding the provisions of Cal Gov't Code § 6253(c), which requires
28 || an agency response to the request within ten (10) days of receipt, Petitioner did not hear
5
COMPLAINT
back from Respondent Sheriff's Department until an October 28, 2020, twelve (12) days
after Respondent Sheriff Department's receipt of Petitioner's written CPRA request. On
that date, Petitioner received a response from Albert M. Maldonado, Captain, Risk
Management Bureau of Respondent Sheriff's Department, stating that Respondent
Sheriff's Department time limit for responding to Petitioner's CPRA request “is subject to
an extension of up to fourteen (14) days under the following circumstances as defined in
Government Code § 6253(c)(1): The need to search for, and collect, the requested
records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office
processing the request, and the need to appropriately examine potentially voluminous
10 amounts of records.” A true and correct copy of Respondent Sheriff's Department
11 response is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B and incorporated herein.
12 13. The additional fourteen (14) days added to Respondent Sheriff's
13 Department’s deadline to respond to Petitioner's CPRA request through its October 28,
14 2020, exercise of the extension pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code § 6253(c)(1) has since
15 passed, and Respondent Sheriff's Department failed to respond timely as required by law.
16 14. Petitioner has received no further response from Respondent Sheriff's
17 Department and there has been no production of documents as requested in Petitioner's
18 CPRA request.
19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION — WRIT OF MANDATE
20 (By Petitioner, SAMUEL A. PERRONI
21 Against Respondents, and Each of Them)
22 15. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference the factual allegations set forth in
23 paragraphs 1 through 14.
24 16. The California Constitution, Art. 1, § 3(b)(1), declares that “[t]he people have
25 the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and,
26 therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies
27 shall be open to public scrutiny.”
28
6
COMPLAINT
17. The CPRA provides, Cal. Gov't Code § 6253(a), that “[p]ublic records are
open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and
every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided.” The
CPRA further provides that each agency must respond “within 10 days.” /d. at § 6253(c).
The CPRA further requires that “the head of the agency or their designee” may make
extensions “in unusual circumstances,” but only by written notice to the person making the
request, “setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination
is expected to be dispatched.” Id. The CPRA also limits extensions: “[n]o notice shall
specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days.” /d.
10 18. Respondents Sheriff's Department and Villanueva violated the California
11 Constitution and Cal. Gov’t Code § 6253 because they unjustifiably: (1) failed to respond to
12 Petitioner's October 8, 2020, CPRA request within ten (10) days of its receipt of the
13 request; (2) when it did respond by exercising the fourteen (14) day-extension of its
14 response deadline (which had already passed), failed to set forth in its untimely response
15 the date on which a determination was expected to be dispatched; and (3) failed to
16 respond to the CPRA request within the fourteen (14) day-extended-response deadline.
17 19. Respondents Sheriff's Department’s and Villanueva’s violation of Cal. Gov't
18 Code § 6253 and the California Constitution through their unjustifiable failure to provide a
19 timely response to Petitioner's written CPRA request — even after their untimely exercise of
20 the fourteen (14) day-response deadline — constitute a waiver of Respondents’ ability to
21 claim exemptions for any of the ten requests for records presented to it by Petitioner in its
22 written October 8, 2020, CPRA request.
23 20. Further, in addition to the requirements of the CPRA and Respondents’
24 waiver, a prior order from this Court compels Respondents Sheriff's Department and
25 Villanueva to produce the records requested in the first, ninth, and tenth categories of
26 documents requested by Petitioner. In the 2015 lawsuit referenced above, this Court ruled
27 that whatever portions of the 1981 Sheriff's Department file that author Suzanne Finstad
28 (or any other author or member of the public) had been given access to, the same records
7
COMPLAINT
must be produced to Petitioner. As a result, the LACSD produced to Petitioner certain,
2 discrete portions of its file regarding Ms. Wood, but not the entire file. Earlier this year,
3 however, Ms. Finstad published a book claiming that, in 2000, she had been given access
4 to the items requested in the first, ninth, and tenth categories of documents, including the
5 || entire 1981 Sheriff's Department file, what she referred to as the Sheriff Department’s
6 “murder book.” See Finstad, Natalie Wood: The Complete Biography, at pp. 452, 458-59,
7 462.
8 21. Specifically, in that book, Ms. Finstad wrote as follows regarding being
9 provided access to the complete file:
10 Homicide detectives in the L.A. Sheriff's Department keep what they call
a “murder book,” the official record of a homicide investigation. | was
11 given access to Natalie Wood’s murder book. There | found the buried
clues as to what really happened on the last weekend of her life... .
12
Of all Natalie Wood's secrets that | held in 2001, that secret was the reason
13 for my urgency: | had come to realize the unimaginably horrible reason that
she had drowned, and | needed to make public the dark and twisted facts of
14 her drowning and its aftermath. | had uncovered the facts using the
Sheriff's murder book....
15
At some point in our conversation, [Detective] Rasure mentioned the
16 possible existence of a murder book, the file of all the evidence in a
homicide investigation, including a summary of the case, all interviews,
17 investigative reports, field and lab reports, photographs, and printouts.
| needed to see Natalie Wood's murder book.
18
On atip from the genial Rasure, | dropped his name to an LAPD detective,
19 Louis Danoff, with the nickname “Sweet Lou,” and persuaded him to let
me see the murder book for the Wood investigation, which did, in fact,
20 exist. Within a week, | met Sweet Lou at a Sheriff's Department office on
the outs 's of downtown. My mother, who was in Los Angeles for
21 Thanksgiving, came along, a camera tucked into her purse.
22 Sweet Lou escorted both of us to a small spare room. Inside were a long table
and several chairs. | set up my laptop on the table and Sweet Lou returned
23 with one or two boxes he identified as Natalie Wood’s murder book. Then
he left the room and closed the door.
24
Uncertain how long | would have, what | was permitted to see, or whether |
25 could document it, | began to enter the contents of the murder book into my
laptop as quickly as | could type. | asked my mother to take photographs. We
26 both kept an eye on the door, anxious that Sweet Lou might return with
restrictions. Neither of us said anything. We both got the sense that we
27 were looking at something that was not meant to be seen.
28 || Id. (emphasis added).
8
COMPLAINT
22. Respondents Sheriff's Department and Villanueva have waived any
applicable CPRA exemptions pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code § 6254.5 by these public
disclosures of the Ms. Wood 1981 investigative file or “murder book.” This Court, at a
hearing in the 2015 lawsuit, concluded as much during the following exchange:
THE COURT: Look, | agree with you, you don’t. If there was any issue that
what they are withholding is not — but you are specifically asking for
photographs and witness interview summaries and yacht examinations and
the Miller report. All of those, by definition, are investigatory records. So there
is no point in me looking at the very things you have asked for. If you had
asked for something else that might not be an investigatory record, that would
be different, which is why | am saying they have to — the Coroner has to say
anything they are withholding, what is it. It is investigatory record. Now if you
want me to look at that and if you want me to look at the records the Coroner
is withholding, | may do that.
