Agenda packet — Poway City Council, November 4, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

AG EN DA Poway City Council
Counci l Cham be r I 13325 Civic Cent er Drive I Poway , CA I 9206 4 November 4, 2025 I 7 p.m.

Thank you for participating in your local government and the City of Poway Council meetings.

Meetings I Regular City Council meetings are held on the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, CA 92064. The Council Chamber will be open to the public.

Public Meeting Access I Members of the public may attend the City Council meeting in person, or watch the City Council meeting live online. Regular City Council meetings are broadcast live on Cox Communication Channel 24 and Spectrum Channel 19. Council meeting videos are archived and available for viewing on the City's website.

Speakers I Persons wishing to address the Council on matters not on the agenda may do so under Public Comment. Those wishing to speak on items on the agenda may do so when the item is being considered. Please submit a Speaker's Slip to the City Clerk prior to the meeting or the announcement of the item. All comments will be limited to three (3) minutes. Per the Poway Municipal Code, the speaking time may be reduced.

To Watch Live:
www.poway.org/councilmeetings
Agenda Materials I This agenda contains a brief summary of each item the Council will consider.

The Agenda and Agenda Packet is posted seven (7) days prior to regular City Council meetings and are available for viewing on the City's website at www.poway.org. Sign up at https://poway.org/list.aspx to receive email notifications when City Council agendas are published on line. Items listed on the agenda with a "#" symbol are in preparation.

PLEASE NOTE: Written comments received via email before 3:00 p.m. the day prior to the meeting will be distributed as formal additional material as well as be made available online prior to the City Council meeting. Written comments received after this deadline will be forwarded to the Council, but not available online until after the City Council meeting.

American Disabilities Act Title II I In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons with a disability may request an agenda in appropriate alternative formats as required by Title II. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk's office 858-668-4530 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

Steve Vaus
Mayor
Peter De Hoff
Deputy Mayor
Tony Blain
Councilmember
Jenny Maeda
Councilmember
Christopher J. Pikus
Councilmember
Reminder I As a courtesy to all attendees, please silence all electronic devices and engage in conversations outside the Council Chambers.

The City Council also sits as the City of Poway Planning Commission, Poway Housing Authority, Public Financing Authority and Successor Agency to the Poway Redevelopment Agency CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

MOMENT OF SILENCE:

PRESENTATION: None
PUBLIC COMMENT: In accordance with State law, an item not scheduled on the agenda may be brought forward by the general public for comment; however, the City Council will not be able to discuss or take action on any issue not included on the agenda. You may speak up to three (3) minutes.

Per the Poway Municipal Code, the speaking time may be reduced. Speakers have one opportunity to address the Council under Public Comment.

CONSENT CALENDAR: The Consent Calendar may be enacted in one motion by the Counci l with a Roll Call Vote without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City Manager requests that an item be removed for discussion .

1. Approval of Reading by Title Only and Waiver of Reading in Full of Ordinances on this Agenda

2. Approval of the August 5, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes

3. Authorization to Purchase One (1) Medium-Duty Cab and Chassis with Utility Body and One (1) Light-Duty Pickup Truck and Appropriation of Funds

4. Acceptance of Booster Pump Replacement; Bid No. 25-003 with Blue Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc., as Complete

5. Acceptance of the Neighborhood Sidewalks Garden Road Project with HSCC, Inc., as Complete

6. Amendment to Legal Services Agreement with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:

7. Minor Conditional Use Permit 25-0003 and Minor Development Review 25-0009, a Request for a New Outdoor Sales and Display Area at the Vacant Lot at 12664 Poway Road for Tractor Supply Company, zoned Commercial Office, within the Poway Road Specific Plan (APN 317-490-83) 2 of 3 Regular City Council Meeting November 4, 2025
City Manager's Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council take public input, close the public hearing, and adopt the Resolution approving Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) 25- 0003 and MDRA 25-0009 and make the determination the project does not require additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15332 (Infill Development Projects).

STAFF REPORTS: None
WORKSHOPS: None
COUNCIL -INITIATED ITEMS: None
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS and ANNOUNCEMENTS: Pursuant to AB1234 - (G.C. 53232(d)) CITY MANAGER ITEMS:

CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS: (Includin g any public report of any action taken in closed session) CLOSED SESSION: None
ADIOURNMENT:

State of California
County of San Diego
)
) 55.
)

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Carrie Gallagher, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Poway, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that this notice of a Regular meeting as called by the City Council of the City of Poway was posted and provided on October 28, 2025.

Said meeting to be held at 7:00 p.m., November 4, 2025, in the Poway City Council Chambers, 13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, California. Said notice was posted on the Bulletin Board at the entrance to City Hall.

VUAW~ Carrie Gallagher,CMC,CityC/ rk
3 of 3 Regular City Council Meeting November 4, 2025
1 of 7
November 4, 2025, Item #2
AG EN DA REPORT City of Poway
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

November 4, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk vC..1}--
(858) 668-4535 or [email protected]

CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Approval of the August 5, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Summary
The City Council Meeting Minutes submitted hereto for approval are:
• August 5, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
The Poway City Council sits as the Poway Planning Commission, the Poway Housing Authority, the Public Financing Authority, and the Successor Agency to the Poway Redevelopment Agency.

Recommended Action:

It is recommended the City Council approve the August 5, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes.

Public Notification:

None.

Attachments:

A. August 5, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
Reviewed/Approved By:

Assistant City Manager
Reviewed By:

Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
/

CITY OF POWAY

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

MINUTES
August 5, 2025
City Council Chambers
13325 Civic Center Drive, Poway, California
(Per Government Code 54953)
(Meeting Called to Order as City Council/City of Poway Planning Commission/Poway Housing Authority/Public Financing Authority and Successor Agency to the Poway Redevelopment Agency) CALL TO ORDER:

Deputy May
or De Hoff called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Present:

Tony Blain, Jenny Maeda, Christopher J. Pikus, Peter De Hoff, Steve Vaus (via teleconference)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

City M
anager Chris Hazeltine; City Attorney Alan Fenstermacher; City Clerk Carrie Gallagher; Director of Development Services Julie Procopio; Director of Public Works Eric Heidemann; Fire Chief Brian Mitchell; Captain Claudia Delgado, San Diego County Sheriff’s Office. (Note: Hereinafter the titles Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Councilmember, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk shall be used to indicate Mayor/Chair, Deputy Mayor/Vice Chair, Councilmember/Director, City Manager/Executive Director, City Attorney/Counsel and City Clerk/Secretary.)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

Council
member Maeda led the Pledge of Allegiance.

MOMENT OF SILENCE:

Deputy May
or De Hoff led a moment of silence.

PRESENTATIONS:

None.

PUBL
IC COMMENT:

Ray Jal
isi urged the City to require remedial actions for the contractors of The Farm development prior to the project’s completion.

Councilmember Blain exited the dais at 7:05 p.m. in violation of Poway Municipal Code 2.18.190. 2 of 7
November 4, 2025, Item #2

ATTACHMENT A
City of Poway – Minutes – August 5, 2025

Anita Edmondson spoke regarding Councilmember Blain’s failure to fulfill his duties as an elected official and provided examples of his contradictory statements and actions.

John Mullin provided an update on the Recall Tony Blain campaign.

Councilmember Blain returned to the dais at 7:11 p.m.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

Motioned by Mayor Vaus seconded by Councilmember Pikus to approve Consent Calendar Items 1 through 10. Motion carried 5/0 by the following roll-call vote:

Ayes: Blain, Maeda, Pikus, De Hoff, Vaus
Noes: None
Abstained: None

Absent: None
Disqualified: None

1. Approval of Reading by Title Only and Waiver of Reading in Full of Ordinances on this Agenda

2. Approval of the May 6, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes

3. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 875 entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Poway, California, Amending the Old Poway Specific Plan (OPSP) to Establish a Music Overlay District (MOD) for Limited Indoor and Outdoor Music for Businesses Located within the Southerly Commercial General (CG) Zone”

Greg Payne spoke in support of Item #3.

Mark Claussen spoke in support of Item #3.

4. Resolution No. 25-036 Approving The Six-Year Update to the Sewer System Management Plan

5. Award of Agreement to GHD, Inc. for the Design Services of Emergency Water Interconnection No. 2, RFP No. 25-016

6. Acceptance of the Pool Circulation Pump Replacement Project with Horizon Mechanical Contractors of California, as Complete

7. Rejection of Received Bid for the Fiscal Year 2025 Poway Center for the Performing Arts Maintenance Project, Bid No. 25-009, and Direction for Staff to Re-Scope and Re-Advertise the Project

8. Hazardous Mitigation Grant Program Updates: Resolution No. 25-037 Approving Funding Acceptance and Award of Contracts for Hazardous Tree Removal Services

Terry Heck spoke in support of Item #8.

Michael Yee spoke in support of Item #8.

3 of 7
November 4, 2025, Item #2
City of Poway – Minutes – August 5, 2025

9. Authorization to Purchase Two (2) 2026 North Star 174-1 Paramedic Ambulances Utilizing Houston-Galveston Area Council Cooperative Purchasing Program Contract #AM10-23

10. Acceptance of the Chiller Replacement Project with ACCO Engineered Systems Inc. dba ACCO Engineered Systems, as Complete

ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION:

None.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

11. 2024 Weed and Nuisance Abatement Charges to be Collected on the County of San Diego Tax Assessor’s Roll for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26

Deputy Mayor De Hoff opened the Public Hearing at 7:19 p.m.

Senior Code Compliance Officer Vianey Rivera presented the item. Ms. Rivera described the Weed Abatement Program and explained Council action will allow the cost of the abatement to be placed on next year's Tax Roll. She added the City sent out 224 notices to private property owners and performed weed abatement on 23 of those properties. She noted 14 of the properties have paid their invoices therefore nine properties will have the abatement costs added to their property tax bill for next year.

Ms. Rivera explained the assessment includes the cost of the abatement work plus a $175 administrative fee according to the City’s Master Fee Schedule. She added the work is to be completed by a City contractor and will be placed on the County tax rolls for collection.

Ms. Rivera noted the property listed as APN 314111900 was inadvertently included on the proposed Resolution. Staff is recommending the property be removed from the Resolution and not be included on the Property Tax Roll for FY 2025-26.

Public Comment:

None.

End of Public Comment.

Deputy Mayor De Hoff closed the Public Hearing at 7:23 p.m.

Motioned by Councilmember Pikus, seconded by Councilmember Maeda to adopt Resolution No. 25-038
entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of t he City of Poway, California, Approving the 2024 Weed and Nuisance Abatement Charges to be Collected on the County of San Diego Tax Assessor’s Roll for Fiscal Year 2025-2026,” and to amend Resolution No. 25-038 to remove APN 314111900 from the list of properties to be assessed. Motion carried 5/0 by the following roll-call vote:

Ayes: Blain, Maeda, Pikus, De Hoff, Vaus
Noes: None
Abstained: None

Absent: None
Disqualified: None
4 of 7
November 4, 2025, Item #2
City of Poway – Minutes – August 5, 2025

STAFF REPORTS:

12. Accepting Certificate of Sufficiency; Calling, Ordering, and Giving Notice of a Special Municipal Election for the Submission of the Question of the Recall of a Certain Officer and Requesting the City Council of the City of Poway Direct the San Diego County Registrar of Voters to Render Services to the City Relating to the Conduct of a Special Municipal Election

City Clerk Carrie Gallagher presented the item. She reported the San Diego County Registrar of Voters (ROV) certified the sufficiency of signatures submitted in support of a recall petition for District 2 Councilmember Anthony (Tony) Blain.

She provided background, stating that a Notice of Intention to Circulate a Recall Petition was filed with the City Clerk’s Office (CCO) on March 19, 2025. On April 17, 2025, the City Clerk determined the Petition for Recall form met the statutory requirements and was approved for circulation. On July 16, 2025, proponents submitted the signed petition, which was determined by the CCO to meet the minimum signature requirement under California Elections Code.

ROV representatives were present at the time the petition was submitted, and following the CCO staff determination, took possession of the petition to complete signature verification.

On July 30, 2025, the ROV issued a Certificate of Sufficiency and returned the findings to the CCO. Both the petition proponents and Councilmember Blain were notified of the results.

Pursuant to Elections Code §11224, the certificate must be submitted to the City Council at its next regular meeting. Following receipt, Elections Code §11240 requires the Council to issue an order calling for a special recall election. The election must be held not less than 88 nor more than 125 days from the date of the order.

Ms. Gallagher noted staff initially recommended November 18, 2025, as the date for the special election. However, following a potential statewide special election announced by the Governor for November 4, 2025, staff, in consultation with the ROV, now recommends aligning the City’s recall election with the statewide election for potential cost savings. If approved, the resolution will be revised to reflect the updated election date.

Public Comment:

The following individuals spoke in support of Item #12:

Joe St. Lucas spoke regarding election costs.

In response to public comment, City Attorney Fenstermacher clarified that, under California Elections Code, once a recall petition has been submitted and verified as sufficient, the governing body is legally required to call a special election. This action is ministerial and not discretionary.

End of Public Comment.

Councilmember Blain spoke directly to the recall process, explaining his motivations for running for office while discussing his District 2 campaign platform. He stated he respects the democratic process and described his plans to actively engage with voters who would be participating in the upcoming recall election.

5 of 7
November 4, 2025, Item #2
City of Poway – Minutes – August 5, 2025

Responding to statements made by Councilmember Blain, City Attorney Fenstermacher provided a procedural clarification, reminding the Council and public that the agenda item pertains solely to the ministerial duty of calling a special election. He advised commentary resembling campaign statements is not appropriate under state law within the item’s scope.

Council discussion ensued. Council acknowledged the voters of District 2 had clearly expressed their will through the petition process. Council characterized the recall process as a fundamental expression of democracy, emphasizing that individual opinions regarding the merits of the recall are secondary to the established process and voter action. Council noted the recall effort remained focused on Councilmember Blain’s conduct and its implications and highlighted the large number of signatures gathered and exceptional verification rate as indicative of strong community engagement. Council expressed support for staff’s recommendation to align the special election with the anticipated statewide election on November 4, 2025, citing potential benefits for all stakeholders.

Motioned by Mayor Vaus, seconded by Councilmember Pikus to: 1) adopt Resolution No. 25-039 entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Poway, California, Accepting the Certification of the San Diego County Registrar of Voters as to the Sufficiency of Signatures on the Petition to Recall District 2 Councilmember Anthony (Tony) Blain,” in accordance with the requirements of California Elections Code §§11227 and 11240; 2) adopt Resolution No. 25-040 entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Poway, California, Calling, Ordering, and Giving Notice of the Holding of a Special Municipal Election to be Held in District 2 of the City of Poway on Tuesday, November 18, 2025 for the Submission of the Question of the Recall of a Certain Officer; and Requesting the City Council Direct the San Diego County Registrar of Voters to Render Services to the City Relating to the Conduct of a Special Municipal Election,” and to amend Resolution 25-040 to have the City Council call and order the Special Municipal Election for November 4, 2025; and, 3) authorize the appropriation of up to $305,000 to the City Clerk’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Election Services budget to cover the San Diego ROV costs associated with administering the special election, as well as other ancillary costs including noticing and translations required by California Elections Code. Motion carried 4/0/1 by the following vote:

Ayes: Maeda, Pikus, De Hoff, Vaus
Noes: None
Abstained: Blain

Absent: None
Disqualified: None

WORKSHOPS:

None.

COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS:

None.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS and ANNOUNCEMENTS: Pursuant to AB1234 - (G.C. 53232(d))

Councilmember Blain discussed the upcoming recall election.

6 of 7
November 4, 2025, Item #2
City of Poway – Minutes – August 5, 2025

Councilmember Maeda provided a brief update on the San Dieguito Riverpark JPA, reporting the City of San Diego is considering terminating an open space easement on City -owned land adjacent to the trail. The proposed action would adversely impact 616 acres of riparian upland habitat. The JPA Board unanimously voted to oppose the termination.

Councilmember Pikus discussed upcoming local workshops and events noting the Wildfire Safety and Evacuation Awareness workshops taking place on August 6, and August 9, 2025, in Council Chambers. The workshops will cover best practices for home hardening and creating defensible space, and what to do before, during and after an evacuation. Additionally Old Poway Park will host the Volunteer Appreciation Dinner on Thursday, August 14, 2025, and lastly, the Poway Community Foundation is hosting the Brews & Boots – Sip, Savor and Support Poway Non- Profits! event on Sunday, August 17, 2025 at Old Poway Park.

CITY MANAGER ITEMS:

None.

CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS: (Including any public report of any action taken in closed session)

None.

CLOSED SESSION:

None.

ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m.

__________________________________
Carrie Gallagher, CMC
City Clerk
City of Poway, California

7 of 7
November 4, 2025, Item #2
November 4, 2025, Item #3
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

CONTACT:

SUBJECT:

Summary:

AG EN DA REPORT City of Poway
November 4, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City C~'{ncil
Eric Heidemann, Director of Public Works { r"

CITY COUNCIL
Stephen Jackson, Assistant Director of Public Works for Maintenance Operations (858) 668-4705 or [email protected] (lo/
Authorization to Purchase One (1) Medium-Duty Cab and Chassis with Utility Body and One (1) Light-Duty Pickup Truck and Appropriation of Funds The City of Poway's approved Fiscal Year 2025-26 operating budget includes funding to purchase one (1) utility vehicle comprised of (1) cab and chassis with one (1) utility body, and one (1) light-duty pickup truck for the Public Works Water Transmission and Distribution Division. The City participates in and is a member of several cooperative purchasing organizations which establishes and provides nationwide competitively solicited purchasing contracts which can be utilized by member agencies, such as the City of Poway.

Downtown Ford Sacramento has offered competitive pricing for one (1) cab and chassis and one (1) light-duty pickup truck through the State of California Department of General Services (DGS) cooperative purchasing contract (Contract #1-22-23-20F). Staff contacted vendors for quotes on the · utility body, accessories, and equipment. Abacor Inc. submitted the most competitive pricing for the utility body and SoCal Truck Accessories & Equipment Inc. (SoCal Truck) provided the most competitive pricing for the light-duty pickup truck required accessories and equipment. The total purchase price for these vehicles is $205,622.06. All vehicle components meet the City's service requirements and specifications.

Recommended Action:

It is recommended the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the purchase of the following equipment:
1) One (1) medium-duty cab and chassis ($61,099.70) and one (1) light-duty pickup truck ($62,045.48) from Downtown Ford Sacramento utilizing Department of General Services State Contract #1-22- 23-20F;
2) One (1) utility body from Abacor Inc. ($78,751.88) and accessories, and equipment from SoCal Truck Accessories & Equipment Inc. ($3,725);
3) Authorize an appropriation from the Water Fund Balance in the amount of $32,807.06 to the 1 of 6
November 4, 2025, Item #3
Water Transmission and Distribution account (402560-41020) shown in the Fiscal Impact section of this report; and
4) Authorize the City Manager to execute any necessary documents.

Discussion:

The City operates and maintains over 125 street-legal vehicles and other heavy equipment for the purpose of inspecting, maintaining and operating City facilities and infrastructure. Annually, several of these vehicles and pieces of equipment must be replaced as they have exceeded their useful life or have excessive mileage. The current budget contains funding to replace one (1) cab and chassis and one (1) utility body at a total cost of $139,851.58, as well as partial funding for the replacement of one (1) light-duty pickup truck, which has a total cost of $65,770.48 The Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation was set forth by the California Air Resources Board to accelerate a large-scale reduction in tailpipe emissions. It requires California State and local government fleets, including city, county, special district, and State agency fleets, to ensure 50 percent of vehicle purchases with a gross vehicle weight rating over 8,500 pounds are zero-emissions beginning in 2024 and 100 percent by 2027. The medium-duty utility truck has a gross vehicle weight rating over 8,500 pounds and is subject to the 50 percent zero-emissions purchase regulation.

The City operates one (1) 13-year-old medium-duty utility truck that has exceeded its useful life and is scheduled for replacement. This vehicle is utilized by the Public Works Water Transmission and Distribution Division to support water line and valve repairs. In accordance with the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, this replacement is not required to be zero-emission due to the 50 percent purchase rule. The cab and chassis will be purchased through DGS {Contract #1-22-23-20F}, utilizing Downtown Ford Sacramento. The utility body will be purchased separately from Abacor Inc. The replacement medium-duty utility truck and body will be funded through the Capital Replacement Fund ($96,177) and from the Water Transmission and Distribution Fund {$53,823), resulting in a $10,148.42 surplus.

The total cost for the cab and chassis and medium-duty utility body is within the budgeted amount.

The City operates one (1) 8-year-old light-duty pickup truck that is being replaced two (2) years ahead of schedule due to reoccurring maintenance issues. This vehicle is utilized by the Public Works Water Transmission and Distribution Division to support cross-connection and backflow prevention operations. In accordance with the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, the light-duty pickup truck will be a zero-emission model {Ford Lighting), purchased through DGS Contract #1-22-23-20F, through Downtown Ford Sacramento, with required accessories and equipment purchased through SoCal Truck. The light-duty pickup truck will be partially funded through rent collected {$22,815) and surplus funds from the purchase of the medium-duty utility truck ($10,148.42), resulting in a total available budget of $32,963.42. The total cost of the light-duty pickup truck is $65,770.48. Due to higher-than expected inflation and increased electric vehicle costs, this amount exceeds the available budget by $32,807.06. The remaining cost will be covered through the requested appropriation of additional funds.

Staff reached out to local Poway dealerships, and they were non-responsive to quote requests. All agreements offered through DGS have been awarded via a thorough Request for Bid {RFB) competitive solicitation program by a public agency/government entity {e.g., state, city, county, public university or school district). The program provides a streamlined and effective procurement option 2 of6
November 4, 2025, Item #3
by establishing agreements with manufacturers and suppliers currently on an existing multiple award schedule with a competitive procurement procedure. Section 3.28.110 of the Poway Municipal Code permits the use of cooperative purchasing programs for procurement of supplies, services, and equipment when the administering agency has made their purchase in a competitive manner.

The quotes for the medium-duty cab and chassis with utility body are as follows:

Unit Available Budget Quote Vendor
Medium-Duty Cab and $61,099.70 Downtown Ford Sacramento Chassis $150,000 {Contract #1-22-23-20F)
Utility Body $78,751.88 Abacor Inc.

The quotes for the light-duty pickup truck are as follows:

Unit Available Budget Quote Vendor
Light-Duty Pickup $62,045.48 Downtown Ford Sacramento
Truck {Contract #1-22-23-20F)
$32,963.42
Accessories and $3,725.00 So Cal Truck Accessories &
Equipment Equipment Inc. or Inc.

Copies of all quotes are on file with the Public Works Department.

Environmental Review:

This action is not subject to review under the California Environmental Act (CEQA).

Fiscal Impact:

The City proactively plans for the replacement of its vehicles and equipment by annually setting aside a portion of the anticipated replacement costs along with inflationary costs adjustments to account for increases in equipment costs. The purchase will be made with funds from the Capital Replacement Fund (115010-61040) along with the division's operating budget (split-funded), for the purchase of one (1) medium-duty utility truck and one (1) light-duty pickup truck.

The total cost of the vehicles and equipment to be purchased as a result of this action is $205,622.06. A portion of the cost in the amount of $118,992 will come from Fiscal Year 2025-26 Capital Replacement account (115010-61040). In accordance with the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, an additional appropriation of $32,807.06 to the Water Transmission & Distribution account (402560-41020) from the Water Fund unassigned balance (F5100) is requested.

Public Notification:

None.

