HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 DESTRUCTION FILES 07-15-96 LAW OFFICES OF
WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMARL
A PROFESSIONAL CORPOEATION
MEMORANDUM
TO'
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Tustin
FROM:
City Attorney
DATE:
jUly 9, 1996
RE:
Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Destruction of
Certain Litigation Files
NO. 10
7-15-96
Recommendation:
ADOPT THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF
CERTAIN.LITIGATION FILES
Background:
Pursuant to specified provisions of the Government Code, the City Council may
authorize the destruction of certain records, without retaining a copy thereof, when those
records have been retained for a minimum of two years. Exhibit "A" to the enclosed
Resolution lists certain litigation files which have accumulated at the City Attorney's office.
These files are inactive and have been retained for a minimum of two years. In my opinion,
there is no particular City interest served in preserving these files, and accordingly by this
staff report, I hereby consent to the destruction of the files. Ultimately, the decision to
destroy records rest with the City Council, and accordingly, this Resolution is presented to
you for your consideration. If, for example, you wish to preserve some of the records on
the attached list, they can be deleted from Exhibit "A". Also, if it was the City Council's
desire that we simply retain these files indefinitely, that could be done as well. It should be
pointed out that the City does retain records on all of this litigation, through its monitoring
and oversight of the litigation. What probably is not already contained within City files, are
depositions discovery responses, and legal research memoranda. However, all reports to
the City on the status of each case and in most instances,, a claims file (where the matter
originated from a claim) are still retained at the City. Accordingly, the files listed in Exhibit
"A" contain quite a bit of information that is duplicative of what is already retained at the
City.
If any Councilmember has any questions about this, I would be happy to respond.
LO'I'S E. JEFF~JE~ D
Attachment
cc: William A. Huston, City Manager
1100-00012
32177_1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 82
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION
OF CERTAIN RECORDS
The City' Council of the City of Tustin hereby resolves as
follows:
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 34090 authorizes the head of
a city department to destroy any city record, document, instrument,
book or paper, under his or her charge, without making a copy
thereof, except for records affecting title to real property or liens
thereon, court records, records less than two years old, records
required to be kept by statute or ordinance, or resolutions of the
city council or other city boards or commissions, by resolution and
the written consent of the city attorney; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, upon request of the City Attorney of
the City of Tustin, desires to approve immediate destruction of
certain closed litigation records, documents or papers as listed
below; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney has filed her written consent with
the Clerk of the Council of the City of Tustin and a copy of such
consent is attached hereto;
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City
of Tustin, California, hereby approves the immediate destruction of
the records, documents and papers described below which, as of this
date, have been retained for a,minimum of two (2) years:
(See Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and by this reference,
incorporated herein.)'
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting' of the City Council of
the City of Tustin on the day of , 1996.
TRACY WILLS WORLEY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
PAMELA STOKER
CITY CLERK
MEMORANDUM
TO: LEJ
FROM: DEB
DATE: June 18, 1996
RE:
LIST OF FILES TO CLOSE FOR CITY OF TUSTIN
Pursuant to your request please find listed below the list of files so you can present
them to the City Council for approval of their destruction.
Almond v. Tustin
Anderson v. Tustin
Asher v. Tustin
Balderas v. Tustin
Barragan v. Tustin
Bauer v. Tustin
Beals v. Tustin
Bente v. Tustin
Bernhart v. Tustin
Bloom v. Tustin
Boral Resources v. Tustin
Devon G. Bowman v. Tustin
Boyko v. Tustin
Bragg v. Tustin
Cameron v. Tustin
Certainteed v. Tustin
Collier v. Tustin
Collins v. Tustin
Coykendall v. Tustin
Day v. Tustin
Heirs of James De La Riva v. Tustin
Eckenrod v. Tustin
Gordon & Leslie Eckerling v. Tustin
Exxon v. Tustin
FSLIC (Farmers) v. Tustin
Ferchland v. Tustin
Donald Fife v. Tustin
Fontaine v. Tustin
Foothill Comm. Assoc. v. Tustin
Geosoils v. Tustin
Kimberly Gundersen v. Tustin
Hamblin v. Tustin
Hampson v. Tustin
Larry Head v. Tustin
Louise Hoesarich v. Tustin
Kenko v. Tustin
Klemet v. Tustin
Larkin/Bryan v. Tustin
Howard Lear v. Tustin
Kenneth Lee v. Tustin
Levine v. Tustin
Shirley Lewis v. Tustin
Helen Lindgren v. Tustin
Maria Lopez v. Tustin
Alex Martinez v. Tustin
McKenzie v. Tustin
Katherine Moore v. Tustin
Murphy v. Tustin
Nakahara v. Tustin
Nguyen v. Tustin
Moira Niehaus v. Tustin
Gertrude Page v. Tustin
Richard D. Page v. Tustin
Parkman v. Tustin
R.D. Olson Construction v. Tustin
Doris Reese/Lopez v. Tustin
Edward Rex v. Tustin
Heirs of Paquita Said v. Tustin
Singletary v. Tustin
EXHIBIT "A"
LEJ
June 18, 1996
Page 2
Dean Smith v. Tustin
State of California v. Tustin
Sullivan v. Tustin
Sully Miller v. Tustin
Tomlin v. Tustin
Torres v. Tustin
Transmix v. Tustin
Trench Corp. v. Tustin
Tustin Hills Environmental v. Tustin
UPS v. Tustin
Underground Sharing Spec. v. Tustin
Universal v. Tustin
Sondra Berry Young v. Tustin
Wyman v. Tustin
Zambrano v. Tustin