10
MR. PERRONI: | understand, Judge. But here’s the state of the record. The
11 state of the record is that in 2000 and 2001 they allowed two authors to
rummage through these files.
12
THE COURT: Did they?
13
MR. PERRONI: Okay.
14
THE COURT: Did they? I’m not aware that the authors were given the files to
15 rummage through. | am aware that they were given documents from the file.
16 MR. PERRONI: No. They were given access to the file.
17 THE COURT: If they were given the file to look through, the whole file is
disclosable.
18
19 See September 27, 2016, Hearing Transcript, attached to this Complaint as Exhibit C and
20 incorporated herein, at pp. 33:26-34:25 (emphasis added). The Court, during this
21 September 2016 hearing, agreed that Petitioner was entitled to production of whatever
22 portions of the file to which a member of the public had been previously granted access.
23 The Court subsequently adopted its tentative rulings and orders, including the court’s legal
24 conclusions at the hearing and entered a judgment granting Petitioner's petition for a writ
25 of mandate in part, pursuant to established legal precedent and provisions of the Act
26 regarding selective access disclosure. See January 26, 2017, Judgment Re Petition for
27 Writ of Mandate, attached to this Complaint as Exhibit D and incorporated herein, at p. 2
28
9
COMPLAINT
and §§6253 and 6254.5, supra. The Court's legal conclusions on selective disclosure are
now res judicata and operate as a conclusive adjudication in this action.
23. By their failure to provide timely compliance with the CPRA as well as their
continuing failure to provide documents responsive to any of the categories of documents
listed in Exhibit A attached hereto, Respondents have violated this Court’s prior order as
well as the California Constitution, Art. |, § 3, and the CPRA, Cal. Gov't Code § 6250 et
seq., and thereby caused Petitioner to obtain legal counsel to obtain the desired relief.
24. As a result of the aforementioned conduct, Petitioner requests issue of a writ
of mandate directing Respondents to comply fully and without further delay with the
10 California Public Records Act and to furnish to Petitioner all public documents meeting the
11 descriptions in his ten requests set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.
12 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION — DECLARATORY RELIEF
13 (Petitioner, SAMUEL A. PERRONI
14 Against Respondents, and Each of Them)
15 25. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference the factual allegations set forth in
16 paragraphs 1 through 24, inclusive, above, as though fully set forth herein.
17 26. An actual future controversy exists between the parties hereto relating to
18 their rights, duties, and liabilities.
19 27. Petitioner contends that Respondents have violated Petitioner's rights under
20 the California Constitution, Art. |, § 3, and under Cal. Gov't Code § 6250 et seq,., by failing
21 to produce the requested documents and accordingly, judicial determination of these
22 issues and of the respective duties of Petitioner and Respondents is necessary and
23 appropriate at this time under the circumstances.
24 28. As a result of the aforementioned conduct, Petitioner seeks a declaration
25 from the Court that Respondents have violated Petitioner's rights under the California
26 Constitution, Art. |, § 3, and under Cal. Gov’t Code § 6250 et seq. by failing to produce the
27 requested documents, Respondents have waived any applicable CPRA exemptions
28 pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code § 6254.5 by the aforementioned public disclosures, Petitioner
10
COMPLAINT
is entitled to production of those portions of the file to which a member of the public had
been previously granted access, and Petitioner is entitled to judgment for costs and
expenses in bringing the instant action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Petitioner is
informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Respondents, and each of them, contend to
the contrary.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Petitioner, SAMUEL A. PERRONI
Against Respondents, and Each of Them)
29. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference the factual allegations set forth in
10 paragraphs 1 through 28, inclusive, above, as though fully set forth herein.
11 30. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Respondents'
12 delay in complying with their obligations under the CPRA was without substantial
13 justification. Accordingly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, §3367, Petitioner seeks an
14 injunction from the Court directing Respondents to waive all fees associated with
15 Petitioner's requests.
16 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
17 WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:
18 1 Issue a writ of mandate directing Respondents to comply fully and without
19 further delay with the California Public Records Act and to furnish to Petitioner all public
20 documents meeting the descriptions in his ten requests set forth in Exhibit A attached
21 hereto;
22 2 In the alternative, issue an Order to Respondents to show cause why the
23 Court should not issue such a writ and thereafter issue a peremptory writ compelling
24 Respondents to perform their public duty as set forth above;
25 3. Declare that Respondents have violated Petitioner’s rights under the
26 California Constitution, Art. |, § 3, and under Cal. Gov't Code § 6250 et seq., by failing to
27 produce the requested documents;
28
11
COMPLAINT
4 Enter an injunction directing that, because Respondents' delay in complying
with their obligations under the CPRA was without substantial justification, Respondents
must waive all fees associated with Petitioner's requests;
5. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as authorized by Cal.
Gov't Code 1 § 6259, and;
6. Order such additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: January13, 2021 MURCHISON & CUMMING, LLP
/s/ Suzanna R. Harman
By:
10
Dan L. Longo
11 Suzanna R. Harman
Attorneys for Petitioner, Samuel A. Perroni
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT "A"
BARNES & THORNBURG we
2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2904 U.S.A.
B10) 284-3880
Fax (310) 284-3894
www.btlaw.com
Garrett §. Llewellyn:
Of Counsel
(310) 284-3876
gllewellyn@btlaw.com
October 8, 2020
Daniel P. Barer, Esq.
Pollak, Vida & Barer
11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90064
daniel(@pollakvida. com
Sheriff's Services Division
Sheriff's Department, County of Los Angeles
211 W. Temple Street, First Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
wrarequesis@lasd.org
VIA E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL
Re Sam Perroni
California Public Records Request For Records
Dear Mr. Barer and Sheriffs Services Division:
As you know from my May 23, 2020, letter, our law firm represents Sam Perroni regarding
his public-records requests. In view of the ruling made by Judge Chalfant at our September 1,
2020, hearing, I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. Perroni to make new requests for public records
under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”).
First, we request copies of all records regarding Vidal Herrera’s statement to the Sheriff's
Department that is referenced at endnote 481 of Suzanne Finstad’s republished book, Natalie
Wood: The Complete Biography. Specifically, at endnote 481, Ms. Finstad referenced receiving a
2017 “Vidal Herrera statement to L.A. Sheriffs Department.”