Attachments:

A. Resolution
3 of6
November 4, 2025, Item #3
Reviewed/Approved By:

Assistant City Manager
4 of6
Reviewed By:

Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Approved By:

Ch~
City Manager
November 4, 2025, Item #3
RESOLUTION NO. 25-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

POWAY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF
ONE (1) MEDIUM-DUTY CAB AND CHASSIS WITH UTILITY
BODY AND (1) LIGHT-DUTY PICKUP TRUCK AND

APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City of Poway (City) operates and maintains over 125 street-legal vehicles and other heavy equipment for the purposes of inspecting, maintaining and operating City facilities and infrastructure and to provide public safety services; WHEREAS, each year several of these vehicles and pieces of equipment must be replaced as they exceed their useful life or have excessive mileage; WHEREAS, the City proactively plans for the replacement of these vehicles and pieces of equipment by accumulating resources in the Capital Replacement Equipment Fund through annual rent charges to the various departmental operating budgets associated with the use of such vehicles and equipment;
WHEREAS, any additional amounts estimated to be required to replace vehicles and equipment in the year of the planned replacement that are in excess of the amounts accumulated in the Capital Replacement Equipment Fund are funded through additional amounts budgeted in the various departmental operating budgets associated with the use of such vehicles and equipment, thereby helping to ensure the financial sustainability of the Capital Replacement Equipment Fund;
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2025-26 adopted operating budget includes amounts budgeted in both the Capital Replacement Equipment Fund and in departmental operating budgets for the purchase or replacement of various vehicles and equipment; and WHEREAS, Poway Municipal Code Section 3.28.110 provides for the use of cooperative purchasing programs for the purchase of supplies, services, and equipment when the administering agency has made their purchase in a competitive manner.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Poway as follows:

SECTION 1: Authorizes the purchase of one (1) cab and chassis at a cost of $61,099.70 and one (1) light-duty pickup truck at a cost of $62,045.48 from Downtown Ford Sacramento utilizing California Department of General Services State Contract #1-22-23-20F.

SECTION 2: Authorizes the purchase of one (1) utility body from Abacor Inc. at a cost of $78,751.88 and accessories and equipment from SoCal Truck Accessories & Equipment Inc. at a cost of $3,725.

SECTION 3: The City Council authorizes the following appropriation of $32,807.06, from the Water Fund unassigned balance to Water Transmission and Distribution Division account number 402560-61040 for the purchase of one (1) light-duty truck. 5 of6 ATTACHMENT A
November 4, 2025, Item #3
Resolution No. 25-

Page 2 ends

SECTION 4: The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any documents necessary for these purchases.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Poway, California on the 4th day of November, 2025 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT:

DISQUALIFIED:

Steve Vaus, Mayor
ATTEST:

Carrie Gallagher, CMC, City Clerk
6 of6
November 4, 2025, Item #4
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

CONTACT:

SUBJECT:

Summary:

AGENDA REPORT CityofPoway
November 4, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City C~ncil
Eric Heidemann, Director of Public Works o/;

CITY COUNCIL
Stephen Jackson, Assistant Director of P~orks for Maintenance Operations (858) 668-4705 or [email protected] v
7 Acceptance of Booster Pump Replacement; Bid No. 25-003 with Blue Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc., as Complete
On September 17, 2024, the City Council awarded the Contract for the Booster Pump Replacement; Bid No. 25-003, to Blue Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. in the amount of $190,000. This action will accept the project as complete.

Recommended Action:

It is recommended the City Council:
1) Accept the Booster Pump Replacement Project, as complete; 2) Authorize the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion; 3) Authorize the release of the retention in the amount of $19,000, if unencumbered, 45 days after City Council acceptance;
4) Release the Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company of Ohio Bond for Material and Labor in the amount of $190,000, after the release of retention; and 5) Retain the Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company of Ohio Bond for Faithful Performance for a period of one (1) year.

Discussion:

On September 17, 2024, the City Council awarded the Contract for the Booster Pump Replacement Project to Blue Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc., in the amount of $190,000. The scope of work included the removal of the existing enclosures, pumps, motors, and control equipment at multiple stations. These were replaced with new stainless-steel pumps, motors, and variable frequency drives, along with brass and copper fittings. The new equipment was installed and connected to intake and discharge lines within new stainless-steel enclosures at each location. 1 of 2
November 4, 2025, Item #4
Staff
determined
the
project
has
been
completed
in
accordance
with
the
standards
and
specifications
outlined
in
the
Contract.

Environmental
Review:

This
action
is
not
subject
to
review under
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA).

Fiscal
Impact:

Sufficient
funds
are
available
in
the
Fiscal
Year
2025-26
Landscape
Maintenance
District
19-01
operating
budget
(420140-41200)
for
the
release
of
retention
in
the
amount
of
$19,000.

Public
Notification:

None. Attachments: None. Reviewed/Approved
By:

Assistant
City
Manager
2 of2
Reviewed
By:

Alan
Fenstermacher
City
Attorney
Ch
~
City
Manager
November 4, 2025, Item #5
AGENDA REPORT CityofPoway
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

CONTACT:

November 4, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Julie Procopio, Director of Development Services o/
Miguel Solano, Assistant Engineer
858-668-4653 or [email protected]

CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Acceptance of the Neighborhood Sidewalks Garden Road Project with HSCC, Inc., as Complete
Summary:

On May 6, 2025, the City Council awarded the Neighborhood Sidewalks Garden Road Project contract to HSCC, Inc., Bid No. 25-007, in the amount of $221,550.00. This action will accept the project as complete.

Recommended Action:

It is recommended the City Council:
1) Accept the Neighborhood Sidewalks Garden Road Project, as complete; 2) Authorize the City Clerk to file and record the Notice of Completion; 3) Authorize the release of the retention in the amount of $14,994.15 if unencumbered, 45 days after City Council acceptance;
4) Release the Old Republic Surety Company Bond for Material and Labor in the amount of $221,550.00 after the release of retention; and
5) Retain the Old Republic Surety Company Bond for Faithful Performance for a period of one (1) year.

Discussion:

The Neighborhood Sidewalks Garden Road project was completed with the construction of Americans with Disabilities Act compliant concrete sidewalks along Garden Road, between Acton Avenue and Whitewater Drive. The work resulted in the installation of approximately 4,000 square feet of sidewalks, along with new pedestrian access ramps, curbs and gutters.

This action accepts the Neighborhood Sidewalks Garden Road Project as complete. HSCC, Inc. has completed all work in accordance with the contract plans and specifications. The single change order, in the amount of $78,333.09, addressed unforeseen asphalt thicknesses discovered during sidewalk and roadway demolition. The asphalt was significantly thicker than standard construction 1 of 2
November 4, 2025, Item #5
expectations,
which
required
extended
demolition
time
and
additional
labor
to
complete
removal.

The
increased
debris
also
required
additional
haul-off,
trucking
and
disposal.

Because
removals
extended
below
the
planned
grade,
base
material
had
to
be
brought
in,
placed
and
compacted
to
restore
the
area
as
required.

The
final
contract
amount
is
$299,883.09
.

Environmental
Review:

The
action
of
acceptance
of
public
improvements,
which
was
the
subject
of
a
prior
environmental
determination,
is
not
considered
a
Project
as
defined
under
Section
15378
of
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
State
Guidelines;
therefore,
pursuant
to the
CEQA
State
Guidelines
Section
15378(b)(S)
no
environmental
review
is
required.

Fiscal
Impact:

This
project
is
fully
funded
by
TransNet.

TransNet
funds
are
generated
by
a countywide
half-cent
sales
tax
approved
by
San
Diego
County
voters
to
fund
transportation
projects
in
San
Diego
County.

There
are
sufficient
funds
available
in
the
project
account
(ST014)
for
the
release
of
retention.

Public
Notification:

None. Attachments: None. Reviewed/Approved
By:

Assistant
City
Manager
2 of
2 Reviewed
By:

Alan
Fenstermacher
City
Attorney
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

CONTACT:

SUBJECT:

Summary:

AGENDA RE PO RT City of Poway
November 4, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Alan Fenstermacher, City Attorney
Alan Fenstermacher, City Attorney
[email protected]

CITY COUNCIL
Amendment to Legal Services Agreement with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC The City retained the law firm of Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC ("Colantuono") to analyze potential Public Records Act liability and claims arising from Council member Blain's refusal to provide public records in response to numerous Public Records Act ("PRA") requests, as well as admissions in writing that he had deleted public records in violation of state law. Colantuono was originally retained with a budget of $40,000, and after determ ining that doing so was appropriate, Colantuono filed a petition for a writ of mandate on April 30, 2025 to force production of public records and enjoin Council member Blain from further destruction of public records . (See, City of Poway v. Arthur (Tony) Blain, San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 25CU024105C.) Council member Blain's continued refusal to comply with the PRA or respond to certain discovery requests at all, and providing only part ial, incomplete and inadequate responses to other requests, has forced Colantuono to file four motions to compel (Attachment B), and engage in additional ex parte motion practice (Attachment C), as described below. As a result, Colantuono has exhausted its budget and requests an amendment authorizing an additional $85,000 in legal fees and costs.

Recommended Action:

It is recommended the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached amended legal services agreement (Attachment A), authoriz ing a total of $125,000 for prosecution of City of Poway v. Arthur (Tony) Blain.

Discussion:

City staff believes that Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC has performed exemplary work in this matter. As summarized above, the increased budget is necessary to continue prosecuting the case, which has not been resolved despite proof that Councilmember Blain both withheld and deleted responsive public records. Councilmember Blain has also delayed, and in some cases, outright refused to respond to discovery requests. Council member Blain also opposed a request to advance the hearing date on the motions to compel, necessitating even more work in the form of an ex parte application (Attachment C), made necessary in part because Councilmember Blain continues to consistently use a Yahoo email address for City business, presumably for the purpose of avoiding 1 of 130 November 4, 2025, Item #6
compliance with the PRA. On the morning of October 28, 2025, the Court granted the City's ex parte request, advancing the hearing on the motions to compel approximately 7 months to November 14, 2025. Councilmember Blain could have stipulated to advance these hearing dates to save all concerned significant legal fees, but refused to do so on the basis that he is currently deployed.

However, as pointed out in the City's ex parte application (Attachment C, Declaration of Ajit Th ind. pp. 83-118) and recognized by the Court, he has emailed City staff hundreds of times during the time period he asserted he is deployed overseas - including a photograph of a middle finger (Attachment C, p. 120) - completed and verified other discovery requests, conducted a zoom meeting, and engaged in other non-military activities. Council member Blain even sent a "selfie" to City staff the morning of the hearing, yet his attorneys claimed about 30 minutes later he was unavailable due to being in a "warzone." The Court is also holding an informal discovery conference on October 30, 2025, another legal expense. All of these legal expenses could be easily avoided by Councilmember Blain complying with the PRA and the Civil Discovery Act, rather than steadfastly refusing to do either.

There is the potential to recover some or all of these fees through both sanctions imposed if the City prevails on its motions to compel, as well as an attorneys' fees motion for all fees and costs that would follow if the City ultimately prevails on the merits of the case.

Environmental Review:

None.

Fiscal Impact:

Funding for the recommended amendment was not included in the Adopted Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget in the City Attorney's account (102010-17010) as there was not a forecasted need for these services. Therefore an appropriation of $85,000 in the City Attorney account is recommended to fund the amended legal services agreement. The City has the potential to recover most, or all associated outlaid costs should the City prevail on the merits of the case.

Public Notification:

None.

Attachments:

A. Amended Legal Services Agreement with Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC B. Motions to Compel filed on October 10, 2025 in City of Poway v. Arthur (Tony) Blain C. Ex Pa rte Application and Supporting Declaration of Ajit Th ind, filed on October 24, 2025 in City of Poway v. Arthur (Tony) Blain
Reviewed/Approved By:

Assistant City Manager
2 of 130
Reviewed By:

Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
App~
Chris Hazeltine
City Manager
November 4, 2025, Item #6
420529.1
AJIT S. THIND | 949-545-9034 | [email protected]
7545 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 200, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618 | (949) 623-8300 GRASS VALLEY | ORANGE COUNTY | PASADENA | SACRAMENTO | SONOMA Our File No. 10000.022546016.0003
March 25, 2025October 164, 2025
AMENDMENT NO. 1

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY
Chris Hazeltine, City Manager
City of Poway
13325 Civic Center Drive
Poway, CA 92074
[email protected]
Re: Continued Representation of City of Poway re Public Records Act Dispute with City OfficialCity of Poway v. Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain, San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 25CU024105C Dear Mr. Hazeltine,
As you asked, I write to propose the amended terms under which we agree to continue to represent the City of Poway (“you”) regarding a Public Records Act dispute with a City officiain its lawsuit against Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blainl. This will be our sole project for you; if we can assist you on other matters, please let me know.

Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC and all of its professionals are very pleased to have the opportunity to continue representing you in this matter. The only amended terms from the prior engagement letter are to increase the scope of work for the lawsuit from $40,000.00 to $1 25,000.00. The remaining terms here match those agreed to previously.

This letter sets forth the basis upon which we will provide legal services to you and bill you for services and costs. The firm maintains a conflict of interest index which lists all clients of our firm and matters in which we represent them. We will not represent any party with an interest that may be adverse to an indexed person without first

ATTACHMENT A
3 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

COLANTUONO

HIGHSMITH

WHATLEY,PC

Chris Hazeltine, City Manager
March 25, 2025October 164, 2025

Page 2 ends

420529.1
determining if a professional conflict of interest would arise. We propose to index the following with respect to this matter:

Client-Affiliated Parties:

City of Poway
Adverse Parties:

Arthur (Tony) Blain

Please let me know if any of these names are incorrect or if there are other parties with an interest in this matter that we should list. Unless we hear from you to the contrary, we will assume that this listing is accurate and complete.

We have reviewed our files and our conflicts index and have no other client relationships which would interfere with our ability to represent you in this matter.

As we have discussed, the nature of the matter makes it impossible for us to precisely estimate the fees you may incur, but we anticipate that the scope of work will not exceed $40125,000. The Firm agrees to provide written notice to the City when legal fees and costs are approaching $35,000that amount, and agrees not to exceed $40125,000 in legal fees and costs without prior written approval by the City. You will receive monthly statements informing you of the fees and costs incurred during the prior month.

We will, of course, do our best to represent you efficiently and without undue expense.

We will continue to hold the $5,000.00 require our clients pay us a retainer that you previously paid to be placed intoin our client trust account. This retainer is towill be used to pay our bills if you do not timely do so. If funds remain in the account when our work is complete, we will return them to you.

Please make payments Accordingly, please send a check in the amount of $5,000 payable to Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC to our Grass Valley office at:

Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
420 Sierra College Drive, Suite 140
Grass Valley, CA 95945-5091

Our federal employer identification number is 75-3031545.

I will have primary responsibility for your representation, and the firm will use other attorneys and legal assistants in the best exercise of our professional judgment. If 4 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

Chris Hazeltine, City Manager
March 25, 2025October 164, 2025

Page 3 ends

420529.1
you have questions, concerns or criticisms at any time, please contact me at once.

Naturally, we expect you to keep us reasonably informed of significant developments regarding this representation.

We review all statements before they are issued to ensure the amount charged is appropriate. The statement for fees is simply the product of the hours worked multiplied by the hourly rates for the attorneys and legal assistants who did the work.

Our hourly rates are based upon the experience, reputation and ability of the lawyer or legal assistant performing the services, and for 2025 range between $265 and $625 per hour for attorneys’ time, and between $160 and $210 for the time of paralegals and legal assistants. As a courtesy to you, however, we agree to cap our rates for this project at $425 per hour. Our rate structure in general and the rates of particular lawyers may be increased from time to time, and are usually adjusted as of the beginning of each calendar year.

It may be necessary to bill you for items such as, but not limited to, authorized travel, long distance telephone calls, filing fees, photocopying, computerized legal research outside the scope of our Westlaw contract and the like. These amounts will be billed in addition to our fees.

We will send you monthly statements, and expect payment within 15 days of the billing date. If payment is not received within 30 days of the billing date, we reserve the right to charge interest on the unpaid balance at the rate of 1% per month and to terminate our representation.

We rarely have disputes with clients over our fees. Nevertheless, you should be aware that you are entitled to require that any fee dispute be resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to the arbitration rules for legal fee disputes of the County Bar Association in any county in which we maintain an office. We agree that all disputes between us regarding the services rendered or fees charged not resolved via County Bar fee arbitration will be submitted to binding arbitration in San Diego County to be conducted by ADR Services, Inc. in accordance with its commercial arbitration rules.

YOU SHOULD REVIEW THIS PARAGRAPH CAREFULLY AND, IF YOU WISH,

SEEK INDEPENDENT LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING IT, AS YOU AND WE ARE

AGREEING TO FOREGO SIGNIFICANT RIGHTS IN THE EVENT OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN US, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL.
5 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

Chris Hazeltine, City Manager
March 25, 2025October 164, 2025

Page 4 ends

420529.1
On occasion, we may receive small sums of money belonging to you, such as a credit for an overpayment by a vendor, a refund from a court, or the like. The California State Bar requires us to alert you to sums we receive on your behalf within 14 days of receipt and to forward those funds to you within 45 days of receipt unless we have your direction otherwise. Processing payments for small amounts may be burdensome to your accounting staff and to ours. Therefore, by signing this letter agreement for legal services, you agree that, should we receive any amount to your credit of $500 or less and we do not have other instructions from you with respect to that money, we may place these funds in our client trust account and apply them to future invoices to you for our services.

You can alter this agreement at any time as to some or all funds we hold by letting us know, in writing, how we should handle your money. We will inform you of our receipt of funds promptly upon each receipt and will remind you of your right to alter these standing instructions as to any payment.

You have the right to terminate our representation at any time. We have the same right, but are obliged to give you reasonable notice to arrange alternative representation.

In either circumstance, you agree to secure new counsel to represent you as quickly as possible and to cooperate fully in the substitution of the new counsel as counsel of record in any litigation in which we may subsequently agree to represent you. Notwithstanding the termination of our representation, you will remain obligated to pay to us all fees and costs incurred previously.

You agree that we may, in our discretion, maintain all or part of your client file in electronic format using secure cloud storage services. If so, the firm will apply all reasonable methods to maintain the confidentiality of your files, just as it does fo r your non-digital information. Your data will be password protected and encrypted using currently available technology. Clients requiring information from their files may obtain that information only by written request to us.

You should know that we may use artificial intelligence tools in our representation of City of Poway . If we do so, we will ensure that your confidential information is maintained in confidence and that any writing or analysis produced by generative artificial intelligence is edited or confirmed by an attorney before use. If you have any questions or concerns about our use of artificial intelligence tools, please let us know.

You also agree that following termination of our attorney -client relationship, we will not be required to maintain your client file for more than two years. If you ask us to deliver your file to you, you agree that delivery of an electronic version, togeth er with 6 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

Chris Hazeltine, City Manager
March 25, 2025October 164, 2025

Page 5 ends

420529.1
any materials that cannot be saved electronically, satisfies our obligation to release all your client papers and property to you. You agree that we may destroy your client file, including all electronic records, two years after termination of our relationship, and after reasonable notice to you. We may mail a copy of your file to you at your address last known to us before two years expire. You agree that “reasonable notice” means our mailing a notice of our intent to destroy your client file to you at that address.

I apologize for the formality of this letter, but we are required by California law to provide you this information in writing. We must also inform you that we currently maintain professional liability insurance coverage.

Please review the foregoing and, if it meets with your approval, execute it and return it to me. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at the direct -dial number above. Thank you for the opportunity to represent you! Very truly yours,

Ajit S. Thind

AST:tsw

cc: Alan Fenstermacher, City Attorney

On behalf of City of Poway, I agree to retain Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC to provide legal services as set forth above.

__________________________________ Date:_________________________, 2025 Signature
By:_______________________________

Title:_____________________________

7 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

ATTACHMENT B
8 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
41 3141.4

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego
10/10/2025 1 :27:34 PM
MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO, State Bar No. 143551
mcolantuono @chwlaw.us
Clerk of the Superior Court
By T. Automation ,Deputy lerk
2 AJIT S. THIND , State Bar No. 268018
athind @chwlaw.u s
3 SERGIO C. ORDAZ , State Bar No. 334520
[email protected]
4 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
5 Pasadena, California 91101-2109
Telephone: (213) 542-5700
6 Facsimile: (213) 542-5710
7 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

CITY OF POWAY
[Exempt From Filing Fee
Government Code § 6103]
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF POWAY,
Petitioner and Plaintiff,
V.

COUNCILMEMBER ARTHUR (TONY)
15 BLAIN,
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Respondent and Defendant.

Case No. 25CU024105C

PETITIONER AND PLAINTIFF CITY

OF POWAY'S NOTICE OF MOTION

AND MOTION TO COMPEL

RESPONDENT AND DEFENDANT

COUNCILMEMBER ARTHUR (TONY)

BLAIN'S VERIFICATION OF AND

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

MEMORANDUM
Filed concurrently with Separate
Statement; Declaration of Ajit S. Thind;
and [Proposed} Order

IMAGED FILE
Assigned for All Purposes to:

Hon. Carolyn M. Caietti
Department C-70
Action Filed: April 30, 2025
Hearing Date:

Time:

Dept.:
1 June 18, 2026
10:30 a.m.

C-70
CITY ' S MOTION TO COMP EL VERlFICATlON OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
413141.4
2 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on June 18, 2026 at 10:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Department C-70 of the above-captioned Court, located at 330 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, Petitioner and Plaintiff City of Poway (“City”) will and hereby does move this Court for an order compelling Respondent and Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain (“Defendant”) to provide verification of Defendant’s Initial Responses sent on July 9, 2025 and supplemental responses to the City’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP Set One”).

This Motion is made upon the following grounds:

Defendant should be ordered to provide a verification for the Initial Responses he sent on July 9, 2025, which despite many requests and a representation that verification would be provided, have never been verified. In addition, Defendant has used an overly narrow interpretation of RFP Set One and the underlying terms to avoid turning over documents where he “criticizes” other City Councilmembers. Defendant should be ordered to provide verified supplemental responses to RFP Nos. 1–6 along with “every conceivable kind of record that is involved in the governmental process” other than “purely personal information unrelated to the conduct of the public’s business” from his personal accounts and devices, as requested in RFP Nos. 1–6. Finally, the Court should also order that Defendant provide unredacted versions of Bates Numbers 000001–000002, 000004–000021, 000024–000025, and 000031–000038 since no privilege has been identified to explain why they contain large blanks; alternatively, Defendant should be ordered to provide a privilege log. The City also seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant.

This Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030, 2023.040, and 2031.310; and California Rules of Court rules 3.1345 and 3.1348. Good cause exists to compel further responses and production of responsive documents because Defendant has failed to produce all relevant documents in his possession, failed to properly provide a statement of inability to comply, and he has waived any attorney-client privilege and work product objections by not providing a privilege log. The City also will and hereby does move the Court for 9 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
413141.4
3 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
an order that Defendant pay $5,100.00 in monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030, and 2031.310, subdivision (h) as the reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by the City for these proceedings.

The City also requests that the Court prioritize the hearing on this Motion in compliance with Government Code section 7923.005.

This Motion is based on this Notice, the Memorandum hereunder, the Separate Statement and Declaration of Ajit S. Thind filed concurrently herewith, all of the pleadings, files, and records in this proceeding, all other matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, and any argument or evidence that may be presented to or considered by the Court prior to its ruling.

DATED: October 10, 2025 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH &

WHATLEY, PC
MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO
AJIT S. THIND
SERGIO C. ORDAZ
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

CITY OF POWAY
10 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
413141.4
4 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
MEMORANDUM ..............................................................................................................................7 I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................7 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................................8 III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................10 I V. LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................13 V. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................14 A. CPRA Cases Are Entitled to Priority ........................................................................14 B. The Definition of City Business Has Been Improperly Interpreted by Defendant and He Must Be Commanded by the Court to Review His Accounts, Devices, and Records ..............................................................................15 C. Defendant Should Be Ordered to Provide a Privilege Log or Documents Without Redactions ..................................................................................................17 D. Defendant Should Be Ordered to Provide a Verification of the Initial Responses Sent to the City on July 9, 2025 .............................................................18 E. Good Causes Exists for the Motion ..........................................................................18 VI. THE CITY REQUESTS SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,100.00 ........................19 VII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................19 11 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413141.4
5 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
State Cases
Appleton v. Superior Court
(1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632 ..................................................................................................... 18 City of San Jose v. Superior Court
(2017) 2 Cal.5th 608 .................................................................................................. 7, 9, 15, 16 Cnty. of San Benito v. Superior Ct.
(2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 243 ...................................................................................................... 14 Glenfed Develop Corp. v. Superior Court
(1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113 .................................................................................................... 14 International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL- CIO v. Superior Court
(2007) 42 Cal.4th 319 .............................................................................................................. 15 Kirkland v. Superior Court
(2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92 ........................................................................................................ 14 Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach
(2014) 59 Cal.4th 59 ................................................................................................................ 15 Nat’l Conf. of Black Mayors v. Chico Cmty. Publ’g, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 570 ...................................................................................................... 15 State Statutes
Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040 ......................................................................................................... 13 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 ........................................................................................................... 2 Code. Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (e) ........................................................................................ 19 Code. Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (f) ......................................................................................... 19 Code. Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (h) ........................................................................................ 19 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020 ......................................................................................................... 14 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 ....................................................................................................... 2, 3 Code. Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a) ........................................................................................ 19 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040 ........................................................................................................... 2 12 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413141.4
6 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1) ..................................................................................... 18 Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250 subd. (a) .......................................................................................... 18 Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310 ..................................................................................................... 2, 13 Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b) ......................................................................................... 13 Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1) .................................................................................... 14 Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c) ......................................................................................... 13 Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (d) ......................................................................................... 14 Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h) ........................................................................................... 3 Gov. Code, § 6200 ........................................................................................................................... 7 Gov. Code, § 7920.000 .................................................................................................................... 9 Gov. Code, § 7920.530 ............................................................................................................ 15, 16 Gov. Code, § 7921.000 .................................................................................................................. 16 Gov. Code, § 7923.005 .............................................................................................................. 3, 14 Gov. Code, § 34090 ..................................................................................................................... 7, 9 Rules
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 ...................................................................................................... 2 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c) ............................................................................................... 14 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348 ...................................................................................................... 2 Constitutional Provisions
Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(1) ............................................................................................ 8, 15 Other Authorities
Assem. Statewide Information Policy Com., Final Rep. (Mar. 1970) 1 Assem. J. (1970 Reg. Sess.) ..................................................................................................................... 16

13 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413141.4
7 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

MEMORANDUM
I. INTRODUCTION
In this matter, the City of Poway (the “City”) has taken the unusual but necessary step of suing a sitting City Councilmember due to his flagrant and persistent violations of state law associated with his deletion of and failure to produce public records in his personal accounts.

By way of discovery, the City sought to obtain copies of various public records on Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain’s (“Defendant”) personal devices and accounts by propounding seven Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”) to Defendant on May 22, 2025. However, after his counsel initially represented there were thousands of responsive records recovered by a data recovery service and in the process of being bates stamped for production, to date Defendant has only turned over approximately 230 records in three productions, with the final production sent on September 18, 2025. There are likely two reasons for Defendant’s paltry showing: (1) he has deleted public records from his devices (in violation of Government Code sections 6200 and 34090) and (2) he has intentionally taken an overly narrow interpretation of what constitutes a “public record” or “City business” to avoid providing potentially damning records.

Defendant’s interpretation conflicts with the holding of City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608 (“City of San Jose”), in which the California Supreme Court broadly held that city employees’ and officials’ private voicemails, e-mails, and text messages relating to public business are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (the “CPRA”). “The rationale behind the [CPRA] is that it is for the public to make [the] determination [that the government is working in its best interest], based on information to which it is entitled under the law. ... The whole purpose of [the CPRA] is to ensure transparency in government activities. If public officials could evade the law simply by clicking into a different e-mail account, or communicating through a personal device, sensitive information could routinely evade public scrutiny.” (Id. at p. 625.) Relatedly, the California Constitution provides that “The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and therefore, ... 14 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413141.4
8 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(1).)
Here, Defendant, who was elected to the City Council in November 2024, repeatedly texted another sitting City Councilmember in January and February of this year regarding issues such as prior votes of the City Council that they participated in, upcoming City Council agenda items, the performance of the City Manager, the performance of other City Council members, and updates from City staff related to a fire in the City. Yet Defendant has not produced a single one of those text messages, arguing that communications “criticizing other councilmembers” are not public records (even though these communications clearly go beyond criticism). Such a narrow view of what constitutes a public record under the CPRA has infected his Responses, calling into question how many hundreds (or thousands) of other similar records involving criticism of other councilmembers he has failed to produce.

In addition, despite repeated requests and an initial promise to provide verification, Defendant has now refused and failed to provide a signed verification for the Initial Responses to RFP Set One, which his counsel sent to the City on July 9, 2025. This was not cured by his supplemental responses, which expressly refer to and rely on his unverified Initial Response.

Importantly, these Initial Responses have the effect of admitting to deleting public records. Nor has he provided a privilege log or explanation for why he has redacted several pages of the documents produced. Despite repeated meet and confer efforts to obtain documents and a verification, Defendant has resisted providing Supplemental Responses, a verification, a privilege log, or additional documents. The City begrudgingly brings this Motion and seeks sanctions.

413141.4
9 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
to disclosure under the CPRA, pursuant to Government Code sections 34090 and 7920.000, et seq. (Complaint, ¶ 14.)
For example, after receiving several CPRA requests early this year specifically requesting public records on Defendant’s various devices and accounts, the City Clerk contacted Defendant to request that he “search [his] private email accounts, text messages, social media direct messages or any other form of electronic communication for any communications ‘between Tony Blain and (Councilmember) Jenny Maeda from November 5, 2024 to January 16, 2025’ that’s related to City business.” (Complaint, ¶ 16.) In response to this request, Defendant responded that “I deleted everything last week.” (Complaint, ¶ 22.) After apparent further review, Defendant located two responsive Facebook messages and provided those to the City Clerk. After producing the two Facebook messages, Defendant informed the City Clerk that he “deleted all [his] personal e mails 2 weeks ago.” (Ibid.) Later that day, Defendant informed the City Clerk that he did not have any additional communications related to City business and that “[a]ll texts were deleted weeks ago.” (Ibid.)
Responsive text messages between Defendant and Councilmember Maeda existed. (Complaint, ¶ 24.) Councilmember Maeda produced several of those text messages in response to the same foregoing CPRA requests. (Ibid.) Defendant did not, stating he had none. (Ibid.) However, Defendant refused to sign an affidavit affirming the truth of that statement, despite that being the recognized practice for public officials to search their devices under City of San Jose. (Ibid.) Councilmember Maeda’s production of several text messages proves that Defendant’s statement was not true.

413141.4
10 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
or devices or social media for ‘City Business’” but again refused to sign an affidavit attesting to the same. (Ibid.)
On or about January 23, 2025—the very same day as his extensive email exchange with the City Clerk about this topic—Councilmember Blain texted “[d]elete all my texts to you ok – Poway Mayor & Attorney trying to sue me – lets change to Signal app – they can’t access it.” (Complaint, ¶ 47, Ex. B.)
Defendant has repeatedly stated substantially the same in response to other CPRA requests and refused to sign further affidavits prior to the commencement of this action. (Complaint, ¶¶ 38, 39, 52, 59, 61.) Similarly, Defendant has also asked others to delete his text messages to them. (Complaint, ¶ 47.) Faced with little other choice, the City filed the underlying Complaint in this matter seeking judicial relief.

III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The City served Defendant with RFP Set One on May 22, 2025. (Declaration of Ajit S.

Thind [“Thind Decl.”], ¶ 2, Ex. A.) RFP Set One includes seven carefully drafted requests for categories of documents that Defendant should have previously provided to the City in response to CPRA requests or other types of “public records” requests under the Government Code. (Thind Decl., ¶ 3.)
On June 12, 2025, Defendant’s counsel requested a one-month extension to respond to RFP Set One. (Thind Decl., ¶ 4.) After the parties agreed to the extension, on July 8, 2025, Defendant’s counsel again asked for another one-month extension, citing to the need to work with a data recovery company, which was trying to recover deleted records from multiple of Defendant’s devices, later revealed to be two iPhones, a laptop and two hard drives. (Ibid.) Concerned that Defendant was still not able to produce a single responsive document, despite having nearly two months to do so, the City’s counsel sought clarification of the efforts made by Defendant to find and retrieve documents, including from the devices and accounts that Defendant and his attorneys had immediate access to. (Ibid.) On July 8, 2025, Defendant’s counsel clarified that:
• A number of Defendant’s devices had been turned over to a data recovery company on May 8, 2025 and the company completed its evaluation on May 22; 17 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413141.4
11 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
• The data recovery company would access Defendant’s devices and the files saved therein, but not any of Defendant’s actual social media or e-mail accounts; • As of July 8, 2025, zero files had been provided to Defendant’s counsel by the data recovery company;
• Defendant’s counsel was not in possession of a single document it believed to be responsive to RFP Set One.
(Thind Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. B.) Needless to say, the City’s counsel was alarmed by the information provided by Defendant’s counsel and the revelation that after nearly two months, Defendant’s counsel had yet to find a single document responsive to the seven requests in RFP Set One. Later on July 8, 2025, the City’s counsel responded, expressing confusion as to why Defendant’s counsel had not searched Defendant’s existing personal e-mail and social media accounts, that they were using an overly narrow definition of “public record,” and that there were obvious public records quickly and easily accessible to them with minimal effort that should be turned over to the City. (Thind Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. B.)
On July 9, 2025, Defendant provided an unverified response to RFP Set One, along with 114 pages of documents. (Thind. Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. C.) In his transmittal e-mail, Robert Salgado, counsel for Defendant, stated that “Arthur Blain’s Verification will follow shortly.” (Thind Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. B.) With the documents, Defendant included several pages that had large blanks on them, including Bates Numbers 000001–000002, 000004–000021, 000024–000025, and 000031– 000038, but no explanation for why these documents had been altered. (Thind Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. D.) On July 21, 2025, the City’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant’s counsel. (Thind Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. E.) The letter asked for a verification, that a proper and diligent search of Defendant’s accounts and records be performed, that improper objections be withdrawn, and that Defendant clarify if he had “destroyed” records. (Ibid.) On July 31, 2025, Defendant’s counsel provided a response, explaining the efforts being undertaken to find responsive records, that the data recovery company provided over 300,000 files to his office, that their “in-house team has been able to review and bates-number approximately 1,000 of those 5,000 files as of the time of this writing” and that they “are currently processing the 18 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413141.4
12 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
additional 4,000 files.” (Thind Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. F.) He concluded by stating that he would have responsive records to the City by August 29, 2025. (Ibid.) On August 1, 2025, the City’s counsel sent a letter back to Defendant’s counsel, requesting additional clarification on their efforts to retrieve responsive records, whether Defendant’s existing e-mail and social media accounts had been searched, and a request for clarification on how they were determining distinctions between personal and public records, along with a request that they provide some of the thousands of records that they had Bates stamped. (Thind Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. G.) The parties further met and conferred by phone on August 7, 2025 and the City’s counsel followed up with a letter on August 14, 2025, again asking that another production of documents and a verification of the Initial Responses be provided to his office. (Thind Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. H.) On August 29, 2025, Defendant provided verified Supplemental Responses to RFP Set One, along with approximately 138 documents. (Thind Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. I.) However, there were several deficiencies in the responses.
1 First, there was still no verification for the Initial Responses sent on July 9, despite repeated requests. (Ibid.) Second, there was a lengthy general objection to the term “CITY BUSINESS” that cites to case law, states that responsive records will be provided, but then states the following: “Such communications do not include campaign communications and communications criticizing other councilmembers as they are not a Public Record pursuant to the CPRA.” (Ibid.) Once again, the records produced did not include the text messages with Councilmember Maeda. (Ibid.)
On September 18, 2025, the City’s counsel sent a lengthy meet and confer letter again to Defendant’s counsel. (Thind Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. J.) This letter also addressed deficiencies in Defendant’s other discovery responses, but noted (again) that Defendant still had not provided a proper verification for the Initial Responses to RFP Set One, had redacted large numbers of documents without any explanation (or a privilege log), had not produced a single text message

1 Notably, on September 2, 2025, Defendant also responded to the City’s RFAs, Special Interrogatories, Form Interrogatories and Set Two of RFPs. The responses demonstrate that Defendant does not believe his text communications with Councilmember Maeda are “public records” under the CPRA.
19 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413141.4
13 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
with Councilmember Maeda,2 and was based on an overly narrow definition of public records. (Ibid.) The letter requested supplemental responses to all the requests in RFP Set One by September 25, 2025. A couple of hours later, Defendant provided additional records and supplemental verified responses to RFP Nos. 5 and 6 only, along with a declaration from Irit Cohen at We Recover Data. (Thind Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. K.)
Having not received a substantive response to his September 18, 2025 letter, on September 29, 2025, the City’s counsel reached out by e-mail to Defendant’s counsel with a copy of his September 18, 2025 letter and a request for “supplemental verified responses to the dozens of discovery requests listed in [his] letter,
3 newly responsive documents, a verification of
Defendant’s initial responses to RFP Set One from July, a privilege log, as well as verified objection-free responses and documents responsive to RFP Nos. 14–29 specifically” by October 1. (Thind Decl., ¶ 17, Ex. L.) On September 30, Defendant’s counsel responded: “Your request for supplemental responses by October 1 is denied. You have everything we have.” (Ibid.) IV. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion to compel further responses to requests for production lies where a responding party gives improper responses to the requests, whether through improper objections or evasive or incomplete answers. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.) A propounding party must move for further responses within 45 days of verified responses unless the parties extend this deadline in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (c).) Here, Defendant’s second supplemental verified responses to RFP Set One were sent on September 18, 2025.

Motions to compel further responses require a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve issues informally before filing a motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040; 2031.310, subd. (b).) The City wrote Defendant to identify the deficiencies in his responses on July 21, 2025,

2 Indeed, in his text messages with Councilmember Maeda, Defendant even says “Turn these texts into Edmondson via PRR.” (See Complaint, Ex. C, emphasis added.) This is an obvious reference to a Public Records Request and an acknowledgement by Defendant that their text messages are subject to the CPRA.
3 Several of these other requests are subject to separate, concurrently filed motions to compel. 20 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413141.4
14 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
August 1, 2025, August 14, 2025, September 18, 2025, and September 29, 2025 satisfying this requirement. Defendant’s counsel responded expressly denying all requests made in the City’s latest meet and confer letter, and represented that the City “has everything we have.” A party moving to compel further responses to requests for production must include a separate statement containing each request for production, answer, and the reason why the Court should order further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).) The City files such a separate statement with this motion.

A motion compelling further responses to requests for production must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) To establish good cause, the burden is on the moving party to show:
(1) relevance to the suit; and (2) specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop Corp. v.

Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) These are set out below, in the separate statement filed concurrently herewith, and the accompanying Declaration of Ajit S. Thind. If the moving party shows good cause, the responding party must justify any objections. (Kirkland v.

Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)
The Court may impose monetary sanctions on a responding party in favor of a moving party for the latter’s reasonable expenses in moving to compel, including attorney fees. (Code Civ.

Proc., §§ 2023.020, 2031.310, subd. (d).)
V. ARGUMENT
A. CPRA Cases Are Entitled to Priority
Pursuant to the Government Code, CPRA cases are entitled to priority:

In a proceeding under Section 7923.000, the court shall set the times for hearings and responsive pleadings with the object of securing a decision as to the matters at issue at the earliest possible time.
(See Gov. Code § 7923.005; Cnty. of San Benito v. Superior Ct. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 243, 259 [“We agree. . . that it is necessary and appropriate for a trial court to manage Public Records Act litigation—as a matter of significant public importance—to achieve an expeditious resolution of the enforcement proceeding”].) While the City acknowledges the importance of many types of 21 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413141.4
15 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
cases on the Court’s docket, the City requests that the Court consider prioritizing this matter and the hearing on this motion to compel in compliance with the Government Code.

B. The Definition of City Business Has Been Improperly Interpreted by Defendant and He Must Be Commanded by the Court to Review His Accounts, Devices, and Records
“The California Legislature in 1968, recognizing that ‘access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state’ [citation], enacted the California Public Records Act, which grants access to public records held by state and local agencies.” (Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th 59, 66-67.) “As the result of an initiative adopted by the voters in 2004, this principle is now enshrined in the state Constitution: ‘The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and therefore, ... the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.’” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(1).)” (International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 329.) “The Act’s purpose is to increase freedom of information by providing public access to information in the possession of public agencies.” (Nat’l Conf. of Black Mayors v. Chico Cmty. Publ’g, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 570, 578.) “Our state Constitution mandates the Act be construed broadly in favor of the people’s right of access.” (Id. at p. 579.) In City of San Jose, a requester sought documents “includ[ing] emails and text messages ‘sent or received on private electronic devices used by’ the mayor, two city council members, and their staff.” (Id. at p. 615.) The court held private voicemails, e-mails, and text messages of city officials relating to public business are subject to disclosure under the CPRA if the contents otherwise meet the definition of a public record. (Id. at p. 623.) The City of San Jose court thus rejected an interpretation that “would allow evasion of [the Act] simply by the use of a personal account.” (Id. at p. 625.)
Here, the City has used RFP Nos. 1–6 to request records related to “CITY BUSINESS” from Defendant. “CITY BUSINESS” in turn is explicitly defined in the same matter as the “public’s business” in the CPRA by referencing Government Code section 7920.530. Pursuant to 22 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413141.4
16 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
Government Code section 7920.530, “‘public records’ includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” “This definition is intended to cover every conceivable kind of record that is involved in the governmental process.... Only purely personal information unrelated to ‘the conduct of the public’s business’ could be considered exempt from this definition....” (Assem. Statewide Information Policy Com., Final Rep. (Mar. 1970) 1 Assem. J. (1970 Reg. Sess.) appen. p. 9.)
Despite public agencies, public officials, and courts being directed to broadly interpret public records in favor of disclosure, Defendant has taken a narrower interpretation in his responses to RFP Nos. 1–6 by including a General Objection. In his General Objection, while stating he will produce public records, Defendant has taken the position that he can refuse to produce any records that involve “criticizing other councilmembers” despite those messages’ clear connection to City business, as well as his decision to not turn over records involving discussion with another Councilmember of items on the City Council’s agenda and votes taken thereon, which could not be more clearly public records. Indeed, this twisted interpretation is evident in the dearth of documents Defendant has produced; in total Defendant has only produced approximately 230 records, despite the fact that his counsel stated on July 31, 2025 that his office had “been able to review and bates-number approximately 1,000 of [] 5,000 files as of the time of this writing” and that they “are currently processing the additional 4,000 files.” Given his narrow interpretation of the City’s business, he is denying the public “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business” which “is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” (Gov. Code, § 7921.000.) Where are the remaining thousands of files? While it is true that the California Supreme Court in San Jose has noted that “communications that are primarily personal, containing no more than incidental mentions of agency business, generally will not constitute public records” and provided an example of “an employee’s electronic musings about a colleague’s personal shortcomings will often fall far short” of meeting the definition of a Public Record, that exception has no application to communications between the agency’s highest elected officials that contain criticism of the performance of other 23 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413141.4
17 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
public officials, including of the city manager and city attorney. Here, there are records (text messages) between Defendant and Councilmember Maeda from early 2025 in which there is not only criticism by Defendant of Councilmember Maeda, but other textbook public business:
• Prior votes of the City Council that they (or one of them) participated in; • The performance of the City Manager, over which Defendant and Councilmember Maeda have supervisory control in their official roles as City Councilmembers; • The performance of other City Councilmembers;
• Councilmember Maeda’s comments at City Council meetings; • Requests for assistance in getting documents signed by or concerning the City Manager; and
• Potential upcoming votes of the City Council, and other items that are likely to come in front of the City Council.

Indeed, in his text messages with Councilmember Maeda, Defendant even stated “Turn these texts into Edmondson via PRR.” (See Complaint, Ex. C, emphasis added.) The term “PRR” is an obvious reference to Public Records Request—and is the acronym used by the City Clerk’s office and City staff—and an acknowledgement by Defendant that their text messages are subject to the CPRA. Yet, Defendant still has not produced a single one of these text messages with Councilmember Maeda. It is almost certain that he has used his overly-narrow interpretation to deny turning over dozens, if not hundreds, of other records as well.

Therefore, the City requests that the Court order Defendant to withdraw his objection, engage in a new review of his records with an appropriately broad view of what is a “public record” under the CPRA, provide supplemental responses, and to turn over all potentially responsive documents to RFP Nos. 1–6 to the City.

C. Defendant Should Be Ordered to Provide a Privilege Log or Documents Without Redactions
As part of the documents turned over with the Initial Responses on July 9, 2025, Defendant included several pages that had large blanks on them, including Bates Numbers 000001–000002, 000004–000021, 000024–000025, and 000031–000038. In the Initial Responses on July 9, 2025, 24 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413141.4
18 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
Defendant indicated that these documents were being provided in response to RFP No. 2, which sought e-mails relating to CITY BUSINESS. However, Defendant did not object to that particular RFP on the basis of attorney-client privilege (either in the July 9, 2025 Initial Responses or his August 29, 2025 Supplemental Responses), nor did he provide a privilege log (either with the July 9, 2025 Initial Responses or with his August 29, 2025 Supplemental Responses). (See Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.240(c)(1).) Therefore, it remains unclear why there are large blanks on these pages.

Defendant should be ordered to provide a privilege log or unredacted versions of those documents.

D. Defendant Should Be Ordered to Provide a Verification of the Initial Responses Sent to the City on July 9, 2025
Whenever a party responds to discovery with any responses other than objections, it must provide a verification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.250(a).) Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Here, as pointed out in the July 21, 2025 and September 18, 2025 letters, Defendant’s Initial Responses to RFP Set One, sent on July 9, 2025, were unverified. Despite Defendant’s counsel on July 9, 2025 stating that Defendant’s verification “will follow shortly” and the City’s repeated requests, Defendant has refused to provide a signed verification attesting to those responses and documents. Defendant should be ordered to do so.

E. Good Causes Exists for the Motion
As is evident above, there is plentiful good cause for this motion and the requested discovery. Initially, the City should be provided a verification for Defendant’s initial responses since they included substantive responses and documents, many of which were never turned over to the City when it initially sought Defendant’s compliance with CPRA requests. (Thind Decl., ¶ 18.) Given the gist of the allegations in the Complaint relate to Defendant’s violation of the CPRA by failing to provide public records to the City Clerk and, separately, his decision to destroy public records, the City is entitled to discovery to explore what records he has or previously had in his possession to determine if has abided by the duties imposed upon him under the Government Code. (Ibid.) Moreover, such discovery cannot be accomplished from other sources given only Defendant has possession of these records. (Ibid.)
25 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413141.4
19 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
VI. THE CITY REQUESTS SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,100.00 Misuse of the discovery process includes making unmeritorious objections and evasive responses in discovery. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (e), (f).) Misuse of the discovery process further includes unsuccessfully opposing a motion to compel without substantial justification. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (h).) The Court may impose sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct constituting the misuse of the discovery process after notice to the affected party or attorney and an opportunity for a fair hearing. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)
Here, there is no justification for Defendant’s conduct. His objection and belief that he does not have to produce records where he “criticizes” other Councilmembers is incorrect as a matter of law and also does not explain why he would not produce text messages with Councilmembers where they discuss City Council items and the performance of the City Manager and City Attorney. Despite opportunity to do so, Defendant has also failed to produce a privilege log or explain why several pages of responsive documents have large blanks. Finally, despite repeated requests, Defendant still has not provided a verification for his Initial Responses sent to the City on July 9, 2025. There is no possible justification for this refusal except for misuse of the discovery process.