Second, Detective Louis Danoff’s August 17, 2020, declaration that was filed in Perroni
v. Fajardo et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central
District, Case No. BS 159430, states this: “An ABC, 3x5" card system was set up wherein each
case entered into the Library was given a Library Number based upon the first letter of the name
used to identify the case and followed by the number indicating when it was logged into the system
— Example (A-200). If a case was removed from the Library, the Investigator requesting the case
would fill out an 8"x11" divider file card with the Library Number requested, date requested, and
Atlanta Californie Chie siaware indiana Michigan Minnespolis New York Ghia Raleigh Salt Lake City Texas Weshington,
D.C
October 8, 2020
Page 2
the name of the requestor.” This card was then placed in the space from which the file was
removed and would be removed when the file was returned.” Pursuant to the CPRA, we request
copies of this divider file card for the Sheriff Department’s file regarding the death of Natalie
Wood and any other records showing who removed, checked out, or otherwise received access to
this file.
Third, Detective Danoff’s declaration further states that this card system was updated “into
a simple computer program” around 1990. Later in his declaration, Detective Danoff states that,
around 2001, “Homicide Bureau was in the midst of converting their reporting system to an
improved computerized system.” Pursuant to the CPRA, we request copies of all such computer
program records regarding the Sheriff Department’s file concerning the death of Natalie Wood,
including any records regarding the identity of persons or entities who have removed, checked out,
or otherwise received access to this file from the library described by Detective Danoff. To the
extent that there is a separate file for the 2011 investigation into the death of Ms. Wood, we may
this request for both the original file and the file regarding the 2011 investigation.
Fourth, Ms. Finstad’s book indicates that Detective Danoff gave her access to the Sheriff
Department’s file regarding the death of Ms. Wood in November 2000. Detective Danoff’s
declaration indicates that he last worked for the Sheriff's Department in 2010. Pursuant to the
CPRA, we request copies of all personnel records reflecting discipline, admonition, or demotion
of Detective Danoff for the period November 1, 2000, through December 31, 2010.
Fifth, in Perroni v. Fajardo et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles, Central District, Case No. BS 159430, respondents filed a July 15, 2016,
declaration from Deputy Sheriff Ralph Hernandez. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of that declaration,
Deputy Hernandez identified certain documents that the Sheriff's Department provided to Ms.
Finstad and members of the public. In the subsequent November 8, 2016, deposition of Deputy
Hernandez, he testified regarding his communications with Ms. Finstad. Pursuant to the CPRA,
we request all records reflecting communications between the Sheriff's Department (including but
not limited to Deputy Hernandez and counsel for the Sheriff's Department) and Ms. Finstad for
the period November 10, 2015, through today.
Sixth, as discussed above, Ms. Finstad has written that Detective Danoff gave her access
to the Sheriff Department’s file regarding the death of Ms. Wood in November 2000. Pursuant to
the CPRA, we request all records reflecting communications between the Sheriff's Department
(including but not limited to Detective Danoff) and Ms. Finstad for the period November 1, 2000,
through November 30, 2000.
Seventh, Mr. Perroni contacted Mr. Barer in March 2020 requesting supplemental
documents. Detective Danoff’s declaration states that he has not worked for the Sheriff's
Department since March 2020. Pursuant to the CPRA, we request all records reflecting
communications between the Sheriff's Department (including but not limited to counsel for the
Sheriffs Department) and Detective Danoff for the period March 1, 2020, through today.
BARNES & THORNBURG uw
October 8, 2020
Page 3
Eighth, pursuant to the CPRA, we request copies of all personnel records reflecting
discipline, admonition, or demotion of Deputy Hernandez for the period January 1, 2016, through
today.
Ninth, pursuant to the CPRA, we request copies of the Sheriff's Department file regarding
the death of Ms. Wood (also known as the “murder book” or “blue book”) as it existed in
November 2000 when Ms. Finstad claims that she received access to a box or boxes consisting of
the entire murder book for Ms. Wood. As I wrote to your previously, Ms. Finstad’s updated book
provides:
Homicide detectives in the L.A. Sheriff's Department keep what they call a
“murder book,” the official record of a homicide investigation. I was given
access to Natalie Wood’s murder book. There I found the buried clues as to what
really happened on the last weekend of her life.
Of all Natalie Wood’s secrets that I held in 2001, shat secret was the reason for my
urgency: I had come to realize the unimaginably horrible reason that she had
drowned, and I needed to make public the dark and twisted facts of her drowning
and its aftermath. I had uncovered the facts using the Sheriff's murder book....
At some point in our conversation, [Detective] Rasure mentioned the possible
existence of a murder book, the file of all the evidence in a homicide
investigation, including a summary of the case, all interviews, investigative
reports, field and lab reports, photographs, and printouts. I needed to see
Natalie Wood’s murder book
On a tip from the genial Rasure, I dropped his name to an LAPD detective,
Louis Danoff, with the nickname “Sweet Lou,” and persuaded him to let me
see the murder book for the Wood investigation, which did, in fact, exist.
Within a week, I met Sweet Lou at a Sheriff's Department office on the
outskirts of downtown. My mother, who was in Los Angeles for Thanksgiving,
came along, a camera tucked into her purse.
Sweet Lou escorted both of us to a small spare room. Inside were a long table and
several chairs. I set up my laptop on the table and Sweet Lou returned with one
or two boxes he identified as Natalie Wood’s murder book. Then he left the
room and closed the door.
Uncertain how long I would have, what I was permitted to see, or whether I could
document it, I began to enter the contents of the murder book into my laptop as
quickly as I could type. I asked my mother to take photographs. We both kept an
eye on the door, anxious that Sweet Lou might return with restrictions. Neither of
us said anything. We both got the sense that we were looking at something that
was not meant to be seen.
Finstad, Natalie Wood: The Complete Biography, at pp. 452, 458-59.
BARNES & THORNBURG uw
October 8, 2020
Page 4
Ms. Finstad’s account makes clear that she and her mother were given access to more than
the scant documents identified by Deputy Sheriff Hernandez. Detective Danoff gave Ms. Finstad
and her mother one or two boxes that contained the “murder book” regarding the investigation into
Ms. Wood’s death. What was in this murder book? Ms. Finstad recalls that the murder book
included “the file of all the evidence in a homicide investigation, including a summary of the case,
all interviews, investigative reports, field and lab reports, photographs, and printouts.” Based on
this information from Ms. Finstad, the Sheriff's Department provided to Ms. Finstad documents
beyond what was identified in Deputy Sheriff Hernandez’s testimony. The Sheriffs “Department
waived any CPRA exemptions by the public disclosure of the Natalie Wood” murder book to Ms.
Finstad and her mother, to borrow the language from Judge Chalfant’s October 2016 order. This
disclosure was intentional and not accidental. Accordingly, we request that the Sheriff's
Department supplement its earlier production and provide to Mr. Perroni the entire box or boxes
consisting of the murder book as it existed in November 2000 regarding the death of Ms. Wood.
To be clear, on behalf of Mr. Perroni, and pursuant to the CPRA, we are hereby requesting
a copy of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department file pertaining to the investigation of the
death of Ms. Wood as it would have been provided to Ms. Finstad
Tenth, pursuant to the CPRA, and to the extent not covered by the above request, we
request a copy of the Marilyn Wayne pink phone message that is referenced in Ms. Finstad’s book.