For this particular motion, the City has eight (8) hours of attorney time from Ajit S. Thind and he estimates an additional four (4) hours of attorney time to review the opposition, prepare a reply brief and prepare for a hearing on this motion. (Thind Decl., ¶ 19.) Mr. Thind’s rate of $425.00 per hour is reasonable given he has been a licensed attorney for over fifteen years, has substantial litigation experience during that timeframe, has served as the appointed City Attorney for the City of La Palma for the last six years, and the requested rate is likely below similar special counsel work. (Thind Decl., ¶ 20.)
VII. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the City requests that the Court grant this motion, order Defendant to provide verified supplemental responses, documents, a verification of the Initial Responses, and unredacted versions of documents with Bates Numbers 000001–000002, 000004– 26 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413141.4
20 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFICATION OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
000021, 000024–000025, and 000031–000038. The City also requests that sanctions be imposed against Defendant in the amount of $5,100.00.

DATED: October 10, 2025 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH &

WHATLEY, PC

MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO
AJIT S. THIND
SERGIO C. ORDAZ
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

CITY OF POWAY
27 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413141.4
21 PRO OF OF SER VICE

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

PROOF OF SERVICE
City of Poway v. Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain
San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 25CU024105C
I, Tracey S. West, declare:

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. My business address is 790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850, Pasadena, CA 91101-2109. My e-mail address is: [email protected]. On October 10, 2025, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as PETITIONER AND PLAINTIFF CITY OF POWAY’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENT AND DEFENDANT COUNCILMEMBER ARTHUR (TONY) BLAIN’S VERIFICATION

OF AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM on the interested parties in this action as follows:

Michael G. Wales
Robert Salgado

COUNTERPOINT LEGAL
600 B Street, Suite 1550
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 780-3303
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant

ARTHUR TONY BLAIN
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address [email protected] to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on October 10, 2025, at St. Louis, Missouri.

Tracey S. West

28 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
29 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
41 3142.3

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego
10/10/2025 1 :36:36 PM
MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO, State Bar No. 143551
mcolantuono @chwlaw.us
Clerk of the Superior Court
By T. Automation ,Deputy lerk
2 AJIT S. THIND , State Bar No. 268018
athind @chwlaw.u s
3 SERGIO C. ORDAZ , State Bar No. 334520
[email protected]
4 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
5 Pasadena, California 91101-2109
Telephone: (213) 542-5700
6 Facsimile: (213) 542-5710
7 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

CITY OF POWAY
[Exempt From Filing Fee
Government Code § 6103]
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF POWAY,
Petitioner and Plaintiff,
V.

COUNCILMEMBER ARTHUR (TONY)
15 BLAIN,
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Respondent and Defendant.

Case No. 25CU024105C

PETITIONER AND PLAINTIFF CITY

OF POWAY'S NOTICE OF MOTION

AND MOTION TO COMPEL

RESPONDENT AND DEFENDANT

COUNCILMEMBER ARTHUR (TONY)

BLAIN'S RESPONSES TO SECOND

SET OF REQUESTS FOR

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

MEMORANDUM
Filed concurrently with Declaration of Ajit
S. Thind; and [Proposed} Order

IMAGED FILE
Assigned for All Purposes to:

Hon. Carolyn M. Caietti
Department C-70
Action Filed: April 30, 2025
Hearing Date :

Time:

Dept.:
1 June 18, 2026
10:30 a.m.

C-70
CITY ' S MOTlON TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO

SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413142.3
2 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO

SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on June 18, 2026 at 10:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Department C-70 of the above-captioned Court, located at 330 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, Petitioner and Plaintiff City of Poway (the “City”) will and hereby does move this Court for an order compelling Respondent and Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to the City’s Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP Set Two”).

This Motion is made upon the following grounds:

Despite being served with RFP Set Two on July 29, 2025, which contained twenty-two RFPs, Defendant failed to respond or even object to RFP Nos. 14–29. While the City had no obligation to meet and confer, the City twice asked Defendant to provide responses and documents, but his counsel has flatly refused. The City also seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant. This Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030, 2023.040, and 2031.310; and California Rules of Court rules 3.1345 and 3.1348. The City also will and hereby does move the Court for an order that Defendant pay $3,400.00 in monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030, and 2031.310, subdivision (h) as the reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by the City for these proceedings.

The City also requests that the Court prioritize the hearing on this Motion in compliance with Government Code section 7923.005.

This Motion is based on this Notice, the Memorandum hereunder, and Declaration of Ajit S. Thind filed concurrently herewith, all of the pleadings, files, and records in this proceeding, all other matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, and any argument or evidence that may be presented to or considered by the Court prior to its ruling.

30 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413142.3
3 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO

SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
DATED: October 10, 2025 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH &

WHATLEY, PC

MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO
AJIT S. THIND
SERGIO C. ORDAZ
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

CITY OF POWAY

31 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413142.3
4 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO

SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

On July 29, 2025, the City sent Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain (“Defendant”) Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”) Set Two. RFP Set Two included twenty-two individually crafted RFPs relevant to this action, which were numbered 8–29. On September 2, 2025, Defendant sent verified1 responses, but only responded to RFP Nos. 8–13.

Since Defendant failed to respond to RFP Nos. 14–29, unlike a motion to compel further responses, the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a “meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) Nonetheless, the City’s counsel reached out to Defendant’s counsel in writing on September 18, 2025 and September 29, 2025 seeking responses and documents. Defendant’s counsel responded in writing and expressly refused to provide any responses/documents and the City now brings this motion seeking them along with sanctions.

1 The signed verification incorrectly says “Anthonny” instead of “Arthur.” 32 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413142.3
5 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO

SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
request that he “search [his] private email accounts, text messages, social media direct messages or any other form of electronic communication for any communications ‘between Tony Blain and (Councilmember) Jenny Maeda from November 5, 2024 to January 16, 2025’ that’s related to City business.” (Complaint, ¶ 16.) In response to this request, Defendant responded that “I deleted everything last week.” (Complaint, ¶ 22.) After apparent further review, Defendant located two responsive Facebook messages and provided those to the City Clerk. After producing the two Facebook messages, Defendant informed the City Clerk that he “deleted all [his] personal e mails 2 weeks ago.” (Ibid.) Later that day, Defendant informed the City Clerk that he did not have any additional communications related to City business and that “[a]ll texts were deleted weeks ago.” (Ibid.)
Responsive text messages between Defendant and Councilmember Maeda existed. (Complaint, ¶ 24.) Councilmember Maeda produced several of those text messages in response to the same foregoing CPRA requests. (Ibid.) Defendant did not, stating he had none. (Ibid.) However, Defendant refused to sign an affidavit affirming the truth of that statement, despite that being the recognized practice for public officials to search their devices under City of San Jose. (Ibid.) Councilmember Maeda’s production of several text messages proves that Defendant’s statement was not true.

On January 23, 2025, the City Clerk requested that Defendant search for and produce “[a]ll text and other electronic communications sent or received by Blain between December 17, 2024 and January 23, 2025 in which city matters are discussed. This should include messages via any app including but not limited to Facebook Messenger, Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal, Snapchat” in order to respond to the CPRA request designated as PRR 2025-020, and the City Clerk included an affidavit for Defendant to sign attesting that he completed the search and had provided all requested public records. (Complaint, ¶ 34.) Defendant responded, “I do not use my private e mail or devices or social media for ‘City Business’” but again refused to sign an affidavit attesting to the same. (Ibid.)
On or about January 23, 2025—the very same day as his extensive email exchange with the City Clerk about this topic—Councilmember Blain texted “[d]elete all my texts to you ok – 33 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413142.3
6 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO

SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
Poway Mayor & Attorney trying to sue me – lets change to Signal app – they can’t access it.” (Complaint, ¶ 47, Ex. B.)
Defendant has repeatedly stated substantially the same in response to other CPRA requests and refused to sign further affidavits prior to the commencement of this action. (Complaint, ¶¶ 38, 39, 52, 59, 61.) Similarly, Defendant has also asked others to delete his text messages to them. (Complaint, ¶ 47.) Faced with little other choice, the City filed the underlying Complaint in this matter seeking judicial relief.

III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The City served Defendant with RFP Set Two on July 29, 2025. RFP Set Two contains twenty-two carefully drafted requests for categories of documents related to this matter, which are numbered 8–29. (Declaration of Ajit S. Thind [“Thind Decl.”], ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Defendant was served by e-mail with this document, along with Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories. 2 (Thind Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. B.)
On September 2, 2025, Defendant served the City with verified Responses to RFP Set Two. (Thind Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. C.) However, Defendant only provided responses to RFP Nos. 8–13. (Ibid.) On September 18, 2025, the City’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to opposing counsel, noting deficiencies in several discovery responses that had recently been provided to the City. (Thind Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. D.) The meet and confer letter contained the following excerpt (and another copy of RFP Set Two as an attachment) on this particular issue:

Failure to Respond to RFP Nos. 14-29
In addition to the above deficiencies, Defendant failed to provide any timely responses (or even objections) to RFP Nos. 14–29. I have included another copy of the full Requests for Production (Set Two) with this correspondence which was sent to your office on July 29, 2025. Due to Defendant ’s failure to respond to those requests for production, he has now waived objections and must immediately provide documents. While our office could have immediately moved to compel responses and documents without attempting to meet and confer, we are first asking that Defendant provide objection-free responses and all requested documents, including “all DOCUMENTS recovered by the DATA RECOVERY VENDOR from YOUR DEVICES” as requested by RFP No. 29, by September 25, 2025.

2 Counsel has verified that the e-mail transmittal of RFP Set Two contained the full set of RFPs numbered from 8–29. (Thind Decl., ¶ 4.)
34 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413142.3
7 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO

SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
(Ibid.) While the meet and confer letter requested responses by September 25, 2025, Defendant did not provide responses or responsive documents by that date. (Thind Decl., ¶ 7.) On September 29, 2025, the City’s counsel sent an e-mail to Defendant’s counsel, enclosing another copy of the September 18, 2025 letter and requesting responses and documents by October 1, 2025. On September 30, 2025, Defendant’s counsel succinctly responded by e-mail: “Your request for supplemental responses by October 1 is denied. You have everything we have.” (Thind Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. E.)
IV. LEGAL STANDARD
Under the Civil Discovery Act, the City has broad discovery rights that entitle it to obtain discovery regarding any relevant, nonprivileged matter “if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) This includes discovery relating to the claims or defenses of any party; the identity and location of persons having knowledge of discoverable matters; and the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location, of any document and electronically stored information. (Id.)
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, a party may move for an order compelling a response to a request for production of documents if the responding party failed to provide a timely response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) A party that fails to serve a timely response to the discovery request waives “any objection” to the request, “including one based on privilege” or the protection of attorney work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subd. (a).) Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a “meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) While a separate statement is typically required with a discovery motion, it is not required when a party fails to provide responses. (See California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b).) 35 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413142.3
8 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO

SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
V. ARGUMENT
A. CPRA Cases Are Entitled to Priority
Pursuant to the Government Code, CPRA cases are entitled to priority:

In a proceeding under Section 7923.000, the court shall set the times for hearings and responsive pleadings with the object of securing a decision as to the matters at issue at the earliest possible time.
(See Gov. Code § 7923.005; Cnty. of San Benito v. Superior Ct. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 243, 259 [“We agree. . . that it is necessary and appropriate for a trial court to manage Public Records Act litigation—as a matter of significant public importance—to achieve an expeditious resolution of the enforcement proceeding”].) While the City acknowledges the importance of many types of cases on the Court’s docket, the City requests that the Court consider prioritizing this matter and the hearing on this motion to compel in compliance with the Government Code.

B. The Court Should Order Defendant to Provide Verified Objection - Free Responses and Documents to RFP Nos. 14– 29
Here, the City served Defendant’s counsel with RFP Set Two on July 29, 2025. Defendant responded on September 2, 2025 with verified responses but only to RFP Nos. 8–13. Plaintiff did not provide any responses to the City’s RFP Nos. 14–29 in Set Two, nor did he even provide objections. While not obliged to, the City twice attempted to meet and confer to obtain verified responses and documents. Since all efforts have failed, the City can bring this motion, without a separate statement, and the Court shall grant the motion, find that any objections are waived, and order Defendant to provide verified objection-free responses and documents.

VI. THE CITY REQUESTS SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 3,400.00 Misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code. Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (d).) “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) 36 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413142.3
9 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO

SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
Here, there is no justification for Defendant’s conduct. Despite receiving the RFP Set Two Defendant failed to respond to sixteen of the RFPs contained therein. And even after the City attempted to meet and confer on this very issue, Defendant still would not provide responses or documents.

For this particular motion, the City has five (5) hours of attorney time from Ajit S. Thind and he estimates an additional three (3) hours of attorney time to review the opposition, prepare a reply brief and prepare for a hearing on this motion. (Thind Decl., ¶ 8.) Mr. Thind’s rate of $425.00 per hour is reasonable given he has been a licensed attorney for over fifteen years, has substantial litigation experience during that timeframe, has served as the appointed City Attorney for the City of La Palma for the last six years, and the requested rate is likely below similar special counsel work. (Thind Decl., ¶ 9.)
VII. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the City requests that the Court grant this motion and order Defendant to provide objection-free verified responses to RFP Nos. 14–29 and responsive documents. The City also requests that sanctions be imposed against Defendant in the amount of $3,400.00.

DATED: October 10, 2025 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH &

WHATLEY, PC

MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO
AJIT S. THIND
SERGIO C. ORDAZ
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

CITY OF POWAY
37 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413142.3
10 PROOF OF SERVICE

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

PROOF OF SERVICE
City of Poway v. Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain
San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 25CU024105C
I, Tracey S. West, declare:

SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM on the interested parties in this action as follows:

Michael G. Wales
Robert Salgado

COUNTERPOINT LEGAL
600 B Street, Suite 1550
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 780-3303
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on October 10, 2025, at St. Louis, Missouri.

Tracey S. West

38 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
39 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
41 3152.2

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego
10/10/2025 1 :48:43 PM
MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO, State Bar No. 143551
mcolantuono @chwlaw.us
Clerk of the Superior Court
By T. Automation ,Deputy lerk
2 AJIT S. THIND , State Bar No. 268018
athind @chwlaw.u s
3 SERGIO C. ORDAZ , State Bar No. 334520
[email protected]
4 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
5 Pasadena, California 91101-2109
Telephone: (213) 542-5700
6 Facsimile: (213) 542-5710
7 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

CITY OF POWAY
[Exempt From Filing Fee
Government Code § 6103]
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF POWAY,
Petitioner and Plaintiff,
V.

COUNCILMEMBER ARTHUR (TONY)
15 BLAIN,
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Respondent and Defendant.

Case No. 25CU024105C

PETITIONER AND PLAINTIFF CITY

OF POWAY'S NOTICE OF MOTION

AND MOTION TO COMPEL

RESPONDENT AND DEFENDANT

COUNCILMEMBER ARTHUR (TONY)

BLAIN'S SUPPLEMENTAL

RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

MEMORANDUM
Filed concurrently with Separate
Statement; Declaration of Ajit S. Thind;
and [Proposed} Order

IMAGED FILE
Assigned for All Purposes to:

Hon. Carolyn M. Caietti
Department C-70
Action Filed: April 30, 2025
Hearing Date:

Time:

Dept.:
1 June 18, 2026
10:30 a.m.

C-70

CITY 'S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF SPEC IAL INTERROGATORIES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413152.2
2 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on June 18, 2026 at 10:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Department C-70 of the above-captioned Court, located at 330 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, Petitioner and Plaintiff City of Poway (the “City”) will and hereby does move this Court for an order compelling Respondent and Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to the City’s First Set of Special Interrogatories.

This Motion is made upon the following grounds:

Four of Defendant’s Responses to the City’s Special Interrogatories, Set One do not demonstrate good faith. Defendant has failed to review documents, e-mails, and records easily available to him to provide responsive information. Given his failure to do so, the City seeks an order requiring verified supplemental responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 27. The City also seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant. This Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030, 2023.040; and California Rules of Court rules

3.1345 and 3.1348. Good cause exists given Defendant has provided evasive and incomplete responses and this information is necessary for the City to evaluate Defendant’s violations and defenses. The City also will and hereby does move the Court for an order that Defendant pay $3,400.00 in monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030, and 2031.310, subdivision (h) as the reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by the City for these proceedings.

The City also requests that the Court prioritize the hearing on this Motion in compliance with Government Code section 7923.005.

413152.2
3 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
DATED: October 10, 2025 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH &

WHATLEY, PC

MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO
AJIT S. THIND
SERGIO C. ORDAZ
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

CITY OF POWAY

41 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413152.2
4 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
MEMORANDUM ..............................................................................................................................7 I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................7 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................................7 III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................9 I V. LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................10 V. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................10 A. CPRA Cases Are Entitled to Priority ........................................................................10 B. The Court Should Order Defendant to Provide Verified Supplemental Responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 27 Because His Current Responses Demonstrate a Lack of Diligence and Good Faith .................... 11 C. Good Cause Exists for the Motion ...........................................................................13 VI. THE CITY REQUESTS SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,400.00 ........................13 VII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................14

42 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413152.2
5 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
State Cases
Bloxham v. Saldinger
(2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729 .................................................................................................... 11 Clement v. Alegre
(2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277 .................................................................................................. 12 Cnty. of San Benito v. Superior Ct.
(2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 243 ...................................................................................................... 10 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12 ....................................................................................................... 10 Coy v. Superior Court
(1962) 58 Cal.2d 210 ............................................................................................................... 10 Deyo v. Kilbourne
(1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771 ....................................................................................................... 11 Smith v. Superior Court In & For San Joaquin County
(1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6 ......................................................................................................... 11 State Statutes
Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040 ......................................................................................................... 10 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 ........................................................................................................... 2 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020 ......................................................................................................... 13 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 ........................................................................................................... 2 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040 ........................................................................................................... 2 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a) ......................................................................................... 11 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c) ......................................................................................... 11 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300 ......................................................................................................... 10 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b) ......................................................................................... 10 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c) ......................................................................................... 10 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d) ......................................................................................... 13 43 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413152.2
6 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h) ..................................................................................... 2, 13 Gov. Code, § 7920.000 .............................................................................................................. 7, 12 Gov. Code, § 7923.005 .............................................................................................................. 2, 10 Gov. Code, § 34090 ................................................................................................................... 7, 12 Gov. Code, § 53235 ....................................................................................................................... 12 Rules
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 ...................................................................................................... 2 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348 ...................................................................................................... 2

44 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413152.2
7 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

On July 29, 2025, the City sent Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain (“Defendant”) Special Interrogatories Set One. Special Interrogatories Set One contained thirty- one individually crafted interrogatories relevant to this action, which were numbered 1–31. On September 2, 2025, Defendant sent verified responses to the City. However, a number of the verified responses are evasive and incomplete, with Defendant describing that he has no “memory” of certain events. Yet Defendant has a clear obligation to search his own records, accounts, and devices to provide accurate information and cannot simply rely on his (lack of) memory to avoid full and complete responses. Despite meet and confer efforts to obtain supplemental responses, which even provided him with records that should refresh his recollection, Defendant has resisted providing complete responses. The City brings this motion seeking supplemental verified responses to four special interrogatories and sanctions.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant was elected to the Poway City Council in November 2024, and sworn into office on December 17, 2024. (Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint [“Complaint”], ¶ 12.) Throughout December 2024 and January 2025, Defendant was advised and reminded numerous times by City staff that all public records, including text messages or messages contained in any private email account that conduct City business, must be preserved for two years and are subject to disclosure under the CPRA, pursuant to Government Code sections 34090 and 7920.000, et seq. (Complaint, ¶ 14.)
For example, after receiving several CPRA requests early this year specifically requesting public records on Defendant’s various devices and accounts, the City Clerk contacted Defendant to request that he “search [his] private email accounts, text messages, social media direct messages or any other form of electronic communication for any communications ‘between Tony Blain and 45 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413152.2
8 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
(Councilmember) Jenny Maeda from November 5, 2024 to January 16, 2025’ that’s related to City business.” (Complaint, ¶ 16.) In response to this request, Defendant responded that “I deleted everything last week.” (Complaint, ¶ 22.) After apparent further review, Defendant located two responsive Facebook messages and provided those to the City Clerk. After producing the two Facebook messages, Defendant informed the City Clerk that he “deleted all [his] personal e mails 2 weeks ago.” (Ibid.) Later that day, Defendant informed the City Clerk that he did not have any additional communications related to City business and that “[a]ll texts were deleted weeks ago.” (Ibid.)
Responsive text messages between Defendant and Councilmember Maeda existed. (Complaint, ¶ 24.) Councilmember Maeda produced several of those text messages in response to the same foregoing CPRA requests. (Ibid.) Defendant did not, stating he had none. (Ibid.) However, Defendant refused to sign an affidavit affirming the truth of that statement, despite that being the recognized practice for public officials to search their devices under City of San Jose. (Ibid.) Councilmember Maeda’s production of several text messages prove that Defendant’s statement was not true.

On January 23, 2025, the City Clerk requested that Defendant search for and produce “[a]ll text and other electronic communications sent or received by Blain between December 17, 2024 and January 23, 2025 in which city matters are discussed. This should include messages via any app including but not limited to Facebook Messenger, Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal, Snapchat” in order to respond to the CPRA request designated as PRR 2025-020, and the City Clerk included an affidavit for Defendant to sign attesting that he completed the search and had provided all requested public records. (Complaint, ¶ 34.) Defendant responded, “I do not use my private e mail or devices or social media for ‘City Business’” but again refused to sign an affidavit attesting to the same. (Ibid.)
On or about January 23, 2025—the very same day as his extensive email exchange with the City Clerk about this topic—Councilmember Blain texted “[d]elete all my texts to you ok – Poway Mayor & Attorney trying to sue me – lets change to Signal app – they can’t access it.” (Complaint, ¶ 47, Ex. B.)
46 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413152.2
9 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
Defendant has repeatedly stated substantially the same in response to other CPRA requests and refused to sign further affidavits prior to the commencement of this action. (Complaint, ¶¶ 38, 39, 52, 59, 61.) Similarly, Defendant has also asked others to delete his text messages to them. (Complaint, ¶ 47.) Faced with little other choice, the City filed the underlying Complaint in this matter seeking judicial relief.

III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The City served Defendant with Special Interrogatories Set One on July 29, 2025. (Declaration of Ajit S. Thind [“Thind Decl.”], ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Special Interrogatories Set One contains thirty-one carefully drafted interrogatories, which are numbered 1–31. Defendant was served by e- mail with the Special Interrogatories, along with Form Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Requests for Production of Documents.

On September 2, 2025, Defendant sent verified responses to the City. (Thind Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. B.) However, a number of the verified responses are evasive and incomplete, with Defendant describing that he has no “memory” of certain items and providing partial answers. (Ibid.) On September 18, 2025, the City’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to opposing counsel, noting deficiencies in several discovery responses that had recently been provided to the City. (Thind Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. C.) As to the Special Interrogatories, the letter specifically describes that four Special Interrogatory responses are evasive or incomplete, and should be supplemented after Defendant reviews records available to him (including some records which are attached to the meet and confer letter). (Ibid.)
While the meet and confer letter requested responses by September 25, 2025, Defendant did not provide responses or responsive documents by that date. (Thind Decl., ¶ 5.) On September 29, 2025, the City’s counsel sent an e-mail to Defendant’s counsel, enclosing another copy of the September 18, 2025 letter and requesting responses and documents by October 1, 2025. On September 30, 2025, Defendant’s counsel succinctly responded by e-mail: “Your request for supplemental responses by October 1 is denied. You have everything we have.” (Thind Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. D.)
47 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413152.2
10 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
IV. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories lies where a responding party gives improper responses, whether through improper objections or evasive or incomplete answers. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.) A propounding party must move for further responses within 45 days of verified responses unless the parties extend this deadline in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)
Motions to compel further responses require a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues presented by the motion informally before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b).) Here, the City attempted to do so by reaching out to Defendant’s counsel with a meet and confer letter and then by e-mail when no response was provided.