This CPRA request does not include any of the records that have already been produced to
Mr. Perroni in his lawsuit.
Tam enclosing a check for $200.00 to cover the cost of production. If the enclosed sum is
not adequate to cover the costs, please let me know and I will send the balance. I request advance
notice if you contend that the costs will exceed $500.00.
Please also note that I provided a check for $200.00 with my May 23, 2020, letter. As no
documents have been produced in response to that letter, please return or refund that check for
$200.00
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Ilook forward to Mr. Perroni receiving
the requested documents in a timely manner.
Regards,
Lull
Garrett S. Llewellyn
BARNES & THORNBURG uw
TH S SOY
NS & RAO RAR NE S RAQAAAGWW
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP Fifth Third Bank CHECK NO.
11 South Meridian Sereet WIS indianapolis, INDIANS 524221
Indianapolis, IN 46264-3935 SEAN Tt BSS/7 48,
CHECK DATE 10-09-2020 CHECK AROUNT
S 200 Ouseee
c
“
Lo
TWO HUNORED AND 00/400 Dollars”
PAY Sheriff's Department, County of Los Angeles
4
ae
f “
Sheriff's Services Division
ORDER OF niin
mmm
241 W. Temple Street, First Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
wei bd bi® HO PLAORSULE FRS3520 7060"
EXHIBIT "B"
o-
PB OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF KEE
Country or Los ANGELES
Preview
7/16/2021 3:25 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 55437578 2021-43156 / Court: 281 By: Joshua Hall Filed: 7/16/2021 3:25 PM Pgs-86 CAUSE NO. 8H IN THE MATTER OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS § FOR THE DEPOSITION OF § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ELAINE FINSTAD § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ORIGINAL PETITION REQUESTING ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA introduction This pleading invokes the Harris County District Court’s jurisdiction in connection with an ongoing proceeding before a California court, in which a Commission was granted for the deposition of a Texas witness which is necessary to the disposition of the pending California matter. The pending California matter involves a dispute between petitioner, Samuel A. Perroni, and respondents Alex Villanueva, in his official capacity as sheriff, the County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, and Does | through 50, arising out of Mr. Perroni’s request to review records related to the 1981 death of actress Natalie Wagner, a/k/a Natalie Wood, pursuant to the California Constitution and the California Public Records Act (the “CPRA”) and respondents’ refusal without lawful justification to produce records that are subject to timely production under the CPRA. Mr. Perroni must compel and therefore subpoena the Texas witness, Elaine Finstad, to obtain her deposition and discover information regarding Ms. Finstad’s access in November 2000 to a box or boxes consisting of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s “murder book” for Ms. Wood, as discussed in her daughter Suzanne Finstad’s republished book Natalie Wood: the Complete Biography. See Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate, attached as Exhibit 1 Request for Issuance of Subpoena Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 201.2 states that if a court of record of any other state issues a mandate, writ, or commission that requires a witness’s oral or written deposition IgeSignedDt APPLIED)** testimony in this State, the witness may be compelled to appear and testify in the same manner and by the same process used for taking testimony in a proceeding pending in this State. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 201.2; see also Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 20.002 (testimony required by foreign jurisdiction, stating same). On July 14, 2021, the Clerk of the Court for the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, issued a Commission to Take Deposition Outside California (the “Commission”). See Commission to Take Deposition Outside California, attached as Exhibit 2. The Commission siates that under California Code of Civil Procedure 2026.010, California authorizes that a commission to take an out-of-state deposition may be issued by the clerk of the court or, if the foreign jurisdiction requires it, by order of the court. See Ex. 2. The Coninission then states that the Superior Court of the State of California requests that process issue in Texas, “where the examination is to be held, requiring the attendance and enforcing the obligations of the depouent to produce documents and answer questions.” id. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 201 25 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 20,002 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, Mr. Perroni requests the issuance of a subpoena, attached as Exhibit 3, to cause Elaine Finstad to appear for deposition at the time and place named, to answer, under oath, the questions asked of them by Mr. Perroni’s counsel. Respectfully submitted, e Le a YELD s5e Batty Jewell, Yee. B 3 No. 24033546 “The Youngdahl Law Firm, P.C. 4203 Montrose Bivd., Ste. 280 Houston, Texas 77006-5427 Telephone: (281) 996-0750 Facsimile: (281) 996-0725 E-Mail: biewell@youngdahl.com Attorneys for Petitioner Samuel A. Perroni 33 Electronically FILED by iperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/14/2021 11:22 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by R. Perez,Deputy Clerk 21STCPO0108 Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: James Chalfant 2021-43156 / Court: 281 Dan L. Longo (SBN 105988) Suzanna R. Harman (SBN 300669) MURCHISON & CUMMING, LLP 801 South Grand Avenue, Ninth Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-4613 Telephone: (213) 623-7400 Facsimile: (213) 623-6336 E-Mail dlongo@murchisonlaw.com sharman@murchisonlaw.com Attorneys for Petitioner, Samuel A. Perroni SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 11 SAMUEL A. PERRONI, CASENO. 2157TCP00108 12 Petitioner, COMPLAINT FOR: 13 vs. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE; 14 ALEX VILLANUEVA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SHERIFF; THE COUNTY DECLARATORY RELIEF; AND 15 OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; and DOES INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 16 1 through 50, Inclusive, 17 Respondents. 18 19 20 COMES NOW, Petitioner, SAMUEL A. PERRONI, who for causes of action against 21 the Respondents, and each of them, including DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, complain 22 and allege as follows: 23 INTRODUCTION 24 This is a lawsuit to enforce the right to inspect public records pursuant to Article |, § 25 3, of the California Constitution and the California Public Records Act (hereinafter the 26 “CPRA’), Cal. Gov't Code § 6250 et seq. Petitioner, SAMUEL A. PERRONI (hereinafter 27 "Petitioner" or "Mr. Perroni") a book author and retired federal prosecutor and criminal- 28 defense attorney, requested in writing records from Respondent, THE COUNTY OF LOS 1 COMPLAINT ANGELES SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT (hereinafter “Respondent Sheriff's Department’) and its sheriff Respondent, ALEX VILLANUEVA (hereinafter “Respondent Villanueva’). Petitioner is writing a book on a matter of significant public interest, the November 1981 death of actress Natalie Wagner, a/k/a Natalie Wood. Petitioner requested records from Respondents regarding Respondent Sheriff's Department’s involvement in the investigation of Ms. Wood's death. Through his work, Petitioner seeks to inform the public about the circumstances of Ms. Wood’s death. Regrettably, Respondents have met Petitioner's requests for records with obstruction and delay. Respondents continue without lawful justification to withhold records that are subject to timely production under the 10 CPRA. Consequently, Petitioner seeks the Court’s intervention and an award of attorneys’ 11 fees and costs. 12 THE PARTIES 13 1 Petitioner Mr. Perroni is an author and a retired Arkansas trial lawyer. 