If a propounding party timely moves to compel further responses to interrogatories, the burden is on the propounding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer. (Coy v.

Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221.) Decision on a motion to compel is a matter of discretion which usually turns on: (1) the relationship of the information sought to the issues framed in the pleadings; (2) the likelihood that disclosure will be of practical benefit to the party seeking discovery; and (3) the burden or expense likely to be encountered by the responding party in furnishing the information. (Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.)
V. ARGUMENT
A. CPRA Cases Are Entitled to Priority
Pursuant to the Government Code, CPRA cases are entitled to priority:

413152.2
11 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
resolution of the enforcement proceeding”].) While the City acknowledges the importance of many types of cases on the Court’s docket, the City requests that the Court consider prioritizing this matter and the hearing on this motion to compel in compliance with the Government Code.

B. The Court Should Order Defendant to Provide Verified Supplemental Responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 27 Because His Current Responses Demonstrate a Lack of Diligence and Good Faith
A party’s discovery responses must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a)) and that party must make a “reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party” (id. at subd. (c)). A responding party thus “cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782 [“Deyo”].) Rather, a responding party must make a reasonable effort to obtain whatever information is sought and, if unable to respond, must specify why the information is unavailable and what efforts he or she made to obtain it. (Ibid.) Even information known to a party’s attorney or expert witnesses is deemed “obtainable” by the party. Therefore, responses to discovery must be made in light of such information. (Bloxham v. Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 752; see Smith v. Superior Court In & For San Joaquin County (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 12 [“Even if the names and addresses of the witnesses were known only to the attorneys, they would have to be disclosed on a proper interrogatory addressed to the party”].) Here, several of Defendant’s verified responses to the City’s Special Interrogatories demonstrate a clear decision on the part of Defendant to not review records and information easily available to him, including e-mails he received and text messages on his cell phone. • Special Interrogatory No. 3
o This Interrogatory asks Defendant to provide each date since November 6, 2024 he has texted Councilmember Maeda. Defendant responds with a few dates but also says he has no memory of each date and “is unable to respond accurately.” This is an evasive response; Defendant can review his text messages on his phone and make a full and complete determination of each date. The Discovery 49 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413152.2
12 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
Act does not allow a responding party to rely only on his or her recollection in the moment of drafting the response, but as explained above, instead requires a good faith investigation of sources reasonably available to the responding party in formulating answers.
• Special Interrogatory No. 4
o This interrogatory asks Defendant to identify each person he has texted with regarding an item on an upcoming City Council agenda. Defendant again cites “no memory” rather than engaging in any review of his own text messages that are located on his cell phone. This response is particularly evasive given Defendant even admits that he did text with Councilmember Maeda regarding an upcoming City Council vote to censure him. (See Responses to RFA Nos. 31, 34, 35, 37.)
• Special Interrogatory No. 5
o Like Special Interrogatory No. 4, this interrogatory asks again for names of persons Defendant has texted with, this time regarding “an item that was on a prior Poway City Council agenda.” Defendant again cites “no memory” rather than engaging in any review of his own text messages that are located on his cell phone. Again, in addition to suffering the same defects as cited above, this response is particularly evasive given Defendant also admits that he did text with Councilmember Maeda regarding prior actions taken at City Council meetings. (See Responses to RFA Nos. 39, 47, 49.)
• Special Interrogatory No. 27
o Special Interrogatory No. 27 asks Defendant to provide all facts that support his contention in his Answer that he denies that that “he was ‘advised numerous times by staff’ [that all public records, including text messages or messages contained in any private email account that conduct City business, must be preserved for two years and are subject to disclosure under the CPRA, pursuant to Government Code sections 34090 and 7920.000, et seq.]. Defendant objects on the basis that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous and that the request is nonsensical. However, objections based on vagueness must be accompanied by a good faith attempt to interpret the request and provide a substantive response. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291.) Of course, the Special Interrogatory is not nonsensical and there are numerous e-mails from the City advising him (which he had access to at the time of his response and which were also attached to the City’s meet and confer letter) and the same is also evidence from his required AB 1234
1 training.

All of the above special interrogatories are certainly “relevant to the subject matter” involved in this matter, or are “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” They seek information on who Defendant has texted with regarding City matters and

1 Pursuant to Government Code section 53235, members of city council must take an ethics training every two years.
50 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413152.2
13 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
information on the denials that he has offered in Defendant’s Answer. Given Defendant has obviously refused to examine his own records, e-mails, and text messages, it cannot truly be argued that he has engaged in a “good faith” attempt at responding. Further, the City, through meet and confer, provided him with specific records that demonstrate his lack of diligence. Therefore, the City requests that the Court compel supplemental verified responses.

C. Good Cause Exists for the Motion
All of the information sought by way of this motion is directly relevant to this lawsuit. As it pertains to Defendant’s deficient Special Interrogatories, they seek information related to who he has texted regarding City Business, including a Councilmember, and the reasons to support his statements in the Answer. (Thind Decl., ¶ 6.) Given the gist of the allegations in the Complaint relate to Defendant’s violation of the CPRA by failing to provide public records to the City Clerk and, separately, his decision to destroy public records, the City is entitled to discovery to explore what records he has or previously had in his possession to determine if has abided by the duties imposed upon him under the Government Code. (Ibid.) Moreover, such discovery cannot be accomplished from other sources given only Defendant has possession of these records and/or information. (Ibid.)
VI. THE CITY REQUESTS SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 3,400.00 “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) The Court may impose monetary sanctions on a responding party in favor of a moving party for the latter’s reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, in moving to compel. (Code Civ.

Proc., §§ 2023.020, 2030.300, subd. (d).)
Here, there is no justification for Defendant’s conduct. Defendant and his counsel are well- aware of the obligation to review records available to a party before responding to interrogatories; here, in meet and confer, the City has raised these specific responses to special interrogatories, 51 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413152.2
14 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
pointed out precisely why they are deficient, asked for supplemental verified responses and yet, Defendant has not even attempted to provide better responses.

For this particular motion, the City has five (5) hours of attorney time from Ajit S. Thind and he estimates an additional three (3) hours of attorney time to review the opposition, prepare a reply brief and prepare for a hearing on this motion. (Thind Decl., ¶ 7.) Mr. Thind’s rate of $425.00 per hour is reasonable given he has been a licensed attorney for over fifteen years, has substantial litigation experience during that timeframe, has served as the appointed City Attorney for the City of La Palma for the last six years, and the requested rate is likely below similar special counsel work. (Thind Decl., ¶ 8.)
VII. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the City requests that the Court grant this motion and order Defendant to provide objection-free verified supplemental responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 27. The City also requests that sanctions be imposed against Defendant in the amount of $3,400.00.

DATED: October 10, 2025 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH &

WHATLEY, PC

MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO
AJIT S. THIND
SERGIO C. ORDAZ
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

CITY OF POWAY
52 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413152.2
15 PROOF OF SERVICE

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

PROOF OF SERVICE
City of Poway v. Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain
San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 25CU024105C
I, Tracey S. West, declare:

RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM on the interested parties in this action as follows:

Michael G. Wales
Robert Salgado

COUNTERPOINT LEGAL
600 B Street, Suite 1550
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 780-3303
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on October 10, 2025, at St. Louis, Missouri.

Tracey S. West

53 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
54 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
41 3145.2

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego
10/10/2025 1 :43:00 PM
MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO, State Bar No. 143551
mcolantuono @chwlaw.us
Clerk of the Superior Court
By T. Automation ,Deputy lerk
2 AJIT S. THIND , State Bar No. 268018
athind @chwlaw.us
3 SERGIO C. ORDAZ , State Bar No. 334520
[email protected]
4 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
5 Pasadena, California 91101-2109
Telephone: (213) 542-5700
6 Facsimile: (213) 542-5710
7 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

CITY OF POWAY
[Exempt From Filing Fee
Government Code § 6103]
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF POWAY,
Petitioner and Plaintiff,
V.

COUNCILMEMBER ARTHUR (TONY)
15 BLAIN,
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Respondent and Defendant.

Case No. 25CU024105C

PETITIONER AND PLAINTIFF CITY

OF POWAY'S NOTICE OF MOTION

AND MOTION TO COMPEL

RESPONDENT AND DEFENDANT

COUNCILMEMBER ARTHUR (TONY)

BLAIN'S SUPPLEMENTAL

RESPONSES TO FORM

INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL
(SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM
Filed concurrently with Separate
Statement; Declaration of Ajit S. Thind;
and [Proposed} Order

IMAGED FILE
Assigned for All Purposes to:

Hon. Carolyn M. Caietti
Department C-70
Action Filed: April 30, 2025
Hearing Date:

Time:

Dept.:
1 June 18, 2026
10:30 a.m.

C-70

CITY 'S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

FORM INT ERROGATOR IES-GENERAL (SET ONE)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
2 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on June 18, 2026 at 10:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Department C-70 of the above-captioned Court, located at 330 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, Petitioner and Plaintiff City of Poway (“City”) will and hereby does move this Court for an order compelling Respondent and Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain (“Blain”) to provide further responses to the City’s Form Interrogatories—General (Set One).

This Motion is made upon the following grounds:

Five of Defendant’s Responses to the City’s Form Interrogatories, Set One do not demonstrate good faith and diligence. Defendant has provided evasive responses and has failed to properly answer subparts for several responses. Given his failure to do so, the City seeks an order requiring verified supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 15.1 and 17.1. The City also seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant. This Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030, 2023.040; and California Rules of Court rules 3.1345 and

3.1348. Good cause exists for this motion as Defendant has provided evasive responses and the requested information is necessary for the City to evaluate Defendant’s defenses and evidence and prepare for trial. The City also will and hereby does move the Court for an order that Defendant pay $4,250.00 in monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030, and 2031.310, subdivision (h) as the reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by the City for these proceedings.

The City also requests that the Court prioritize the hearing on this Motion in compliance with Government Code section 7923.005.

55 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
3 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
DATED: October 10, 2025 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH &

WHATLEY, PC

MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO
AJIT S. THIND
SERGIO C. ORDAZ
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

CITY OF POWAY

56 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
4 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

1. Defendant’s deficient responses to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 ................ 11 a. Second Affirmative Defense (Good Faith) .......................................12 b. Fifth Affirmative Defense (Impossibility or Impracticability) .........12 c. Sixth Affirmative Defense (Unclean Hands) ....................................13

2. Defendant’s deficient responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 ................13 a. Explanation of denial of RFA No. 2 .................................................13 b. Explanation of denial of RFA No. 3 .................................................14 c. Explanation of denial of RFA No. 16 ...............................................15 d. Explanation of denial of RFA No. 23 ...............................................16 C. Good Cause Exists for the Motion ...........................................................................16 VI. THE CITY REQUESTS SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,250.00 ........................17 VII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................18

57 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
5 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
State Cases
Bloxham v. Saldinger
(2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729 .................................................................................................... 11 Cnty. of San Benito v. Superior Ct.
(2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 243 ...................................................................................................... 10 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12 ....................................................................................................... 10 Coy v. Superior Court
(1962) 58 Cal.2d 210 ............................................................................................................... 10 Deyo v. Kilbourne
(1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771 ................................................................................................. 11, 15 Smith v. Superior Court In & For San Joaquin County
(1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6 ......................................................................................................... 11 State Statutes
Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040 ......................................................................................................... 10 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 ........................................................................................................... 2 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.020 ......................................................................................................... 17 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 ........................................................................................................... 2 Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040 ........................................................................................................... 2 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a) ......................................................................................... 11 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c) ......................................................................................... 11 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300 ........................................................................................................... 9 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b) ......................................................................................... 10 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c) ......................................................................................... 10 Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d) ......................................................................................... 17 Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h) ..................................................................................... 2, 17 Gov. Code, § 7920.000 .................................................................................................................... 7 58 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
6 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
Gov. Code, § 7923.005 .............................................................................................................. 2, 10 Gov. Code, § 34090 ......................................................................................................................... 7 Rules
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 ...................................................................................................... 2 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348 ...................................................................................................... 2

59 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
7 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

On July 29, 2025, the City sent Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain (“Defendant”) Form Interrogatories Set One. On September 2, 2025, Defendant sent verified responses to the City. However, a number of the verified responses are evasive and incomplete, with Defendant failing to properly respond to subparts. Despite meet and confer efforts to obtain supplemental responses, which even provide him with records that should refresh his recollection, Defendant has resisted. The City brings this motion seeking supplemental verified responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 15.1 and 17.1 and sanctions.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant was elected to the Poway City Council in November 2024, and sworn into office on December 17, 2024. (Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint [“Complaint”], ¶ 12.) Throughout December 2024 and January 2025, Defendant was advised and reminded numerous times by City staff that all public records, including text messages or messages contained in any private email account that conduct City business, must be preserved for two years and are subject to disclosure under the CPRA, pursuant to Government Code sections 34090 and 7920.000, et seq. (Complaint, ¶ 14.)
For example, after receiving several CPRA requests early this year specifically requesting public records on Defendant’s various devices and accounts, the City Clerk contacted Defendant to request that he “search [his] private email accounts, text messages, social media direct messages or any other form of electronic communication for any communications ‘between Tony Blain and (Councilmember) Jenny Maeda from November 5, 2024 to January 16, 2025’ that’s related to City business.” (Complaint, ¶ 16.) In response to this request, Defendant responded that “I deleted everything last week.” (Complaint, ¶ 22.) After apparent further review, Defendant located two responsive Facebook messages and provided those to the City Clerk. After producing the two 60 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
8 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
Facebook messages, Defendant informed the City Clerk that he “deleted all [his] personal e mails 2 weeks ago.” (Ibid.) Later that day, Defendant informed the City Clerk that he did not have any additional communications related to City business and that “[a]ll texts were deleted weeks ago.” (Ibid.)
Responsive text messages between Defendant and Councilmember Maeda existed. (Complaint, ¶ 24.) Councilmember Maeda produced several of those text messages in response to the same foregoing CPRA requests. (Ibid.) Defendant did not, stating he had none. (Ibid.) However, Defendant refused to sign an affidavit affirming the truth of that statement, despite that being the recognized practice for public officials to search their devices under City of San Jose. (Ibid.) Councilmember Maeda’s production of several text messages proves that Defendant’s statement was not true.

On January 23, 2025, the City Clerk requested that Defendant search for and produce “[a]ll text and other electronic communications sent or received by Blain between December 17, 2024 and January 23, 2025 in which city matters are discussed. This should include messages via any app including but not limited to Facebook Messenger, Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal, Snapchat” in order to respond to the CPRA request designated as PRR 2025-020, and the City Clerk included an affidavit for Defendant to sign attesting that he completed the search and had provided all requested public records. (Complaint, ¶ 34.) Defendant responded, “I do not use my private e mail or devices or social media for ‘City Business’” but again refused to sign an affidavit attesting to the same. (Ibid.)
On or about January 23, 2025—the very same day as his extensive email exchange with the City Clerk about this topic—Councilmember Blain texted “[d]elete all my texts to you ok – Poway Mayor & Attorney trying to sue me – lets change to Signal app – they can’t access it.” (Complaint, ¶ 47, Ex. B.)
Defendant has repeatedly stated substantially the same in response to other CPRA requests and refused to sign further affidavits prior to the commencement of this action. (Complaint, ¶¶ 38, 39, 52, 59, 61.) Similarly, Defendant has also asked others to delete his text messages to them. 61 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
9 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
(Complaint, ¶ 47.) Faced with little other choice, the City filed the underlying Complaint in this matter seeking judicial relief.

III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The City served Defendant with the Form Interrogatories Set One on July 29, 2025. (Declaration of Ajit S. Thind [“Thind Decl.”], ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Defendant was served by e-mail with the Form Interrogatories, along with Special Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, and Requests for Production of Documents.

On September 2, 2025, Defendant sent verified responses to the City to all four forms of discovery. (Thind Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. B.) However, a number of the verified responses are evasive and incomplete, with Defendant failing to properly respond to certain subparts of the Form Interrogatories. On September 18, 2025, the City’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to opposing counsel, noting deficiencies in several discovery responses that had recently been provided to the City. (Thind Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. D.) As to the Form Interrogatories, the letter specifically describes that two Form Interrogatory responses are evasive or incomplete, and should be supplemented after Defendant reviews records available to him (including some records which are attached to the meet and confer letter). (Thind Decl., ¶ 4.) While the meet and confer letter requested responses by September 25, 2025, Defendant did not provide responses or responsive documents by that date. (Thind Decl., ¶ 5.) On September 29, 2025, the City’s counsel sent an e-mail to Defendant’s counsel, enclosing another copy of the September 18, 2025 letter and requesting responses and documents by October 1, 2025. On September 30, 2025, Defendant’s counsel succinctly responded by e-mail: “Your request for supplemental responses by October 1 is denied. You have everything we have.” (Thind Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. E.)
IV. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories lies where a responding party gives improper responses, whether through improper objections or evasive or incomplete answers. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300.) A propounding party must move for further responses within 45 62 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
10 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
days of verified responses unless the parties extend this deadline in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).)
Motions to compel further responses require a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues presented by the motion informally before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.300, subd. (b).) Here, the City attempted to do so by reaching out to Defendant’s counsel with a meet and confer letter and then by e-mail when no response was provided.

If a propounding party timely moves to compel further responses to interrogatories, the burden is on the propounding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer. (Coy v.

In a proceeding under Section 7923.000, the court shall set the times for hearings and responsive pleadings with the object of securing a decision as to the matters at issue at the earliest possible time.
(See Gov. Code § 7923.005; Cnty. of San Benito v. Superior Ct. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 243, 259 [“We agree. . . that it is necessary and appropriate for a trial court to manage Public Records Act litigation—as a matter of significant public importance—to achieve an expeditious resolution of the enforcement proceeding”].) While the City acknowledges the importance of many types of cases on the Court’s docket, the City requests that the Court consider prioritizing this matter and the hearing on this motion to compel in compliance with the Government Code. 63 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
11 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
B. The Court Should Order Defendant to Provide Verified Supplemental Responses to Form Interrogator y Nos. 15.1 and 17.1 Because His Current Responses Demonstrate a Lack of Diligence and Good Faith
A party’s discovery responses must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a)) and that party must make a “reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party” (id. at subd. (c)). A responding party thus “cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782 [“Deyo”].) Rather, a responding party must make a reasonable effort to obtain whatever information is sought and, if unable to respond, must specify why the information is unavailable and what efforts he or she made to obtain it. (Ibid.) Even information known to a party’s attorney or expert witnesses is deemed “obtainable” by the party. Therefore, responses to discovery must be made in light of such information. (Bloxham v. Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 752; see Smith v. Superior Court In & For San Joaquin County (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 12 [“Even if the names and addresses of the witnesses were known only to the attorneys, they would have to be disclosed on a proper interrogatory addressed to the party”].) Here, two of Defendant’s responses to the City’s Form Interrogatories, Set One demonstrate a clear decision on the part of Defendant to not review records and information easily available to him, including e-mails he received at his City of Poway e-mail address and text messages on his cell phone.

1. Defendant ’s deficient responses to Form I nterrogatory No.

15.1 Defendant’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 is also deficient and incomplete.

Form Interrogatory 15.1 asks that Defendant provide a variety of information for each of the affirmative defenses alleged in his Answer. For several of the affirmative defenses, Defendant fails to state all facts and provide documents that support his affirmative defenses. In every situation, 64 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
12 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
Defendant states that he has no documents to support his affirmative defenses, which is not believable. Specifically, the information provided in Defendant’s Response to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 on the following affirmative defenses from his Answer is insufficient, conclusory, and should be supplemented:
a. Second Affirmative Defense (Good Faith)
In support of this affirmative defense, Defendant states the following:
a) Discovery is continuing, but the evidence will show Responding Party has acted in good faith at all times.
b) Arthur “Tony” Blain, c/o counsel above.
c) Responding Party has no supporting documents in his possession This response is conclusory and not fully responsive to the required subparts. How specifically has Defendant acted in good faith? There are no facts provided. Who else has information about him acting in good faith? How are there no documents in his possession to substantiate this affirmative defense?
b. Fifth Affirmative Defense (Impossibility or
Impracticability)
In support of this affirmative defense, Defendant states the following:
a) Discovery is continuing, but the evidence will show complying with the writ (and underlying Public Records Requests) was impossible or so impractical as to be unreasonable.
b) Arthur “Tony” Blain, c/o counsel above.
c) Responding Party has no supporting documents in his possession.

This response is conclusory and not fully responsive to the required subparts. How specifically was acting in compliance with underlying laws mentioned in the writ impossible or impractical? There are no facts provided. What was he unable to do specifically (retain records, refrain from deleting records, provide records to the City Clerk in response to a PRA request, etc.)? Was there a specific PRA request mentioned in the petition that he was unable to comply 65 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
13 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
with for some reason? Who else has information about the impossibility or impracticability? How are there no documents in his possession to substantiate this affirmative defense? c. Sixth Affirmative Defense (Unclean Hands)
In support of this affirmative defense, Defendant states the following:
a) Discovery is continuing, but the evidence will show the writ was filed for purely political reasons.
b) Arthur “Tony” Blain, c/o counsel above.
c) Responding Party has no supporting documents in his possession.

Just as above, this response is conclusory. Defendant fails to provide any facts to demonstrate that “the writ was filed for purely political reasons,” including any potential witnesses with knowledge or documents to support this defense. Given he was not the person that filed the “writ,” surely some other persons would have knowledge.

2. Defendant ’s deficient responses to Form Interrogatory No.

17.1 Defendant’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 is also deficient and incomplete. In Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, Defendant is requested to provide information to justify any of his responses to the concurrently served RFAs
1 that are not unqualified admissions. As pointed out in the City’s September 18, 2025 meet and confer letter, Defendant failed to properly review several types of records available to him when he provided his discovery responses and his explanations for his denials are not made in good faith. The following particular responses to affirmative defenses are deficient and must be remedied with supplemental responses:
a. Explanation of denial of RFA No. 2
RFA No. 2 asked Defendant to admit that “between November 5, 2024 and January 16, 2025, he repeatedly exchanged text messages with Councilmember Jenny Maeda regarding CITY BUSINESS.” In response, Defendant denies the response and states that the “messages exchanged with Councilmember Jenny Maeda consisted of campaign strategies and complaints regarding

1 Copies of the RFA Responses are attached as Exhibit C to the Thind Decl. 66 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
14 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
others, and did not relate to the discharge of Councilmember Blain’s official duties and as such did not involve CITY BUSINESS.” However, in his Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 response to that particular RFA denial, he states the following:
(a) RFA NO. 2:
(b) Defendant objects to the term “repeatedly” which ais vague and ambiguous, and not stated with reasonable particularity such that an accurate response is difficult. Without waiving these objection and its objection to the term “City Business”, Responding Party must deny the Request. Any text messages exchanged with Councilmember Jenny Maeda consisted of campaign strategies and complaints regarding others, and did not relate to the discharge of Councilmember Blain’s official duties and as such did not involve CITY BUSINESS.
c) Arthur “Tony” Blain, c/o counsel above.
d) Responding Party has no supporting documents in his possession.

His response does not identify any documents in his possession nor any person that would have such documents. Of course, this is deficient. If he has any of these text messages, Defendant would have them and should list them. It is also possible then that Councilmember Jenny Maeda would have them as well or at least would be a person with such knowledge. Yet, he does not provide any of that information.
b. Explanation of denial of RFA No. 3
RFA No. 3 asked Defendant to admit that he “deleted all of the text messages dated between December 1, 2024 and February 1, 2025 between YOU and Councilmember Jenny Maeda from your cell phone.” Defendant’s response is to Deny and then he states “Some messages were deleted, but not all. Any deleted text messages exchanged with Councilmember Jenny Maeda did not involve CITY BUSINESS.” However, in his Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 response to that particular RFA denial, he states the following:
a) RFA NO. 3:
67 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
15 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
b) Any deleted text messages exchanged with Councilmember Jenny Maeda were personal and did not involve CITY BUSINESS.
c) Arthur “Tony” Blain, c/o counsel above.
d) Responding Party has no supporting documents in his possession.

His response does not identify any documents in his possession nor any person that would have such documents. Of course, this is deficient. If he did not delete all of the text messages, Defendant would have them and should list them. It is also possible then that Councilmember Jenny Maeda would have them as well or at least would be a person with such knowledge. Yet, he does not provide any of that information.
c. Explanation of denial of RFA No. 16
RFA No. 16 asked Defendant to admit that in January of 2025 he configured his [email protected] e-mail account to automatically forward e-mails from that account to his [email protected] account. Defendant states he has “no memory of such event and as such, is unable to admit or deny the request.” In his Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 response to that particular RFA denial, he states the following:
a) RFA NO. 16:
b) Responding Party has no memory of such event and as such, is unable to admit or deny the request.
c) Arthur “Tony” Blain, c/o counsel above.
d) Responding Party has no supporting documents in his possession.

This response is evasive. Initially, there would be at least some responsive records on his [email protected] account, yet none of those are listed in subpart (d).

Further, Defendant has been provided a copy of the exact e-mail dated January 28, 2025, where he was notified by the City Attorney that his e-mail address has been so configured; 2 he cannot cite to
“no memory” to avoid a response. Once again, a responding party “cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d

2 See Thind Decl., Ex. D, 00078.
68 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
16 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
at p. 782.)
d. Explanation of denial of RFA No. 23
RFA No. 23 asked Defendant to admit “that between January 1, 2025 and April 30, 2025, [he] used the Signal Application to conduct CITY BUSINESS.” Defendant denies it in his response. In his Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 response to that particular RFA denial, he states the following:
a) RFA NO. 23:
b) Responding Party denies that between January 1, 2025 and April 30, 2025, he used the Signal Application to conduct CITY BUSINESS.
c) Arthur “Tony” Blain, c/o counsel above.
d) Responding Party has no supporting documents in his possession.

This response is incomplete. Initially, Defendant has since provided several Signal message threads to the City on September 18, 2025 with his Supplemental Responses to RFP Set One,
3 after the City sent its meet and confer letter. Those records demonstrate that his denial of this RFA is false and that he should at the very least revise this Form Interrogatory response to account for the information that is available to him. Further, if he truly believes that he has not discussed CITY BUSINESS on Signal (which his own records prove to be false), at the very least, he should have disclosed the names of the persons that he did exchange Signal messages with in that timeframe since they have “knowledge of those facts,” as well as identified who may have documents (Signal messages) that support his statement.

C. Good Cause Exists for the Motion
All of the information sought by way of this motion is directly relevant to this lawsuit. As

3 In RFP No. 5, the City asked for Defendant to provide “All messages on any messenger application (such as Telegram, Signal, WhatsApp, etc.) sent or received by Councilmember Blain in any way relating to CITY BUSINESS from November 5, 2024 until the date of YOUR response to this Request for Production of Documents.” (See Thind Decl., ¶ 5.) On September 18, 2025, Defendant responded, “Without waiving its objection to the term “City Business”, see Signal – All messages on messenger application Signal sent and received potentially relating to CITY BUSINESS have been disclosed as Bates Numbers 000334-000563.” (Ibid.) 69 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
17 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
it pertains to Defendant’s deficient Form Interrogatory No. 15.1 responses, the City requests information to support Defendant’s asserted affirmative defenses and are necessary for the City to be able to understand those defenses. (Thind Decl., ¶ 7.) Defendant’s deficient Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 responses relate to Defendant’s decisions to destroy public records and/or failure to properly turn over such records to the City Clerk in response to CPRA requests, as well as his narrow interpretation of the City’s business. (Ibid.) All of the information is necessary for the City to evaluate his defenses and evidence and prepare for trial. (Ibid.) VI. THE CITY REQUESTS SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,250.00 “[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) The Court may impose monetary sanctions on a responding party in favor of a moving party for the latter’s reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, in moving to compel. (Code Civ.

Proc., §§ 2023.020, 2030.300, subd. (d).)
Here, there is no justification for Defendant’s conduct. Defendant and his counsel are well- aware of the obligation to review records available to a party before responding to interrogatories; here, in meet and confer, the City has raised these specific responses to special interrogatories, pointed out precisely why they are deficient, asked for supplemental verified responses and yet, Defendant has not even attempted to provide better responses.

For this particular motion, the City has six (6) hours of attorney time from Ajit S. Thind and he estimates an additional four (4) hours of attorney time to review the opposition, prepare a reply brief and prepare for a hearing on this motion. (Thind Decl., ¶ 7.) Mr. Thind’s rate of $425.00 per hour is reasonable given he has been a licensed attorney for over fifteen years, has substantial litigation experience during that timeframe, has served as the appointed City Attorney for the City of La Palma for the last six years, and the requested rate is likely below similar special counsel work. (Thind Decl., ¶ 8.)
70 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
18 CITY ’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
FORM INTERROGATORIES —GENERAL (SET ONE)

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
VII. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the City requests that the Court grant this motion and order Defendant to provide objection-free verified supplemental responses to Form Interrogatory Nos.

15.1 and 17.1. The City also requests that sanctions be imposed against Defendant in the amount of $4,250.00.

DATED: October 10, 2025 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH &

WHATLEY, PC

MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO
AJIT S. THIND
SERGIO C. ORDAZ
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

CITY OF POWAY
71 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

413145.2
19 PROOF OF SERVICE

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

PROOF OF SERVICE
City of Poway v. Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain
San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 25CU024105C
I, Tracey S. West, declare:

Michael G. Wales
Robert Salgado

COUNTERPOINT LEGAL
600 B Street, Suite 1550
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 780-3303
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on October 10, 2025, at St. Louis, Missouri.

Tracey S. West

72 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

ATTACHMENT C
73 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
420497.5

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego
10/24/2025 12:00:11 PM
MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO, State Bar No. 143551
mcolantuono @chwlaw.us
Clerk of the Superior Court
By T. Automation ,Deputy lerk
2 AJIT S. THIND, State Bar No. 268018
athind @chw law.us
3 SERGIO C. ORDAZ, State Bar No. 334520
sordaz @chwlaw.us
4 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
5 Pasadena, California 91101-2109
Telephone: (213) 542-5700
6 Facsimile: (213) 542-5710
7 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

CITY OF POWAY
[Exempt From Filing Fee
Government Code § 6103]
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF POWAY,
Petitioner and Plaintiff,
V.

COUNCILMEMBER ARTHUR (TONY)
15 BLAIN,
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Respondent and Defendant.

Case No. 25CU024105C

PETITIONER AND PLAINTIFF CITY

OF POWAY'S EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO ADVANCE

HEARING DATES ON ITS FOUR

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

FROM RESPONDENT AND

DEFENDANT COUNCILMEMBER

ARTHUR (TONY) BLAIN
Filed conc urrently with Declaration of
Ajit S. Thind; [Proposed} Order

IMAGED FILE
Assigned for All Purposes to:

Hon. Carolyn M. Caietti
Department C-70
Action Filed: April 30, 2025
Hearing Date:

Time:

Dept.:

October 28, 2025
8:30 a.m.

C-70

CITY 'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COM PEL 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

420497.5
2 CITY ’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADV ANCE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on October 28, 2025, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Department C -70 of the above -captioned Court, located at 330 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, Petitioner and Plaintiff CITY OF POWAY (“City”), in accordance with California Rule of Court, rule 3.1200 et seq., will and hereby does apply ex parte for an order advancing the June 18, 2026 hearing dates on its 1) Motion to Compel Respondent and Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain’s Verification of and Supplemental Responses to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions; 2) Motion to Compel Respondent and Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain’ s Responses to Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions ; 3) Motion to Compel Respondent and Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain’ s Supplemental Responses to Form Interrogatories—General (Set One) and Request for Sanctions ; and 4) Motion to Compel Respondent and Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain’s Supplemental Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions to the earliest date prior to December 16, 2025 or the earliest date that is convenient for the Court.

GOOD CAUSE FOR APPLICATION
Good cause exists for the ex parte application for the following reasons:

1. This case concerns the retention, retrieval, and destruction of public records and is entitled to priority pursuant to Government Code section 7923.005, Cnty. of San Benito v. Superior Ct. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 243, 259, and the Court’s inherent power to control its calendar.

2. The City is subject to immediate harm. Defendant may be recalled from the Poway City Council on November 4, 2025, in which case the results are likely to be certified by the Poway City Council on December 16, 2025. Given Defendant may attempt to argue mootness if he is no longer on the City Council after that date (albeit the City believes any such argument has no merit, because public records do not cease being public records), the City seeks to have the Court make a ruling on the motions prior to December 16, 2025.

3. Defendant continues to conduct City business on a personal email address, [email protected], as recently as October 19, 2025, despite repeatedly claiming he does not use 74 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

420497.5
3 CITY ’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADV ANCE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
this e-mail account for public business, and acknowledging as recently as October 11, 2025, that only his City e-mail should be used for City business. He is likely doing this to avoid producing these e-mails as public records, and may be continuing to destroy the same. Absent court intervention, this conduct is likely to continue.

NOTICE OF EX PARTE
As set forth in the concurrently filed Declaration of Ajit S. Thind, notice of this ex parte application was sent to counsel for Respondent and Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain, Michael Wales and Robert Salgado, via e-mail on October 24, 2025 at approximately 9:27 a.m. (Declaration of Ajit S. Thind [ “Thind Decl.”], ¶ 20, Ex. L .) Defendant’s counsel did not indicate whether Defendant opposed this application.

This Application is based on this Notice, the Memorandum attached hereto, the Declaration of Ajit S. Thind filed concurrently herewith, the Proposed Order filed concurrently herewith, all of the pleadings, files, and records in this proceeding, all other matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, and any argument or evidence that may be presented to or considered by the Court prior to its ruling.

PRIOR EX PARTE APPLICATIONS
The City has not previously brought any ex parte applications in this matter.

IDENTIFICATION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL
Defendant’s counsel’s information is below:

Michael G. Wales, Esq.

Robert Salgado, Esq.

Counterpoint Legal
600 B Street, Suite 1550
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 780-3303
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
75 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

420497.5
4 CITY ’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADV ANCE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
DATED: October 24, 2025 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH &

WHATLEY, PC

MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO
AJIT S. THIND
SERGIO C. ORDAZ
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

CITY OF POWAY

76 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

420497.5
5 CITY ’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADV ANCE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

MEMORANDUM
I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
In this matter, the City of Poway (“City”) has taken the unusual but necessary step of suing a sitting City Councilmember due to his flagrant and persistent violations of state law associated with his deletion of and failure to produce public records in his personal accounts. After sending discovery requests to Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain (“Defendant”) through his counsel, materially deficient, partially unverified responses (or in some cases, no responses at all) were received. Most egregiously, Defendant failed to respond or object to sixteen requests for production, and failed to provide a verification for initial responses and documents that he sent on July 9, 2025 (despite multiple requests from the City’s counsel for both items). After meet and confer efforts failed, the City filed four motions to compel on October 10, 2025. Due to the Court’s congested calendar, the hearings on all four motions are now set for June 18, 2026.

Because this is primarily a California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) case, the Legislature has directed that hearings be set “with the object of securing a decision as to the matters at issue at the earliest possible time” per Government Code section 7923.005. Having a hearing in ten months on relatively routine discovery requests, which largely ask for public records under the CPRA, does not comply with the statute. Further, given Defendant is currently subject to a recall on November 4, 2025, which may lead to certification of said results on December 16, 2025 by the Poway City Council, it is possible that Defendant will argue some form of mootness related to portions of this case if he is recalled.

Based on his counsel’s response when asked if he would oppose moving the hearing dates forward, Defendant is likely to argue that his military deployment overseas should weigh against granting the City’s requested relief. However, Defendant has been persistently e-mailing (often from his personal Yahoo e-mail account) City staff and members of the public regarding Poway City business as well as his ongoing City political campaigns, signing discovery verifications, providing virtual presentations to the public, sending out campaign mailers, and otherwise making himself available for non-military matters despite his deployment. Given the paramount importance of assuring the public has access to records related to the public’s business and 77 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

420497.5
6 CITY ’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADV ANCE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
Defendant’s continued decision to use his personal accounts to communicate regarding City business, the City seeks to have the Court move the hearings on the four motions to the earliest date possible, with the request that a hearing on all four motions be held in advance of December 16, 2025.
1 II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Good Cause Exists to Advance the Hearing Date on the City ’s Motions to Compel
“It is ... well established that courts have fundamental inherent equity, supervisory, and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation before them. [Citation.] ... ...

That inherent power entitles trial courts to exercise reasonable control over all proceedings connected with pending litigation ... in order to insure the orderly administration of justice. [Citation.]” ‘ [Citation.]” (Elkins v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1337, 1351–1352.) It is unquestioned that the Court retains the power to advance a hearing date, provided that the minimum required statutory notice is still provided to the affected parties.

In addition to the Court’s inherent power to control its calendar, pursuant to the Government Code, CPRA cases are entitled to priority:

In a proceeding under Section 7923.000, the court shall set the times for hearings and responsive pleadings with the object of securing a decision as to the matters at issue at the earliest possible time.
(See Gov. Code, § 7923.005.) In Cnty. of San Benito v. Superior Ct. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 243, 259, the Court of Appeal stated that “it is necessary and appropriate for a trial court to manage Public Records Act litigation—as a matter of significant public importance—to achieve an expeditious resolution of the enforcement proceeding.” In Filarsky, the California Supreme Court analyzed the legislative intent of the CPRA and held that purpose of the CPRA was to increase freedom of information and to provide for the rapid disclosure of public records. (Filarsky v.

1 In accordance with Section 3 of the Court’s procedures, the City is also willing to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference well in advance of the new hearing date. 78 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

420497.5
7 CITY ’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADV ANCE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
Superior Court (2002) 28 Cal.4th 419, 425–426.) “Indeed, the Act’s provision regarding a public agency’s obligation to act promptly upon receiving a request for disclosure [§ 7922.530(a)], the provision directing the trial court in a proceeding under the Act to reach a decision as soon as possible [§ 7923.005], and the provision for expedited appellate review [§ 7923.500] all reflect a clear legislative intent that the determination of the obligation to disclose records requested from a public agency be made expeditiously.” (Id. at 427.)
In addition to the statutory requirement, advancing the date for the hearings on the four motions is crucial because Defendant is now subject to recall from the Poway City Council at an election set for November 4, 2025. (Declaration of Ajit S. Thind [“Thind Decl.”], ¶ 3.) It is expected that the results of the recall election will then be certified by the City Council on December 16, 2025
2 (or possibly at a special meeting near that date). (Id.) It is likely that if he is recalled and out of office, Defendant will attempt to argue that portions of this case are moot or that he can avoid complying with certain obligations. While the City disagrees with any arguments related to mootness, it is in the public’s interest to have all public records transferred from Defendant’s possession and into the City’s possession as soon as possible. Diligence is especially important here as Defendant has a history of deleting public records from his personal devices and repeatedly stating that he does not conduct City business from personal accounts despite an abundance of evidence to suggest otherwise.

B. Defendant Continues to Use His Personal E- mail Address for City Business
Court intervention compelling discovery responses is also necessary in short order because Defendant continues to violate the City’s official electronic communication policy through his use of a personal Yahoo e-mail address for City business. (See Petition for Writ of Mandate, ¶ 15, Ex.

A.) As recently as October 13 and 16, 2025, Defendant e-mailed City staff from his personal

2 See Elec. Code, § 10263 [noting that city council must adopt resolution reciting election results no later than the next regularly scheduled city council meeting following presentation of the 28- day canvass of the return or a special meeting for that purpose]; Elec. Code, § 11328 [stating that a recall election is “conducted, canvassed, and the results declared in substantially the manner provided by law for a regular election for the office”].) 79 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

420497.5
8 CITY ’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADV ANCE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
account concerning City business. (Thind Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. F, p. 000025, Ex. G, p. 000027.) He also used this same personal account for City-related e-mails on October 18 and 19. (Id., ¶ 15, Ex. K, p. 00037-38; ¶ 16, Ex. H, pp. 00029-30.) This is despite acknowledging as recently as October 11, 2025 that only his City e-mail address should be used for City business (Id., ¶ 13, Ex. E, p. 00022) and denying related allegations in his June 13, 2025 Answer filed with the Court. (See Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint, ¶¶ 6, 45.) His actions also conflict with his response to a verified discovery response where he stated he does not use his personal e-mail accounts for City business. (Thind Decl., ¶ 21, Ex. M, p. 00045.) The City is concerned that Defendant continues to willfully use his personal e-mail account (and potentially other personal accounts) to avoid compliance with the Public Records Act, and will continue to do so without swift intervention from this Court. (Thind Decl., ¶ 21.)
C. Defendant ’s Military Deployment Should Not Impede the Case From Moving Forward
Finally, the City is aware that Defendant is currently deployed on military duty overseas and may attempt to use that as a reason to keep the current hearing dates in place. (Thind Decl., ¶ 4.) This is a red herring.

Prior to being deployed in August, Defendant informed City staff that he would be “easily reachable via cell phone and e-mail” and noted that he would attend City Council meetings virtually from August to December. (Thind Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7, Ex. A, p. 00007, Ex. B, pp. 00010-11.) In late August—while deployed overseas—he signed five verifications for discovery responses and then signed another verification on September 12. (Thind Decl., ¶¶ 9, 10, Ex. C, pp. 000014- 18, Ex. D, p. 00020.) Defendant then continued to e-mail City staff and constituents from August to present, despite being overseas. Since late August, Defendant sent 44 e-mails from his Yahoo e- mail address to City staff and sent 147 e-mails from his City of Poway e-mail address. (Thind Decl., ¶¶ 11,12.) Just a few days ago, he e-mailed City Council members, the City Attorney and other City staff from his Yahoo account to complain about “frivolous” litigation and told them to move to Oregon. (Thind Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. K, pp. 00037-38.) The next day he used his Yahoo account to organize and give a PowerPoint presentation on fire prevention and disaster 80 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

420497.5
9 CITY ’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADV ANCE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
preparedness to the public, while also noting that he would provide a similar presentation on November 9 and December 7 – dates he would still be deployed. (Thind Decl., ¶ 16, Exs. H, I, J, pp. 00029-34.) It is the City’s belief that Defendant remains accessible to his attorneys and is certainly able to sign verifications and review documents. (Thind Decl., ¶ 18.) Furthermore, there is no excuse for completely failing to respond to certain discovery requests at all, when the discovery was sent on July 29, 2025, weeks before Defendant was deployed overseas.

III. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the City respectfully requests that the Court advance the hearings on the four motions to compel to the earliest date possible, and, if possible, to a date in advance of December 16, 2025.

DATED: October 24, 2025 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH &

WHATLEY, PC

MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO
AJIT S. THIND
SERGIO C. ORDAZ
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

CITY OF POWAY
81 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

420497.5
10 PROOF OF SERVICE

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

PROOF OF SERVICE
City of Poway v. Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain
San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 25CU024105C
I, Tracey S. West, declare:

ITS FOUR MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM RESPONDENT AND DEFENDANT COUNCILMEMBER ARTHUR (TONY) BLAIN on the interested parties in this action as follows:

Michael G. Wales
Robert Salgado

COUNTERPOINT LEGAL
600 B Street, Suite 1550
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 780-3303
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Respondent and
Defendant ARTHUR TONY BLAIN
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address [email protected] to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on October 24, 2025, at St. Louis, Missouri.

Tracey S. West

82 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
83 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
420499 .3

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego
10/24/2025 12:00:11 PM
MICHAEL G. COLANTUONO, State Bar No. 143551
mcolantuono @chwlaw.us
Clerk of the Superior Court
By T. Automation ,Deputy lerk
2 AJIT S. THIND, State Bar No. 268018
athind @chwlaw.us
3 SERGIO C. ORDAZ, State Bar No. 334520
sordaz @chwlaw.us
4 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 850
5 Pasadena, California 91101-2109
Telephone: (213) 542-5700
6 Facsimile: (213) 542-5710
7 Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff

CITY OF POWAY
[Exempt From Filing Fee
Government Code § 6103]
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF POWAY,
Petitioner and Plaintiff,
V.

COUNCILMEMBER ARTHUR (TONY)
15 BLAIN,
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Respondent and Defendant.

Case No. 25CU024105C
DECLARATION OF AJIT S. THIND IN

SUPPORT OF CITY OF POWAY'S EX

PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE

HEARING DATES ON ITS FOUR

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Filed concurrently with Ex Parte
Appli cation; [Proposed} Order

IMAGED FILE
Assigned for All Purposes to:

Hon. Carolyn M. Caietti
Department C-70
Action Filed: April 30, 2025
Hearing Date:

Time:

Dept.:
1 October 28, 2025
8:30 a.m.

C-70
DECLARATION OF AJIT S. THIND IN SUPPORT OF

CITY ' S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE HEARI NG DATES ON FOUR MOTIONS TO COM PEL 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

420499.3
2 DECLARATION OF AJIT S. THIND IN SUPPORT OF
CITY ’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADV ANCE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109
DECLARATION OF AJIT S. THIND
I, Ajit S. Thind, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and before this Court. I am Senior Counsel at Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC, attorneys of record for Petitioner and Plaintiff CITY OF POWAY (the “City”). I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and if called upon as a witness, I could competently testify thereto.

2. After sending discovery requests to Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain (“Defendant”) through his counsel, materially deficient, partially unverified responses (or in some cases, no responses at all) were received. After meet and confer efforts failed, the City filed four motions to compel on October 10, 2025. The hearings on all four motions are now set for June 18, 2026.

3. I am aware that Defendant is currently subject to a recall, which is set for November 4, 2025. The certification of the election results is likely to occur at the December 16, 2025 Poway City Council meeting (or possibly at a special meeting near that date), in accordance with the California Elections Code.

4. While I am aware that Defendant is currently deployed overseas on military duty and may attempt to use that as a reason to keep the current hearing dates in place, Defendant has been repeatedly e-mailing City staff, responding to e-mails, communicating with the public, and otherwise participating in this case.

5. Initially, I was told by opposing counsel in July and August that Defendant’s deployment to the Los Angeles area would make it difficult for him to fully participate in this case. Yet, during that time, Defendant was still repeatedly present in Poway, apparently stealing a recall sign, e-mailing City staff and others, and showing up in the middle of a work day at City Hall, as well as in person at a City Council meeting on a different day.

6. Prior to his deployment overseas, on August 6, 2025, Defendant e-mailed the City Manager, City Attorney, and his counsel, stating “I will be in Kosovo deployed Army until December, but I’m easily reachable via cell phone and e-mail.” (Emphasis added.) A true and correct copy of that e-mail is attached to this declaration as Exhibit A. 84 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

420499.3
3 DECLARATION OF AJIT S. THIND IN SUPPORT OF
CITY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADV ANCE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEV ARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101‐2109

7. On August 19, 2025, Defendant e-mailed City staff, indicating that he would need to attend the City Council meetings on August 19, September 16, October 7, November 4, November 18, and December 2 virtually from a location in Kosovo. A true and correct copy of that e-mail is attached to this declaration as Exhibit B.

8. It is my understanding that Defendant was deployed overseas sometime on or around August 19, 2025, consistent with the August 19, 2025 e-mail he sent to City staff.