14 Among other things, at all times relevant to this complaint and petition, Petitioner has been 15 engaged in the gathering and researching of public records, including information from 16 state and local California government agencies and departments, concerning the death of 17 Ms. Wood. 18 2 Respondent Sheriff's Department is the sheriff's department for Los Angeles 19 County, California, providing patrol services, courthouse security, housing and 20 transportation of inmates within the county jail system, and various other services such as 21 crime laboratories and homicide investigations. Respondent Sheriff's Department 22 maintains or controls the relevant records at issue in this lawsuit because it conducted a 23 homicide investigation into the 1981 death of Natalie Wagner a/k/a Natalie Wood. 24 Respondent Sheriff's Department is the legal custodian of the records at issue in this 25 lawsuit. Respondent Sheriff's Department maintains its primary place of business at 211 26 W. Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, is a legal resident of Los Angeles 27 County, California, and is amenable to service of process in Los Angeles County. 28 2 COMPLAINT 3. Respondent Villanueva is the Los Angeles County Sheriff and he is sued here in his official capacity only. 4 The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise of the defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are unknown to Petitioner who therefore sues said respondents by such fictitious names. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of these respondents fictitiously named herein as a DOE is legally responsible, negligent or in some other actionable manner liable for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and proximately and legally caused the damages to Petitioner as hereinafter alleged. Petitioner 10 will seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to insert the true names and/or 11 capacities of such fictitiously-named respondents when the same has been ascertained. 12 5. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times 13 mentioned herein, Respondents, and each of them, including DOES 1 through 50, 14 Inclusive, were the agents, servants, employees, and/or joint venturers of their co- 15 respondents, and were, as such, acting within the course, scope, and authority of said 16 agency, employment, and/or venture. 17 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 18 6. This Court has jurisdiction under Cal. Gov't Code § 6258 and Cal. Civ. Proc. 19 Code §§ 1060, 1085. 20 7 Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code § 6259 and Cal. 21 Civ. Proc. Code §§ 393, 394(a). 22 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 23 8. Respondent Sheriff's Department is an agency of the State of California, and 24 as such, is governed by the public disclosure requirements of Article |, § 3 of the California 25 Constitution and the CPRA, Cal. Gov't Code § 6250 et seq. 26 9. Respondent Villanueva is the Sheriff for Respondent Sheriff's Department. 27 The agency designated this position as a reasonable authority to receive and respond on 28 behalf of Respondent Sheriff's Department to requests for public records under the CPRA. 3 COMPLAINT 10. The involved parties have litigated before. Petitioner initiated a prior action in 2015 against the Respondent Sheriff's Department and the Medical Examiner's Office pursuant to the CPRA, seeking various records relating to the death of Ms. Wood. See Perroni v. Fajardo et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BS 159430. Petitioner - through both orders of this Court and settlement — prevailed in this action, receiving some records that the defendants in that case had failed to produce in response to CPRA requests. 11. On October 8, 2020, Petitioner submitted a new written CPRA request to Respondent Sheriff's Department seeking the disclosure of ten (10) categories of 10 additional public records. A true and correct copy of the written CPRA request is attached 11 to this Complaint as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. Specifically, the request sought 12 the disclosure of the following specific categories of public records related to the 1981 13 death of Natalie Wood Wagner: 14 a. First, copies of all records regarding Vidal Herrera’s statement to the Sheriff's 15 Department that is referenced at endnote 481 of Suzanne Finstad’s 16 republished book, Natalie Wood: The Complete Biography; 17 Second, copies of an 8"x11" divider file card for the Sheriff's Department’s 18 file regarding the death of Ms. Wood (identified by Detective Louis Danoff’s 19 August 17, 2020, declaration that was filed in Perroni v. Fajardo et al., 20 Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, 21 Central District; Case No. BS 159430) and any other records showing who 22 removed, checked out, or otherwise received access to this file; 23 Third, copies of Respondent Sheriff's Department's computer program 24 records regarding the Sheriff Department's file concerning the death of Ms. 25 Wood, including any records regarding the identity of persons or entities who 26 have removed, checked out, or otherwise received access to this file from the 27 library described by Detective Danoff in his August 17, 2020, declaration; 28 4 COMPLAINT Fourth, copies of all personnel records reflecting discipline, admonition, or demotion of Detective Danoff for the period November 1, 2000, through December 31, 2010; e. Fifth, copies of all records reflecting communications between Respondent Sheriff's Department (including but not limited to Deputy Ralph Hernandez and counsel for Respondent Sheriff Department) and Ms. Finstad for the period November 10, 2015, through October 8, 2020; Sixth, copies of all records reflecting communications between Respondent Sheriff's Department (including but not limited to Detective Danoff) and Ms. 10 Finstad for the period of November 1, 2000, through November 30, 2000; 11 Seventh, copies of all records reflecting communications between 12 Respondent Sheriff's Department (including but not limited to counsel for 13 Respondent Sheriff Department) and Detective Danoff for the period March 14 1, 2020, through October 8, 2020; 15 Eighth, copies of all personnel records reflecting discipline, admonition, or 16 demotion of Deputy Hernandez for the period January 1, 2016, through 17 October 8, 2020; 18 Ninth, copies of Respondent Sheriff's Department's file regarding the death 19 of Ms. Wood (also known as the “murder book” or “blue book”) as it existed in 20 November 2000 when Ms. Finstad claimed on pages 452 and 458-59 of her 21 book Natalie Wood: The Complete Biography that she received access to a 22 box or boxes consisting of the entire murder book for Ms. Wood; 23 Tenth, a copy of the Marilyn Wayne pink phone message that is referenced 24 in Ms. Finstad’s book. 25 See Ex. A. A check in the amount of $200.00 was enclosed to cover the cost of 26 production. 27 12. Notwithstanding the provisions of Cal Gov't Code § 6253(c), which requires 28 || an agency response to the request within ten (10) days of receipt, Petitioner did not hear 5 COMPLAINT back from Respondent Sheriff's Department until an October 28, 2020, twelve (12) days after Respondent Sheriff Department's receipt of Petitioner's written CPRA request. On that date, Petitioner received a response from Albert M. Maldonado, Captain, Risk Management Bureau of Respondent Sheriff's Department, stating that Respondent Sheriff's Department time limit for responding to Petitioner's CPRA request “is subject to an extension of up to fourteen (14) days under the following circumstances as defined in Government Code § 6253(c)(1): The need to search for, and collect, the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request, and the need to appropriately examine potentially voluminous 10 amounts of records.” A true and correct copy of Respondent Sheriff's Department 11 response is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B and incorporated herein. 