9. On August 29, 2025, despite being deployed overseas, Defendant signed five discovery verifications, though he notes in the verifications that his location is San Diego. True and correct copies of those verifications are attached to this declaration as Exhibit C.

10. On September 12, 2025, despite being deployed overseas, Defendant signed another discovery verification, though, again, he notes in the verification that his location is in San Diego. A true and correct copy of that verification is attached to this declaration as Exhibit D.

11. Since late August, Defendant has routinely e-mailed City staff regarding City matters, including remote attendance at City Council meetings, litigation, City Council items, and other issues. Many of these e-mails have even come from his Yahoo e-mail address ([email protected]), despite his previously stating that he does not conduct City business from that e-mail address. I am aware that on October 20, 2025 City IT staff conducted a search of e- mails within the City domain and determined that Defendant sent 44 e-mails from his Yahoo e- mail address to a City e-mail address between August 19, 2025 and October 20, 2025.

12. Defendant has also repeatedly used his City e-mail address ([email protected]) during this timeframe. I am aware that on October 20, 2025 City IT staff conducted a search of e- mails within the City domain and determined that Defendant sent 147 e-mail messages from his City e-mail address to others between August 19, 2025 and October 20, 2025.

13. On October 11, 2025, Defendant e-mailed a constituent back to inform her to only e-mail City business to his official City e-mail account, stating “Please do not sent City of Poway e-mails to my personal e-mail. Otherwise Vaus/ DeHoff/ Maeda/Pikus/Hazeltine/ Fenstermacher will file frivolous lawsuits asking for my personal e-mails. Send only to my City email 85 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

420499.3
4 DECLARATION OF AJIT S. THIND IN SUPPORT OF
CITY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADV ANCE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEV ARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101‐2109
[email protected].” A true and correct copy of that e-mail is attached to this declaration as Exhibit E.

14. On October 13 and 16, 2025, Defendant e-mailed City staff from his Yahoo e-mail account concerning his intention to appear remotely at a City Council hearing, and then his intention not to do so. True and correct copies of those emails are attached this declaration as Exhibits F and G

15. On October 18, 2025, Defendant e-mailed City Council members from his Yahoo e-mail account to complain about “frivolous” lawsuits and to tell them to move to Oregon. A true and correct copy of that e-mail is attached at the bottom of Exhibit K.

16. On October 19, 2025, Defendant even gave a Zoom presentation on fire prevention and disaster preparedness, despite being overseas and on deployment. A true and correct copy of the e-mail string from his Yahoo e-mail account with an invitation to the presentation is attached to this declaration as Exhibit H. A true and correct copy of a screenshot from the Zoom presentation is attached to this declaration as Exhibit I. One of the slides on the PowerPoint presentation noted that he would be giving the presentation again on November 9 and December 7.

A true and correct copy of that slide is attached to this declaration as Exhibit J.

17. Additionally, on or about October 17, 2025, numerous Poway residents received a political mailer from Defendant regarding his upcoming recall election.

18. It is my belief that despite being deployed, Defendant remains accessible and able to respond to e-mails and phone calls, coordinate with his attorneys, and sign verifications.

19. On October 20, 2025, I e-mailed opposing counsel, Michael Wales, and requested that Defendant enter into a stipulation to advance the hearing dates on the four motions to compel.

Mr. Wales responded and indicated that he would not agree to stipulate to advance the hearing dates due to Defendant’s deployment overseas. A true and correct copy of that e-mail string is attached to this declaration as Exhibit K.

20. On October 24, 2025 at 9:27 a.m., I e-mailed opposing counsel, Mr. Wales and Robert Salgado, to provide them with ex parte notice of this application. A true and correct copy 86 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

420499.3
5 DECLARATION OF AJIT S. THIND IN SUPPORT OF
CITY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADV ANCE HEARING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEV ARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101‐2109
of that e-mail is attached to this declaration as Exhibit L. Defendant’s counsel did not respond to indicate whether they would appear to oppose this application.

21. The City is concerned that Defendant continues to use this personal e-mail account (and potentially other personal accounts) to avoid compliance with the Public Records Act, and will continue to do so without swift intervention from this Court. I would note that despite the overwhelming contradictory evidence, Defendant stated in a verified discovery response that he does not conduct City business from his Yahoo e-mail address. A true and correct copy of his verified discovery response to Special Interrogatory No. 1 is attached to this declaration as Exhibit M.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this 24th day of October, 2025, at Irvine, California.

A
jit S. Thind

87 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A 000006
88 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 From: Tony Blain <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2025 6:00 PM
To: Chris Hazeltine; Fenstermacher, Alan
Cc: [email protected]; Ruben Salgado; [email protected]; Councilmembers
Subject: Military orders
I will be in Kosovo deployed Army until December, but I'm easily reachable via cell phone and e-mail.

I intend to attend 100% of Council meetings virtually.

I will get you guys my City ipad and ID badge in December when I return if corrupt Mayor Vaus / DeHoff/ Pikus / Hazeltine/ Fenstermacher and cronies are successful recalling me.

I received active duty military orders and will attending 100% of City Council meetings virtually per CA State Law with 72 hours notice to Poway City Manager and City Attorney and posting agenda at virtual meeting location.

Please note that our email communications are subject to public disclosure.

Arthur "Tony" Blain, MD, MBA
Councilmember
City of Poway
858-248-1509
Complaints
Thank you for e-mailing me. I look forward to meeting you soon. If you have City complaint or concern, please submit official complaint on form below (there is paper version if you walk into City Hall). If you do not receive appropriate response within 14 days, let me know and I will personally present it and speak on it at City Council meeting and make public request of appropriate City Staff to assist us.

General Service Request
https://poway.org/270/Service-Request
Water
https://poway.org/317/Water
Thank you. Please also e-mail each Councilmember, City Manager, and City Attorney so we can all research and respond appropriately. All e-mails can be found on Poway City Council web site below. https://poway.org
EXHIBIT A 000007
89 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
2 Please e-mail us all in 2 weeks for response if we do not respond sooner.

PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST
You can obtain any document from City of Poway using the following link:
https://poway.org/formcenter/city-clerk-33/public-records-request-form-74 EXHIBIT A 000008
90 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B 000009
91 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 From: Tony Blain <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 2:39 PM
To: Chris Hazeltine; Fenstermacher, Alan; Carrie Gallagher Cc: Councilmembers; [email protected]; Ruben Salgado; [email protected]
Subject: Virtual Council meetings
Per CA State Law, I am requesting virtual Council meeting attendance at the following location for the Council meetings:
8/19
9/16
10/7
11/4
11/18
12/2
due to Army deployment.

Four Points by Sheraton Prishtina City
CALIFORNIA STREET NR 52, MARIGONA RESIDENCE,
PRISHTINA, KOSOVO, 1000
Please send me dial in phone number
Please confirm receipt
I received active duty military orders and will attending 100% of City Council meetings virtually per CA State Law with 72 hours notice to Poway City Manager and City Attorney and posting agenda at virtual meeting location.

Please note that our email communications are subject to public disclosure.

Arthur "Tony" Blain, MD, MBA
Councilmember
City of Poway
858-248-1509
Complaints
Thank you for e-mailing me. I look forward to meeting you soon. If you have City complaint or concern, please submit official complaint on form below (there is paper version if you walk into City Hall). If you do EXHIBIT B 000010
92 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
2 not receive appropriate response within 14 days, let me know and I will personally present it and speak on it at City Council meeting and make public request of appropriate City Staff to assist us.

General Service Request

https://poway.org/270/Service-Request

Water

https://poway.org/317/Water

Thank you. Please also e-mail each Councilmember, City Manager, and City Attorney so we can all research and respond appropriately. All e-mails can be found on Poway City Council web site below.

https://poway.org

Please e-mail us all in 2 weeks for response if we do not respond sooner.

PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

You can obtain any document from City of Poway using the following link:

https://poway.org/formcenter/city-clerk-33/public-records-request-form-74

From: Tony Blain
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 7:43 PM
To: Chris Hazeltine <[email protected]>; Fenstermacher, Alan <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Virtual Council meetings

Per CA State Law, I am requesting virtual Council meeting attendance at following location for every Council meeting 7/1/3025 - 12/15/2025 due to Army deployment. Please note by law, you are not entitled to copy of my orders.

Please send me dial in phone number

10471 Los Alamitos Blvd
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
United States

Please confirm receipt

Mayor Vaus is accused of taking more than $680,000 of developer campaign donations AND thousands of dollars in EDCO owner and executive donations and then voting yes on EDCO contract and developments’ PowY projects. See his FPPC Form 460s EXHIBIT B 000011
93 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
3 NOV 2026 Mayor election: Decide AFTER you speak personally with each candidate. I will knock 100% of Poway’s 12,000 doors TWICE - very much looking forward to meeting you all.

LOWER WATER RATES!!!
FIGHT CITY HALL CORRUPTION!
NO MORE PAY TO PLAY!

CORRUPTION AT CITY HALL: Thank you to everyone who voted for me and wants political change in Poway.

MAYOR VAUS WANTS ALL FIVE COUNCILMEMBERS TO SUPPORT 100% OF HIS ISSUES OR

ELSE HE WILL ATTACK THEM WITH FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS

1. Mayor Vaus allowed TWO Councilmembers Grosch & Pepin to sit and vote on City Council against Poway laws when neither lived in or owned homes in Poway.

2. Councilmember Pikus had lawsuit filed against him for Mayor Vaus illegally appointing him to City Council

3. Minority paid signature-gather non-grassroots corrupt developers Mullin/ Couvrette/ Edmondson are very proud they recalled deployed Army Reserve Councilman. I’ll still attend 100% of Council meetings virtually, fight NOV 2025 recall, and proudly run for Mayor NOV 2026 regardless. VOTE!!!

RHETORICAL NONPOLITICAL QUESTION: WHY IN THE WOULD A NON-DISTRICT 2 FORMER DEVELOPER COUNCILMEMBER BE OBSESSED WITH RECALLING THE ELECTED DISTRICT 2 COUNCILMEMBER WHO TAKES ZERO DEVELOPER CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS??????????????

We are doing big Recall Mayor Vaus campaign in January - please contact me if you want to help.

We only needs 7,000 signatures out of approximately 33,000 Poway registered voters.

Yes, I'm running for Mayor NOV 2026, but I'm sure I cannot possibly win against the great, honest, ethical, completely transparent, non-campaign contribution-motivated Mayor Vaus, but text/ call me if you want to help improve and change Poway for the best.

EXHIBIT B 000012
94 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C 000013
95 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
9 DEFENDANT BLAIN’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

VERIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO:

I have read the foregoing SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIF F’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION and know its cont ents.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 29, 2025 at San Diego, California _______________________
Arthur “Tony” Blain
_______________________
Arthur “Tony” Blain
EXHIBIT C 000014
96 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
<17

- 16 -
DEFENDANT TONY BLAIN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

VERIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO:

I have read the foregoing DEFENDANT TONY BLAIN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) and know its contents.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August ___, 2025 at San Diego, California

_______________________
Arthur “Tony” Blain

29 Doc ID: cf368d9a0fb56a96efa56f68a3646003605a6d29
EXHIBIT C 000015
97 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

- 25 -
DEFENDANT TONY BLAIN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATOR IES (SET ONE)

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

VERIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

I have read the foregoing Responses to Plaintiff’s SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) and know its contents.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August ___, 2025 at San Diego, California

_______________________
Anthonny “Tony” Blain
29 Doc ID: 366870a91281d1b6f944fe78c08da8c1e6891a4e
EXHIBIT C 000016
98 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

- 23 -
DEFENDANT TONY BLAIN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE)

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

VERIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO:

I have read the foregoing DEFENDANT TONY BLAIN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS (SET ONE) and know its contents.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August ___, 2025 at San Diego, California

_______________________
Arthur “Tony” Blain

29 Doc ID: 53373078d522b8fd795e88cec601d7008214ad5e
EXHIBIT C 000017
99 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

- 6 -
DEFENDANT TONY BLAIN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS (SET TWO)

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

VERIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

I have read the foregoing Responses to Plaintiff’s REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET TWO) and know its contents.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August ___, 2025 at San Diego, California

_______________________
Anthonny “Tony” Blain

29 Doc ID: cd18675ea9decc89fe9426c9480f52632d9672c4
EXHIBIT C 000018
100 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D 000019
101 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
9 DEFENDANT BLAIN’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

VERIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO:

I have read the foregoing SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S

INITIAL REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION and know its contents.

I
am a pa
rty to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and to those matters I believe them to be true.
_______________________
Arthur “Tony” Blain
_______________________
Arthur “Tony” Blain
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 12, 2025 at San Diego, California EXHIBIT D 000020
102 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E 000021
103 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 From: Tony Blain <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2025 2:19 AM
To: Fenstermacher, Alan; Chris Hazeltine; cjchighvalleynew Cc: Robert Salgado; Michael Wales; Yazmine Jimenez
Subject: Re: Hayes v. City of Poway
Hi, Judy,
Please do not sent City of Poway e-mails to my personal e-mail. Otherwise Vaus/ DeHoff/ Maeda/Pikus/Hazeltine/ Fenstermacher will file frivolous lawsuits asking for my personal e-mails. Send only to my City email [email protected] Thank you,
Tony
On Saturday, October 11, 2025 at 01:58:39 AM GMT+2, cjchighvalleynew <[email protected]> wrote:
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: cjchighvalleynew <[email protected]>
To: Tony Blain <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2025 at 11:11:33 AM PDT
Subject: Fw: Hayes v. City of Poway
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: cjchighvalleynew <[email protected]>
To: Alan Fenstermacher <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 at 06:20:00 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Hayes v. City of Poway
Hello Mr. Fenstermacher,
In one part of our correspondence I set a deadline of 7 days and later 10 days. Please accept the 10 day grace period as applying to all of our requests. Thanks for getting back to us.

Judy Hayes
On Tuesday, October 7, 2025 at 05:31:02 PM PDT, cjchighvalleynew <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Fenstermacher,
We settled our lawsuit against the City with certain concessions made by the City. We have no verification that the City's promises have been met.

1. Has the City mitigated 2.67 or even 2.57 acres of our 6.09 acres of land? If so, please provide state certification that this has occurred including the location of the mitigation land in the "mitigation area". We want to be assured that the "mitigation" provided to us was not the same land "mitigated" in favor of any other person(s) or entit(y)ies. If the City has not fulfilled this settlement condition/obligation, please state that the City refuses to honor this obligation and advise us of this fact .

EXHIBIT E 000022
104 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
2 2. Has the City issued permits relating to the "oak woodland" as that term was specifically discussed and negotiated into the settlement in place of the "coast live oak riparian woodland habitat" language contained in your initial offer. Please provide us with copies of those permits that are settlement compliant..

3. The City Manager denied that he was our designated contact regarding issues concerning our 6 + acre property and, when pressed, he then answered with an inappropriate and unlawful response.

4. We ask that you respond to this email and answer our questions at your convenience but within the next seven days. We cannot proceed without mitigation and permits and we are at the height of fire season.

5. It appears that no consideration was given to the fact, confirmed by photographic evidence, the historic use of our property that is, that what is now 6.09 acres was farmed for over 40 years. In 2007 the City acknowledged that they had no environmental issues with development on this land. What consideration was given to these historic factors, in particular, how did this land differ from the HIghcrest Court 22 acres, as to which the total mitigation paid by Mechling and Mullin we understand was $2,500? What notice was provided to us and neighbors according to CEQA of your intent to designate this land or any portion of it as "habitat"?

Thank you for your response within the next 10 days. If you fail to respond, this may be construed as your admission that the City is in violation of material terms of the settlement agreement.

Thank you,

Judith Hayes

EXHIBIT E 000023
105 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F 000024
106 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 From: Tony Blain <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:15 AM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Michael Wales; Robert Salgado; Yazmine Jimenez; Chris Hazeltine; Fenstermacher, Alan Subject: City Council meetings
Poway City Clerk,
Per CA State Law, I am notifying you more than 72 hours in advance that I will be attending the following Poway City Council meetings remotely via my phone 858-248-1509 from the following address:

1. Tue, Oct. 21
City Council Meeting

2. Tue, Nov. 4
City Council Meeting

3. Tue, Nov. 18
City Council Meeting
I will be attending these Poway City Council meetings remotely via my phone 858-248-1509 from the following address:

Four Points by Sheraton Prishtina City
California Street Nr 52, Marigona Residence Pristina, Kosovo, 10000 Respectfully,
Councilmember Blain
EXHIBIT F 000025
107 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G 000026
108 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 From: Tony Blain <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2025 5:47 AM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Chris Hazeltine; Fenstermacher, Alan; Michael Wales; Robert Salgado; Yazmine Jimenez Subject: Council meetings
Alcon,
Effective immediately I will NOT be able to attend any meetings virtually. OPSEC See you all when I return .

VR
Councilman Blain
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
EXHIBIT G 000027
109 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT H 000028
110 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

From: Tony Blain <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2025 6:51:08 AM
To: Tony Blain <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Fw: Fire Prevention Disaster Preparedness Zoom, today, Sunday, Oct. 19, 12 Noon PST

Please consider fire prevention article

Let’s do a positive article that helps people for a change

Councilmember Tony Blain

Sent from Yahoo Mail for
iPhone<https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=nativeplacement&c=Global_Acquisition _YMktg_315_Internal_EmailSignature&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=Global_YMktg& af_sub3=&af_sub4=100000604&af_sub5=EmailSignature__Static_&af_ios_store_cpp=9d3 a686e‐218d‐4849‐8298‐
b480188dc8ac&af_android_url=https%3A%2F%2Fplay.google.com%2Fstore%2Fapps%2 Fdetails%3Fid%3Dcom.yahoo.mobile.client.android.mail%26listing%3Demail_signatur e>

Begin forwarded message:

On Sunday, October 19, 2025, 3:31 PM, Tony Blain
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Attached is PDF and power point for todayʹs Fire Prevention Disaster Preparedness Zoom, today, Sunday, Oct. 19, 12 Noon PST ‐‐ Zoom link is below

Get back to me ASAP if you have any edits/ suggestions / improvements ‐‐ Iʹll get to it in about 3 hours (slow running 10 miles around base then having dinner)

Take care,

Tony

Tony
Blain is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

EXHIBIT H 000029
111 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

Topic: Fire Prevention

Time: Oct 19, 2025 12:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us04web.zoom.us/j/78446496890?pwd=NTb6U1Soaf3px9IOx2YQ6PoZVfxC3M.1

Meeting ID: 784 4649 6890

Passcode: powayfire

CAUTION: This message was sent from outside the Nexstar organization. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

EXHIBIT H 000030
112 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT I 000031
113 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
EXHIBIT I 000032
114 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

EXHIBIT J
EXHIBIT J 000033
115 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
Fire Prevention Web Links
Fire Prevention web site and power point:
https://firecrimeprevention.wordpress.com
Fire Prevention YouTube:
(upcoming)
Fire Prevention Zoom meeting link:
(see right Zoom dates)
Future Zoom dates:

Sunday, Oct. 19, 12 noon PST
https://us04web.zoom.us/j/7844649689
0pwd=NTb6U1Soaf3px9IOx2YQ6PoZV
fxC3M.1
• Sunday, Nov. 9, 12 noon PST
https://us04web.zoom.us/j/7114475405
1pwd=QkjleQZaimyHTJbXVaZFJ3YMP
6Mjr0.1
• Sunday, Dec. 7, 12 noon PST
https://us04web.zoom.us/j/7632992697
7pwd=vKy1spKmm6cG5RtUjWGPFNH
NYpMLSW.1
EXHIBIT J 000034
116 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

EXHIBIT K
EXHIBIT K 000035
117 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 From: Michael Wales <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 12:48 PM
To: Ajit S. Thind; Fenstermacher, Alan; Robert Salgado
Subject: Re: Hi
Good morning Mr. Thind,
As you are aware, our Client is serving his country and stationed in Kosovo through December. As such, we cannot stipulate to advancing the hearing date as you request.

Michael Wales
Attorney at Law

COUNTERPOINT LEGAL
(619) 780-3303
[email protected]
www.counterpointfirm.com
600 B Street Suite 1550 San
Diego, CA 92101
This message, including attachments, is confidential and may contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by email, telephone or fax, and permanently delete the original and any of any email and printout thereof. Thank you.

From: Ajit S. Thind <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 10:38 AM
To: Fenstermacher, Alan <[email protected]>; Michael Wales <[email protected]>; Robert Salgado <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Hi
Good morning Mr. Wales and Mr. Salgado,
As you are aware, we filed four motions to compel discovery in this matter. The hearings on those motions are set for June 18, 2026. In compliance with Gov. Code § 7923.005 and Cnty. of San Benito v. Superior Ct. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 243, we would like to advance the hearings on those motions. We are also aware that Defendant’s recall election is scheduled for November 4 and that the City Council would certify the results in December. We request that Defendant stipulate to advance the hearing date on the motions to sometime between November 5, 2025 and December 16, 2025, so that we can move this case along expeditiously. Please let us know if you are agreeable and we will prepare a stipulation and proposed order to circulate to you later today. Otherwise, we intend on appearing ex parte to advance the hearing dates.

EXHIBIT K 000036
118 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
CIL
0900 ~ ----
Ela ---
9 2
Best,

Ajit S. Thind
Senior Counsel
Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
7545 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 | Irvine, CA 92618 Direct 949-545-9034 | Fax 213-542-5710
[email protected] | chwlaw.us

From: Fenstermacher, Alan <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2025 11:35 AM
To: Michael Wales <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Ajit S. Thind <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Hi

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tony Blain <[email protected]>
Date: October 18, 2025 at 11:08:26 AM PDT
To: Tony Blain <[email protected]>
Subject: Hi

Mayor Vaus & cronies,

Any more frivolous law suits?

Can you waste anymore Poway taxpayer $$$$$?

You should resign and move to Oregon - protect Poway

I found funny sticker on a door

Tony

EXHIBIT K 000037
119 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
3 EXHIBIT K 000038
120 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
4 <IMG_1888.jpeg>
EXHIBIT K 000039
121 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

EXHIBIT L
EXHIBIT L 000040
122 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 From: Ajit S. Thind
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2025 11:27 AM
To: Michael Wales; Robert Salgado
Cc: Tracey S. West
Subject: City of Poway v. Arthur (Tony) Blain, Case No. Case No. 25CU024105C, Ex Parte Notice of Application to Advance Hearing Dates on City's Four Motions to Compel Good morning Counsel,
This e-mail shall serve as ex parte notice that on October 28, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Department C-70 of the San Diego Superior Court, located at 330 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, Petitioner and PlaintiƯ City of Poway (the “City”), in accordance with California Rule of Court, rule 3.1200 et seq., will apply ex parte for an order advancing the June 18, 2026 hearing dates on its 1) Motion to Compel Respondent and Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain’s Veriﬁcation of and Supplemental Responses to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions; 2) Motion to Compel Respondent and Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain’s Responses to Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions; 3) Motion to Compel Respondent and Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain’s Supplemental Responses to Form Interrogatories—General (Set One) and Request for Sanctions; and 4) Motion to Compel Respondent and Defendant Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain’s Supplemental Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions to the earliest date prior to December 16, 2025 or the earliest date that is convenient for the Court.

Good cause exists for the ex parte application for the following reasons:

2. The City is subject to immediate harm. Defendant may be recalled from the Poway City Council on November 4, 2025, in which case the results are likely to be certiﬁed by the Poway City Council on December 16, 2025.

3. Defendant continues to conduct City business through a personal email address, [email protected], even while deployed on military duty.

We expect to ﬁle the City’s paperwork later today and will serve you in accordance with the Rules of Court. Based on my request for a stipulation earlier this week, we anticipate that Defendant will appear to oppose this application, but please let us know your position at your earliest convenience.

Best,
Ajit S. Thind
Senior Counsel
Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC
7545 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 | Irvine, CA 92618 Direct 949-545-9034 | Fax 213-542-5710
[email protected] | chwlaw.us
EXHIBIT L 000041
123 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

EXHIBIT M
EXHIBIT M 000042
124 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

- 1 -
DEFENDANT TONY BLAIN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Michael G. Wales, Esq. (SBN 163848)
[email protected]
Robert Salgado (SBN 297391)
[email protected]

COUNTERPOINT LEGAL
600 B Street, Suite 1550
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619.780.3303
Facsimile: 619.344.0332

Attorney for Defendant,
Arthur “Tony” Blain

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

CITY OF POWAY,

Plaintiff and Petitioner,

COUNCILMEMBER ARTHUR (TONY)
BLAIN,

Respondent and Defendant.

Case No.: 25CU024105C

Assigned To Hon. Carolyn M. Caietti

Dept. C-70

DEFENDANT COUNCILMEMBER
ARTHUR (TONY) BLAIN’S RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL

INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

Action Filed: April 30, 2025
Trial Date: None Set

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff CITY OF POWAY
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant COUNCILMEMBER ARTHUR (TONY) BLAIN

SET NUMBER: One (1)
Defendant Arthur (Tony) Blain (“Responding Party”) hereby objects and responds to Plaintiff City of Poway (the “Propounding Party”) First Set of Special Interrogatories as follows:

Doc ID: 366870a91281d1b6f944fe78c08da8c1e6891a4e
EXHIBIT M 000043
125 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

- 4 -
DEFENDANT TONY BLAIN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
employee acting or purporting to act within the scope of his or her employment. Here, the City claimed all communications in personal accounts are beyond the reach of CPRA. As a result, the content of specific records is not before us. Any disputes over this aspect of the “public records” definition await resolution in future proceedings.

We clarify, however, that to qualify as a public record under CPRA, at a minimum, a writing must relate in some substantive way to the conduct of the public's business. This standard, though broad, is not so elastic as to include every piece of information the public may find interesting. Communications that are primarily personal, containing no more than incidental mentions of agency business, generally will not constitute public records. For example, the public might be titillated to learn that not all agency workers enjoy the company of their colleagues, or hold them in high regard. However, an employee's electronic musings about a colleague's personal shortcomings will often fall far short of being a “writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business.” (§ 6252, subd. (e).”

City of San Jose v. Superior Ct. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608, 618-619.

In the spirit of discovery, Defendant disclose s all communications in his possession which meet the definition of a Pub lic Record, as clarified under City of San Jose v. Superior Court, which relate in some substantive way to the conduct of the City of Poway’s business by Councilmember Blain or relate to the discharge of Councilmember Blain’s official duty. Such communications do not include campaign communications and communications criticizing other councilmembers as they are not a Public Record pursuant to the CPRA.

RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Please provide the username of each e-ma il address YOU have used since November 6, 2024 to send or receive any e-mails that RELATE TO CITY BUSINESS.

Doc ID: 366870a91281d1b6f944fe78c08da8c1e6891a4e
EXHIBIT M 000044
126 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

- 5 -
DEFENDANT TONY BLAIN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ANSWER TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Objection, the request violates Responding Pa rty’s privacy rights and Asking Party has not demonstrated a compelling need and relevance to the case to compel disclosure of this private information. Without waiving this objection and objecti on to Plaintiff’s definition of “City Business”, Responding Party responds as follows:
[email protected] - This is Responding Party’s governme nt account and access may be obtained through the City of Poway’s IT Department.

[email protected] - Objection. This is Responding Pa rty’s Personal account and is used to communicate with his attorneys and therefore cont ains privileged attorney -client communications.

Furthermore, this account is not used for “City Business.” If an email concerning “City Business” is received at this address it is forwarded to [email protected].

[email protected] - Personal account. Not used for “City Business.” [email protected] - Personal account. Not used for “City Business.” [email protected] - Personal account. Not used for “City Business.” [email protected] - Personal account. Not used for “City Business.” [email protected] - Personal account. Not used for “City Business.” [email protected] – Set up for future campaign use only. Responding Party did forward an email from his City Account on July 30, 2025 to this account. The email forwarded is I the City’s possession.

[email protected] - Account never used.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Doc ID: 366870a91281d1b6f944fe78c08da8c1e6891a4e
EXHIBIT M 000045
127 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6

- 24 -
DEFENDANT TONY BLAIN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Responding Party has no recollection of setting up any auto-forwarding on the [email protected] e-mail account to send such e-mails to YOUR [email protected] e-mail account and does not believe any such auto- forwarding occurs. Upon information and belief, if such auto-forwarding does occur the email on the [email protected] account would only be copied, not deleted, and remains preserved.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31:

Please state the date that YOU created the [email protected] e-mail account.

ANSWER TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 31:

January 24, 2025.

Dated: August 25, 2025

COUNTERPOINT LEGAL

B y ____________________________
Michael G. Wales, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant Tony Blain

Doc ID: 366870a91281d1b6f944fe78c08da8c1e6891a4e
EXHIBIT M 000046
128 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
- 25 -
DEFENDANT TONY BLAIN’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

VERIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
I have read the foregoing Responses to Plaintiff’s SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) and know its contents.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August ___, 2025 at San Diego, California _______________________
Anthonny “Tony” Blain
29 Doc ID: 366870a91281d1b6f944fe78c08da8c1e6891a4e
EXHIBIT M 000047
129 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

420499.3
48 PROOF OF SERVICE

COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
790 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 850
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101-2109

PROOF OF SERVICE
City of Poway v. Councilmember Arthur (Tony) Blain
San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 25CU024105C
I, Tracey S. West, declare:

THIND IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF POWAY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADV ANCE HEARING DATES ON ITS FOUR MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY on the interested parties in this action as follows:

Michael G. Wales
Robert Salgado

COUNTERPOINT LEGAL
600 B Street, Suite 1550
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 780-3303
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Respondent and Defendant

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on October 24, 2025, at St. Louis, Missouri.

Tracey S. West

130 of 130
November 4, 2025, Item #6
November 4, 2025, Item #7
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

CONTACT:

SUBJECT:

Summary:

AGENDA REPORT CityofPoway
November 4, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Julie Procopio, Director of Development Services<j}f
Mary Piscitelli, Associate Planner
(858) 668-4657 or [email protected]

CITY COUNCIL
Minor Conditional Use Permit 25-0003 and Minor Development Review 25-0009, a Request for a New Outdoor Sales and Display Area at the Vacant Lot at 12664 Poway Road for Tractor Supply Company, zoned Commercial Office, within the Poway Road Specific Plan (APN 317-490-83)
This project is a request for a new outdoor sales and display at the vacant lot at 12664 Poway Road for Tractor Supply Company, zoned Commercial Office (CO), within the Poway Road Specific Plan (PRSP) (APN 317-490-83). A separate administrative decision, Minor Development Review (MORA) 25- 0002, has been issued for the storefront tenant improvement, which includes a small addition, located at 12654-12666 Poway Road.

Recommended Action:

It is recommended the City Council take public input, close the public hearing, and adopt the Resolution (Attachment A) approving Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) 25-0003 and MDRA 25- 0009 and make the determination the project does not require additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15332 (Infill Development Projects).

Discussion:

The applicant is Lester Tucker, for Sterling Organization, the property manager for Poway Crossings Shopping Center and the property owner is SVAP Ill Poway Crossings LLC. The subject property is a

0.63-acre vacant lot located at 12664 Poway Road, in the CO land use district of the PRSP area (Attachment B). The site is located within the Poway Crossings Shopping Center, located in the northwest quadrant of Poway Road and Silver Lake Drive. Land uses within the shopping center consist of take-out and eat-in restaurants, a fitness center, small commercial and service businesses (dog grooming, nail salon, dance studio, and an automotive repair center [Midas Mufflers]). To the east of the subject site is a Bank of America and a Ford dealership (with parts and service). To the south is the new Raising Cane's restaurant. Multi-family residences and single-family residences are 1 of 51
November 4, 2025, Item #7
located
to
the
north
and
west
of
the
shopping
center,
respectively.

Background: An
octagonal
building
was
previously
constructed
in
the
subject
site
location.

This
building
was
used
for
a
restaurant
and
was
built
in
approximately
1978.

It
was
demolished
in
approximately
2014.

Since
that
time,
this
lot
has
remained
vacant,
with
no
reuse
planned
until
now,
from
the
available
research
.

The
storefront
proposed
for
use
by
Tractor
Supply
Company
was
originally
used
as
a
drugstore
and
has
been
vacant
since
2017.

Project
Details:

This
MCUP
is
presented
to
the
City
Council
for
the
development
of
the
vacant
lot
as
an
outdoor
sales
and
display
lot
to
serve
the
project
storefront.

The
outdoor
uses
will
be
for
the
sale
of
fencing,
seed,
mulch,
and
topsoil
bags,
larger
equipment
(such
as
wheelbarrows),
steel
watering
troughs,
and
similar
equipment.

An
illustrative
site
plan
and
renderings
are
provided
as
Attachment
C.

A Liquid
Petroleum
Gas
(LPG)
liquid
propane
tank,
within
the
fenced
outdoor
display
and
sales
lot,
is
proposed
for
this
area,
with
an
access
driveway
to
purchase
and
fill/refill
portable
containers.

Temporary
use
of
the
parking
spaces
west
of
the
display
area
is
proposed
for
trailers
for
rent
or
sale.

The
trailers
would
be
intermittently
used
and
are
not
expected
to
impact
the
overall
parking
for
the
shopping
center.

A
condition
of
approval
has
been
added
for
a
future
evaluation
to
determine
if,
during
operations,
the
trailer
stalls
are
creating
a shortage
of
parking,
restrictions
on
the
trailer
display
area
usage
of
this
parking
area
will
be
placed.

A
freestanding
perimeter
masonry
wall
(8'-0",
plus
an
additional
2'-0"
metal
trellis)
is
planned
to
surround
the
outdoor
lot
for
securing
of
the
merchandise and
propane
tank.

The
wall
will
be
setback
1 O'
from
the
property
line
and
landscaping
will
be
planted
between
the
wall
and
the
sidewalk
. While
the
Municipal
Code
sets
a
standard
6'
wall
he
ight,
the
applicant
has
requested
the
added
height
allowance
of
the
perimeter
wall
to
secure
the
merchandise
and
propane
tank.

The
wall
will
include
a
natural-colored
split
faced
block
with
rock
veneer
pilasters
to
meet
the
design
standards
of
the
PRSP.

Some
outdoor
display
areas
are
proposed
for
the
front
the
of
store,
similar
to
other
stores.

These
outdoor
display
areas
will
not
block
sidewalk
access
or
interior
ingress
or
egress
. The
site
plan
shows
decorative
pavement
for
the
entries
to
distinguish
these
areas.

Access: Site
access
is
from
both
Poway
Road
and
from
Silver
Lake
Drive.

Leading
into
the
Poway
Crossings
Shopping
Center,
there
are
three
driveways
from
Silver
Lake
and
two
driveways
from
Poway
Road.

The
access
driveways
will
be
improved
for
ADA
compliance.

One
driveway,
leading
into
the
outdoor
lot,
will
be
removed
and
access
will
be
consolidated
into
the
two
Silver
Lake
driveways.

Parking: A
parking
study
was
prepared
by
Kimley
-Horn
&
Associates
to
study
the
change
in
parking
associated
with
the
project
(See
attachment
D)
.

Parking
utilization
data
was
collected
for
both
weekdays
and
2 of
51 November 4, 2025, Item #7
weekends.

The
table
below
summarizes
the
peak
parking
demand.

Table
8:

Total
Peak
Parking
Demand
(Observed
+Vacant+
Project)
Component
Parking
Spaces
Existing
Parking
Supply
(Spaces)
434
With
Project
Parking
Supply
(Spaces)
472
Observed
Peak
Demand
Spaces
(Sat,
2PM)
359
+
Estimated
Demand
from
(Non
Project)
52 Vacancies
1 +
Estimated
Demand
from
Projects
(Future
56 TSC
&
Fast
Food)
Total
Adjusted
Peak
Demand
467
Surplus/Deficit
Parking
+5
'Vacant
Space
Breakdown
(from
Table
2)
:
•
30 spaces
from
12630-D1
•
5 spaces
from
12642-16
•
5 spaces
from
12642-20
•
12 spaces
from
12642-4A
Table
8 from
the
Parking
Study
shows
the
existing
parking
supply
for
the
shopping
center
is
434
spaces.

Two
parking
spaces
will
be
removed
near
the
storefront
for
the
covered
trash
enclosure
. The
project
will
stripe
40 spaces,
bringing
this
total
up
to
472
available
spaces.

The
parking
study
evaluated
existing
peak
hour
parking
usage
and
calculated
parking
demand
for
the
vacant
storefronts
and
the
proposed
TSC
project.

The
study
shows
that
the
projected
parking
quantity
will
exceed
the
parking
needs
of
the
shopping
center
by
5 spaces
when
considering
the
new
TSC
store
and
outdoor
sales
area. A
total
of
40 parking
spaces
will
be
striped
to
the
rear
of
the
store
building,
to
replace
previously
striped
parking
(single
direction
drive
aisle,
angled
parking).

Nine
accessible
spaces
are
provided
as
required
by
the
California
Building
Code.

The
parking
demand
is
accommodated
with
the
proposed
parking
improvements,
including
the
additional
striped
parking
spaces
to
the
rear
of
the
store
(north
side
of
the
parcel)
. In
addition,
the
parking
to
be
provided
exceeds
the
required
spaces
per
the
Poway
Municipal
Code
by
69 spaces,
when
considering
the
full
shopping
center,
due
to
the
mix
of
businesses
having
varied
peak
parking
demands. Grading
and
Drainage:

Project
grading
will
be
required
for
the
outdoor
lot
since
it
is
currently
vacant.

The
project
meets
the
threshold
of
a
Standard
Stormwater
Quality
Management
Plan
project,
since
the
quantity
of
impervious
area
is
less
than
the
threshold
of
5000
square
feet.

Permeable
pavers
will
be
used
in
the
outdoor
lot
to
reduce
impervious
areas.
3 of
51 November 4, 2025, Item #7
Use-Related:

The PMC Chapter 17.10.190 outlines outdoor display of limited merchandise which may be considered subject to either the approval of an outdoor display permit by the Director of Development Services or a MCUP by the City Council. The intent of this section of the PMC is to provide for the outdoor display of merchandise, where it can be demonstrated that such display can be reasonably integrated into the site and architectural designs at the subject location, while maintaining the City's goals to provide for quality, attractive commercial development. PMC 17.10.190.B requires a minor conditional use permit for outdoor display areas that don't meet performance standards of the code, including outdoor display not contiguous with the front of the building.

Operations and Maintenance:

The hours of operation of the outdoor display and sales lot are the same as proposed for the store, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., which includes one hour for loading/unloading between 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. The loading for the store will be within the specified hours of operation. Noise requirements for loading and unloading will be contained within the required 60 dBL for the daytime (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) and 55 dBL for the evening after 7 p.m., in accordance with the PMC noise requirements (Chapter 8.08) Community Meeting:

A community meeting for this project was held at the Mickey Cafagna Community Center on August 18, 2025. All property owners, tenants, and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property were mailed invitations to the meeting. There were five attendees, in addition to applicant team and City staff. The meeting attendees live in areas surrounding the project site. They were interested in better understanding the project proposal. No adverse comments or questions from the community meeting have been received at this time, however, comments regarding parking from the Ford dealership on the Silver Lake Drive were addressed at the meeting.

Environmental Review:

This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Class 32, Infill Development Projects, in that the proposed development project is consistent with applicable General Plan, Specific Plan, and Poway Municipal Code policies, land use designation and regulations, occurs on property with the city limits and is surrounded by urban land uses, the site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, approval will not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality, and the site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Fiscal Impact:

Consistent with prior City Council direction regarding development projects, the City Finance Department conducted a revenue analysis for this project. Finance Staff analyzed the potential ongoing revenues, such as property tax and sales tax, and excluded one-time revenues, such as transfer taxes. The data supporting Staffs analysis came from a variety of sources. For example, the developer's agent provided unit characteristic information which helped to support the property and 4 of 51
November 4, 2025, Item #7
sales tax analysis. Sales and Property Tax estimates for the development parcels were created with the support of published information from the City's sales and property tax consultant, Hdl.

The development is projected to contribute approximately $14,000 in property taxes to the City annually. The project is estimated to contribute approximately $88,000 in sales taxes annually, based on average assumptions applied by Hdl. Based on staff analysis, this project could contribute approximately $102,000 in new revenue annually for the City.

Public Notification:

A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the San Diego Union Tribune on Thursday, October 23, 2025.

A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property on Thursday, October 23, 2025. The 500-foot notification perimeter exceeds noticing requirements of the California Government Code, which requires noticing of property owners within 300 feet of the subject property.

Attachments:

A. Resolution for MCUP 25-0003 / MORA 25-0009
B. Zoning and Location Map and Aerial Photo
C. Illustrative Site Plan and Renderings
D. Parking Study
Reviewed/Approved By:

Assistant City Manager
5 of 51
Reviewed By:

Alan Fenstermacher
City Attorney
Chris Hazeltine
City Manager
November 4, 2025, Item #7
RESOLUTION NO. 25-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

POWAY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 25-0003 AND MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
25-0009, FOR NEW OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY AREA

FOR THE NEW TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, AT THE

VACANT LOT WITHIN THE POWAY CROSSINGS SHOPPING

CENTER, IN THE POWAY ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN, AND
LOCATED AT 12664 POWAY ROAD; ASSESSOR PARCEL
NUMBER 317-490-83
WHEREAS, Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) 25-0003 and Minor Development Review (MORA) 25-0009 were submitted by Lester Tucker, agent and Sterling Organization, applicant, for a proposal to redevelop the vacant site with an outdoor sales and display space in the Commercial Office (CO) land use district of the Poway Road Specific Plan (PRSP) area; WHEREAS, in 197 4, the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors approved Parcel Map (PM) 2864, a 2-Lot subdivision, creating Parcel 1 (northeast quadrant of Silver Lake Drive and Poway Road) and Parcel 2, northwest quadrant of Silver Lake Drive and Poway Road (the shopping center);
WHEREAS, in 1976, the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors approved PM 4653, a 2-Lot subdivision of the existing Parcel 2 (the shopping center), with parcel 1 (southwestern tip of Parcel 2), being cut out from Parcel 2;
WHEREAS, in 1978, the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors approved PM 7885, a 2-Lot subdivision of the existing Parcel 2 (the shopping center) with Parcel 1 (southeastern corner of Parcel 2) cut out from the larger Parcel 2;
WHEREAS, in circa 1977-1978, An octagonal building was constructed on the subject site location, and used for a restaurant until 2014 when it was demolished, leaving the subject site vacant;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution P-84-43 to approve Tentative Tract Map {TTM) 84-07, a 7-Lot Subdivision of the existing Parcel 2, with Parcels 1 and 2 being the location for the main Tractor Supply Company storefront and Parcel 7 being the subject site, with Parcel Map 13750, memorializing and recording this subdivision on 04/11/1985; WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution P-84-44 to approve Development Review (DR) 84-18, to construct a 118,527 square foot shopping center with construction occurring between 1984-1986;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 02-055, creating the Poway Crossings Specific Plan (PCSP), including the 7 parcels from PM 13750 and the previously subdivided parcels from PM 4653 and PM 7885, to create a "dynamic, attractive, economically vital corridor with the City";
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution P-17-022, to revise the Poway Road Specific Plan (PRSP), with the PRSP superseding the PCSP for the shopping center; 6 of 51 ATTACHMENT A
November 4, 2025, Item #7
Resolution
No.
25-
Page
2 WHEREAS,
MCUP
25-0003
and
MORA
25 -0009
,
were
submitted
by
Sterling
Organization,
applicant,
requesting
approval
of
the
outdoor
sales
and
display
area
to
serve
the
proposed
Tractor
Supply
Company
store
located
within
the
same
shopping
center;

WHEREAS,
on
November
4,
2025,
the
City
Council
held
a duly
advertised
public
meeting
to
solicit
comments
from
the
public,
both
for
and
against,
relative
to
this
application
;

WHEREAS
, Section

17.48.070
and
17 .10
.190
of
the
Poway
Municipal
Code
(PMC)
establish
findings
required
for
granting
a
MCUP
for
outdoor
sales
and
display
and
Section
17 .52
.010
establishes
findings
for
granting
a
MORA;
and

WHEREAS
, the
City
Council
has
read
and
considered
the
agenda
report
for
the
proposed
CUP
and
DR
modification
request
and
has
considered
other
evidence
presented
at
the
public
meeting.

NOW
, THEREFORE,
BE
IT

RESOLVED
by
the
City
Council
of
the
City
of
Poway
as
follows:

SECTION
1:

An
Environmental
Impact
Report
(EIR)
was
prepared
pursuant
to
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
in
conjunction
with
the
adoption
of
the
PRSP
and
was
certified
by
the
City
Council
on
December
5,
2017
.

The
Council
found
that
the
PRSP
was
substantially
consistent
with
the
adopted
General
Plan
, including
development
standards
and
guidelines
which
were
analyzed
in
the
EIR.

A
traffic
and
parking
analysis
technical
study
was
prepared
for
the
PRSP
that
confirmed
there
are
no
substantial
changes
to
either
the
PRSP
or
surrounding
circumstances, nor
any
new
information
that
would
require
subsequent
or
supplemental
environmental
review
for
the
PRSP
area,
pursuant
to
Public
Resources
Code
Section
21166
and
CEQA
Guidelines
Sections
15162
and
15163
. This
project
is
in
substantial
conformance
with
the
PRSP
and
the
General
Plan
. This
project
is
exempt
from
CEQA
, pursuant
to
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15332,
Class
32,
Infill
Development
Projects
, in
which
the
proposed
development
project
is
consistent
with
applicable
General
Plan,
Specific
Plan,
and
Poway
Municipal
Code
policies
,
land
use
designation
and
regulations;
in
which
the
proposed
development
project
occurs
on
property
within
the
city
limits
and
is
surrounded
by
urban
land
uses;
in
which
the
site
has
no
value
as
habitat
for
endangered,
rare
or
threatened
species;
in
which
an
approval
will
not
result
in
any
significant
effects
related
to
traffic,
noise,
air
quality
or
water
quality,
and
the
site
is
adequately
served
by
all
required
utilities
and
public
services
.

SECTION
2:

The
findings,
in
accordance
with
Sections

17.48 .070
and

17.10.190
.A.3
of
the
PMC
, to
approve
MCUP
25-0003,
are
as
follows
:

The
location
, size
, design,
and
operating
characteristics
of
the
proposed
use
are
in
accord
with
the
title
and
purpose
of
Chapter

17.48 PMC
(Conditional
Use
Permit
Regulations)
,

17.10.190
.A.3
(Outdoor
Display
Permit
Regulations),
the
General
Plan
,
and
the
development
policies
and
standards
of
the
City,
including
the
PRSP
, in
that
outdoor
sales
and
display
of
merchandise
is
allowed
within
the
CO
land
use
district
of
the
PRSP
with
approval
of
a
MCUP,
and
will
otherwise
comply
with
all
of
the
relevant
codes
and
standards
of
the
City.

The
outdoor
sales
and
display
area
is
in
accordance
with
the
objectives
of
the
PMC
17 .10
.190
and
the
purposes
of
the
district
where
the
site
is
located
.

The
location
, size,
design,
and
operating
characteristics
of
the
proposed
use
will
be
7 of
51 November 4, 2025, Item #7
Resolution No. 25-

Page 3 ends

Poway City CouncilNovember 4, 2025

Poway City Council
November 4, 2025