12 13. The additional fourteen (14) days added to Respondent Sheriff's 13 Department’s deadline to respond to Petitioner's CPRA request through its October 28, 14 2020, exercise of the extension pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code § 6253(c)(1) has since 15 passed, and Respondent Sheriff's Department failed to respond timely as required by law. 16 14. Petitioner has received no further response from Respondent Sheriff's 17 Department and there has been no production of documents as requested in Petitioner's 18 CPRA request. 19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION — WRIT OF MANDATE 20 (By Petitioner, SAMUEL A. PERRONI 21 Against Respondents, and Each of Them) 22 15. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference the factual allegations set forth in 23 paragraphs 1 through 14. 24 16. The California Constitution, Art. 1, § 3(b)(1), declares that “[t]he people have 25 the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, 26 therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies 27 shall be open to public scrutiny.” 28 6 COMPLAINT 17. The CPRA provides, Cal. Gov't Code § 6253(a), that “[p]ublic records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided.” The CPRA further provides that each agency must respond “within 10 days.” /d. at § 6253(c). The CPRA further requires that “the head of the agency or their designee” may make extensions “in unusual circumstances,” but only by written notice to the person making the request, “setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched.” Id. The CPRA also limits extensions: “[n]o notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days.” /d. 10 18. Respondents Sheriff's Department and Villanueva violated the California 11 Constitution and Cal. Gov’t Code § 6253 because they unjustifiably: (1) failed to respond to 12 Petitioner's October 8, 2020, CPRA request within ten (10) days of its receipt of the 13 request; (2) when it did respond by exercising the fourteen (14) day-extension of its 14 response deadline (which had already passed), failed to set forth in its untimely response 15 the date on which a determination was expected to be dispatched; and (3) failed to 16 respond to the CPRA request within the fourteen (14) day-extended-response deadline. 17 19. Respondents Sheriff's Department’s and Villanueva’s violation of Cal. Gov't 18 Code § 6253 and the California Constitution through their unjustifiable failure to provide a 19 timely response to Petitioner's written CPRA request — even after their untimely exercise of 20 the fourteen (14) day-response deadline — constitute a waiver of Respondents’ ability to 21 claim exemptions for any of the ten requests for records presented to it by Petitioner in its 22 written October 8, 2020, CPRA request. 23 20. Further, in addition to the requirements of the CPRA and Respondents’ 24 waiver, a prior order from this Court compels Respondents Sheriff's Department and 25 Villanueva to produce the records requested in the first, ninth, and tenth categories of 26 documents requested by Petitioner. In the 2015 lawsuit referenced above, this Court ruled 27 that whatever portions of the 1981 Sheriff's Department file that author Suzanne Finstad 28 (or any other author or member of the public) had been given access to, the same records 7 COMPLAINT must be produced to Petitioner. As a result, the LACSD produced to Petitioner certain, 2 discrete portions of its file regarding Ms. Wood, but not the entire file. Earlier this year, 3 however, Ms. Finstad published a book claiming that, in 2000, she had been given access 4 to the items requested in the first, ninth, and tenth categories of documents, including the 5 || entire 1981 Sheriff's Department file, what she referred to as the Sheriff Department’s 6 “murder book.” See Finstad, Natalie Wood: The Complete Biography, at pp. 452, 458-59, 7 462. 8 21. Specifically, in that book, Ms. Finstad wrote as follows regarding being 9 provided access to the complete file: 10 Homicide detectives in the L.A. Sheriff's Department keep what they call a “murder book,” the official record of a homicide investigation. | was 11 given access to Natalie Wood’s murder book. There | found the buried clues as to what really happened on the last weekend of her life... . 12 Of all Natalie Wood's secrets that | held in 2001, that secret was the reason 13 for my urgency: | had come to realize the unimaginably horrible reason that she had drowned, and | needed to make public the dark and twisted facts of 14 her drowning and its aftermath. | had uncovered the facts using the Sheriff's murder book.... 15 At some point in our conversation, [Detective] Rasure mentioned the 16 possible existence of a murder book, the file of all the evidence in a homicide investigation, including a summary of the case, all interviews, 17 investigative reports, field and lab reports, photographs, and printouts. | needed to see Natalie Wood's murder book. 18 On atip from the genial Rasure, | dropped his name to an LAPD detective, 19 Louis Danoff, with the nickname “Sweet Lou,” and persuaded him to let me see the murder book for the Wood investigation, which did, in fact, 20 exist. Within a week, | met Sweet Lou at a Sheriff's Department office on the outs 's of downtown. My mother, who was in Los Angeles for 21 Thanksgiving, came along, a camera tucked into her purse. 22 Sweet Lou escorted both of us to a small spare room. Inside were a long table and several chairs. | set up my laptop on the table and Sweet Lou returned 23 with one or two boxes he identified as Natalie Wood’s murder book. Then he left the room and closed the door. 24 Uncertain how long | would have, what | was permitted to see, or whether | 25 could document it, | began to enter the contents of the murder book into my laptop as quickly as | could type. | asked my mother to take photographs. We 26 both kept an eye on the door, anxious that Sweet Lou might return with restrictions. Neither of us said anything. We both got the sense that we 27 were looking at something that was not meant to be seen. 28 || Id. (emphasis added). 8 COMPLAINT 22. Respondents Sheriff's Department and Villanueva have waived any applicable CPRA exemptions pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code § 6254.5 by these public disclosures of the Ms. Wood 1981 investigative file or “murder book.” This Court, at a hearing in the 2015 lawsuit, concluded as much during the following exchange: THE COURT: Look, | agree with you, you don’t. If there was any issue that what they are withholding is not — but you are specifically asking for photographs and witness interview summaries and yacht examinations and the Miller report. All of those, by definition, are investigatory records. So there is no point in me looking at the very things you have asked for. If you had asked for something else that might not be an investigatory record, that would be different, which is why | am saying they have to — the Coroner has to say anything they are withholding, what is it. It is investigatory record. Now if you want me to look at that and if you want me to look at the records the Coroner is withholding, | may do that. 10 MR. PERRONI: | understand, Judge. But here’s the state of the record. The 11 state of the record is that in 2000 and 2001 they allowed two authors to rummage through these files. 12 THE COURT: Did they? 13 MR. PERRONI: Okay. 14 THE COURT: Did they? I’m not aware that the authors were given the files to 15 rummage through. | am aware that they were given documents from the file. 16 MR. PERRONI: No. They were given access to the file. 17 THE COURT: If they were given the file to look through, the whole file is disclosable. 18 19 See September 27, 2016, Hearing Transcript, attached to this Complaint as Exhibit C and 20 incorporated herein, at pp. 33:26-34:25 (emphasis added). The Court, during this 21 September 2016 hearing, agreed that Petitioner was entitled to production of whatever 22 portions of the file to which a member of the public had been previously granted access. 23 The Court subsequently adopted its tentative rulings and orders, including the court’s legal 24 conclusions at the hearing and entered a judgment granting Petitioner's petition for a writ 25 of mandate in part, pursuant to established legal precedent and provisions of the Act 26 regarding selective access disclosure. See January 26, 2017, Judgment Re Petition for 27 Writ of Mandate, attached to this Complaint as Exhibit D and incorporated herein, at p. 2 28 9 COMPLAINT and §§6253 and 6254.5, supra. The Court's legal conclusions on selective disclosure are now res judicata and operate as a conclusive adjudication in this action. 23. By their failure to provide timely compliance with the CPRA as well as their continuing failure to provide documents responsive to any of the categories of documents listed in Exhibit A attached hereto, Respondents have violated this Court’s prior order as well as the California Constitution, Art. |, § 3, and the CPRA, Cal. Gov't Code § 6250 et seq., and thereby caused Petitioner to obtain legal counsel to obtain the desired relief. 24. As a result of the aforementioned conduct, Petitioner requests issue of a writ of mandate directing Respondents to comply fully and without further delay with the 10 California Public Records Act and to furnish to Petitioner all public documents meeting the 11 descriptions in his ten requests set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. 12 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION — DECLARATORY RELIEF 13 (Petitioner, SAMUEL A. PERRONI 14 Against Respondents, and Each of Them) 15 25. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference the factual allegations set forth in 16 paragraphs 1 through 24, inclusive, above, as though fully set forth herein. 17 26. An actual future controversy exists between the parties hereto relating to 18 their rights, duties, and liabilities. 19 27. Petitioner contends that Respondents have violated Petitioner's rights under 20 the California Constitution, Art. |, § 3, and under Cal. Gov't Code § 6250 et seq,., by failing 21 to produce the requested documents and accordingly, judicial determination of these 22 issues and of the respective duties of Petitioner and Respondents is necessary and 23 appropriate at this time under the circumstances. 24 28. As a result of the aforementioned conduct, Petitioner seeks a declaration 25 from the Court that Respondents have violated Petitioner's rights under the California 26 Constitution, Art. |, § 3, and under Cal. Gov’t Code § 6250 et seq. by failing to produce the 27 requested documents, Respondents have waived any applicable CPRA exemptions 28 pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code § 6254.5 by the aforementioned public disclosures, Petitioner 10 COMPLAINT is entitled to production of those portions of the file to which a member of the public had been previously granted access, and Petitioner is entitled to judgment for costs and expenses in bringing the instant action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Petitioner is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that Respondents, and each of them, contend to the contrary. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Petitioner, SAMUEL A. PERRONI Against Respondents, and Each of Them) 29. Petitioner incorporates herein by reference the factual allegations set forth in 10 paragraphs 1 through 28, inclusive, above, as though fully set forth herein. 11 30. Petitioner is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Respondents' 12 delay in complying with their obligations under the CPRA was without substantial 13 justification. Accordingly, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, §3367, Petitioner seeks an 14 injunction from the Court directing Respondents to waive all fees associated with 15 Petitioner's requests. 16 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 17 WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court: 18 1 Issue a writ of mandate directing Respondents to comply fully and without 19 further delay with the California Public Records Act and to furnish to Petitioner all public 20 documents meeting the descriptions in his ten requests set forth in Exhibit A attached 21 hereto; 22 2 In the alternative, issue an Order to Respondents to show cause why the 23 Court should not issue such a writ and thereafter issue a peremptory writ compelling 24 Respondents to perform their public duty as set forth above; 25 3. Declare that Respondents have violated Petitioner’s rights under the 26 California Constitution, Art. |, § 3, and under Cal. Gov't Code § 6250 et seq., by failing to 27 produce the requested documents; 28 11 COMPLAINT 4 Enter an injunction directing that, because Respondents' delay in complying with their obligations under the CPRA was without substantial justification, Respondents must waive all fees associated with Petitioner's requests; 5. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as authorized by Cal. Gov't Code 1 § 6259, and; 6. Order such additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: January13, 2021 MURCHISON & CUMMING, LLP /s/ Suzanna R. Harman By: 10 Dan L. Longo 11 Suzanna R. Harman Attorneys for Petitioner, Samuel A. Perroni 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 COMPLAINT EXHIBIT "A" BARNES & THORNBURG we 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2904 U.S.A. B10) 284-3880 Fax (310) 284-3894 www.btlaw.com Garrett §. Llewellyn: Of Counsel (310) 284-3876 gllewellyn@btlaw.com October 8, 2020 Daniel P. Barer, Esq. Pollak, Vida & Barer 11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90064 daniel(@pollakvida. com Sheriff's Services Division Sheriff's Department, County of Los Angeles 211 W. Temple Street, First Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 wrarequesis@lasd.org VIA E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL Re Sam Perroni California Public Records Request For Records Dear Mr. Barer and Sheriffs Services Division: As you know from my May 23, 2020, letter, our law firm represents Sam Perroni regarding his public-records requests. In view of the ruling made by Judge Chalfant at our September 1, 2020, hearing, I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. Perroni to make new requests for public records under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). First, we request copies of all records regarding Vidal Herrera’s statement to the Sheriff's Department that is referenced at endnote 481 of Suzanne Finstad’s republished book, Natalie Wood: The Complete Biography. Specifically, at endnote 481, Ms. Finstad referenced receiving a 2017 “Vidal Herrera statement to L.A. Sheriffs Department.” Second, Detective Louis Danoff’s August 17, 2020, declaration that was filed in Perroni v. Fajardo et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District, Case No. BS 159430, states this: “An ABC, 3x5" card system was set up wherein each case entered into the Library was given a Library Number based upon the first letter of the name used to identify the case and followed by the number indicating when it was logged into the system — Example (A-200). If a case was removed from the Library, the Investigator requesting the case would fill out an 8"x11" divider file card with the Library Number requested, date requested, and Atlanta Californie Chie siaware indiana Michigan Minnespolis New York Ghia Raleigh Salt Lake City Texas Weshington, D.C October 8, 2020 Page 2 the name of the requestor.” This card was then placed in the space from which the file was removed and would be removed when the file was returned.” Pursuant to the CPRA, we request copies of this divider file card for the Sheriff Department’s file regarding the death of Natalie Wood and any other records showing who removed, checked out, or otherwise received access to this file. Third, Detective Danoff’s declaration further states that this card system was updated “into a simple computer program” around 1990. Later in his declaration, Detective Danoff states that, around 2001, “Homicide Bureau was in the midst of converting their reporting system to an improved computerized system.” Pursuant to the CPRA, we request copies of all such computer program records regarding the Sheriff Department’s file concerning the death of Natalie Wood, including any records regarding the identity of persons or entities who have removed, checked out, or otherwise received access to this file from the library described by Detective Danoff. To the extent that there is a separate file for the 2011 investigation into the death of Ms. Wood, we may this request for both the original file and the file regarding the 2011 investigation. Fourth, Ms. Finstad’s book indicates that Detective Danoff gave her access to the Sheriff Department’s file regarding the death of Ms. Wood in November 2000. Detective Danoff’s declaration indicates that he last worked for the Sheriff's Department in 2010. Pursuant to the CPRA, we request copies of all personnel records reflecting discipline, admonition, or demotion of Detective Danoff for the period November 1, 2000, through December 31, 2010. Fifth, in Perroni v. Fajardo et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District, Case No. BS 159430, respondents filed a July 15, 2016, declaration from Deputy Sheriff Ralph Hernandez. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of that declaration, Deputy Hernandez identified certain documents that the Sheriff's Department provided to Ms. Finstad and members of the public. In the subsequent November 8, 2016, deposition of Deputy Hernandez, he testified regarding his communications with Ms. Finstad. Pursuant to the CPRA, we request all records reflecting communications between the Sheriff's Department (including but not limited to Deputy Hernandez and counsel for the Sheriff's Department) and Ms. Finstad for the period November 10, 2015, through today. Sixth, as discussed above, Ms. Finstad has written that Detective Danoff gave her access to the Sheriff Department’s file regarding the death of Ms. Wood in November 2000. Pursuant to the CPRA, we request all records reflecting communications between the Sheriff's Department (including but not limited to Detective Danoff) and Ms. Finstad for the period November 1, 2000, through November 30, 2000. Seventh, Mr. Perroni contacted Mr. Barer in March 2020 requesting supplemental documents. Detective Danoff’s declaration states that he has not worked for the Sheriff's Department since March 2020. Pursuant to the CPRA, we request all records reflecting communications between the Sheriff's Department (including but not limited to counsel for the Sheriffs Department) and Detective Danoff for the period March 1, 2020, through today. BARNES & THORNBURG uw October 8, 2020 Page 3 Eighth, pursuant to the CPRA, we request copies of all personnel records reflecting discipline, admonition, or demotion of Deputy Hernandez for the period January 1, 2016, through today. Ninth, pursuant to the CPRA, we request copies of the Sheriff's Department file regarding the death of Ms. Wood (also known as the “murder book” or “blue book”) as it existed in November 2000 when Ms. Finstad claims that she received access to a box or boxes consisting of the entire murder book for Ms. Wood. As I wrote to your previously, Ms. Finstad’s updated book provides: Homicide detectives in the L.A. Sheriff's Department keep what they call a “murder book,” the official record of a homicide investigation. I was given access to Natalie Wood’s murder book. There I found the buried clues as to what really happened on the last weekend of her life. Of all Natalie Wood’s secrets that I held in 2001, shat secret was the reason for my urgency: I had come to realize the unimaginably horrible reason that she had drowned, and I needed to make public the dark and twisted facts of her drowning and its aftermath. I had uncovered the facts using the Sheriff's murder book.... At some point in our conversation, [Detective] Rasure mentioned the possible existence of a murder book, the file of all the evidence in a homicide investigation, including a summary of the case, all interviews, investigative reports, field and lab reports, photographs, and printouts. I needed to see Natalie Wood’s murder book On a tip from the genial Rasure, I dropped his name to an LAPD detective, Louis Danoff, with the nickname “Sweet Lou,” and persuaded him to let me see the murder book for the Wood investigation, which did, in fact, exist. Within a week, I met Sweet Lou at a Sheriff's Department office on the outskirts of downtown. My mother, who was in Los Angeles for Thanksgiving, came along, a camera tucked into her purse. Sweet Lou escorted both of us to a small spare room. Inside were a long table and several chairs. I set up my laptop on the table and Sweet Lou returned with one or two boxes he identified as Natalie Wood’s murder book. Then he left the room and closed the door. Uncertain how long I would have, what I was permitted to see, or whether I could document it, I began to enter the contents of the murder book into my laptop as quickly as I could type. I asked my mother to take photographs. We both kept an eye on the door, anxious that Sweet Lou might return with restrictions. Neither of us said anything. We both got the sense that we were looking at something that was not meant to be seen. Finstad, Natalie Wood: The Complete Biography, at pp. 452, 458-59. BARNES & THORNBURG uw October 8, 2020 Page 4 Ms. Finstad’s account makes clear that she and her mother were given access to more than the scant documents identified by Deputy Sheriff Hernandez. Detective Danoff gave Ms. Finstad and her mother one or two boxes that contained the “murder book” regarding the investigation into Ms. Wood’s death. What was in this murder book? Ms. Finstad recalls that the murder book included “the file of all the evidence in a homicide investigation, including a summary of the case, all interviews, investigative reports, field and lab reports, photographs, and printouts.” Based on this information from Ms. Finstad, the Sheriff's Department provided to Ms. Finstad documents beyond what was identified in Deputy Sheriff Hernandez’s testimony. The Sheriffs “Department waived any CPRA exemptions by the public disclosure of the Natalie Wood” murder book to Ms. Finstad and her mother, to borrow the language from Judge Chalfant’s October 2016 order. This disclosure was intentional and not accidental. Accordingly, we request that the Sheriff's Department supplement its earlier production and provide to Mr. Perroni the entire box or boxes consisting of the murder book as it existed in November 2000 regarding the death of Ms. Wood. To be clear, on behalf of Mr. Perroni, and pursuant to the CPRA, we are hereby requesting a copy of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department file pertaining to the investigation of the death of Ms. Wood as it would have been provided to Ms. Finstad Tenth, pursuant to the CPRA, and to the extent not covered by the above request, we request a copy of the Marilyn Wayne pink phone message that is referenced in Ms. Finstad’s book. This CPRA request does not include any of the records that have already been produced to Mr. Perroni in his lawsuit. Tam enclosing a check for $200.00 to cover the cost of production. If the enclosed sum is not adequate to cover the costs, please let me know and I will send the balance. I request advance notice if you contend that the costs will exceed $500.00. Please also note that I provided a check for $200.00 with my May 23, 2020, letter. As no documents have been produced in response to that letter, please return or refund that check for $200.00 Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Ilook forward to Mr. Perroni receiving the requested documents in a timely manner. Regards, Lull Garrett S. Llewellyn BARNES & THORNBURG uw TH S SOY NS & RAO RAR NE S RAQAAAGWW BARNES & THORNBURG LLP Fifth Third Bank CHECK NO. 11 South Meridian Sereet WIS indianapolis, INDIANS 524221 Indianapolis, IN 46264-3935 SEAN Tt BSS/7 48, CHECK DATE 10-09-2020 CHECK AROUNT S 200 Ouseee c “ Lo TWO HUNORED AND 00/400 Dollars” PAY Sheriff's Department, County of Los Angeles 4 ae f “ Sheriff's Services Division ORDER OF niin mmm 241 W. Temple Street, First Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 wei bd bi® HO PLAORSULE FRS3520 7060" EXHIBIT "B" o- PB OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF KEE Country or Los ANGELES