Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 139 Filed 09/04/12 Entered 09/04/12 15:40:35 Main Document Page 1 of 4

Desc

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

Steven Jay Katzman, State Bar No. 132755 skatzman@bmkattorneys.com Anne Uyeda, State Bar No. 235306 auyeda@bmkattorneys.com Anthony Bisconti, State Bar No. 269230 tbisconti@bmkattorneys.com BIENERT, MILLER & KATZMAN, PLC 903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 San Clemente, California 92673 Telephone: (949) 369-3700/Facsimile: (949) 369-3701

Attorneys for Retired Employees of the City of San Bernardino Jenifer Aragon, Michael Billdt, Michael Eckley, Walt Goggin, Wayne Harp, Steve Klettenberg, Frank Mankin, Denis Moon, Scott Paterson, and Robert Simmons

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE DIVISION

In re: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Debtor.

CASE NO. 6:12-bk-28006 MJ CHAPTER 9 RETIRED EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINOS JOINDER TO THE CITYS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. 107(c) AND FRBP 9037 TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO FILED DOCUMENTS CONTAINING PERSONAL DATA IDENTIFIERS

1 RETIRED EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINOS JOINDER TO THE CITYS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 139 Filed 09/04/12 Entered 09/04/12 15:40:35 Main Document Page 2 of 4

Desc

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

Retired employees of the City of San Bernardino Jenifer Aragon, Michael Billdt, Michael Eckley, Walt Goggin, Wayne Harp, Steve Klettenberg, Frank Mankin, Denis Moon, Scott Paterson, and Robert Simmons (collectively, the Retirees) hereby join in the City of San Bernardinos (the City) Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 107(c) and FRBP 9037 to Restrict Access to Filed Documents Containing Personal Data Identifiers (the Motion). I. THE COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE MOTION One day after the City improperly disclosed the private home addresses of nearly two thousand retired City employees in its List of Creditors and Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 924 and 925 and related Proof of Service [Docket Nos. 132 and 135] (together, the Creditors List), counsel for the Retirees sent a detailed letter to the City explaining the legal bases for protecting this private and confidential information from public disclosure (the Letter).
2 1

The Letter is provided to the Court to substantiate the basis for the request in the Motion, as there must be a sufficient basis for the Court to limit disclosure, and the Court has an independent duty to balance the Citys and Retirees request for confidentiality with the publics right to access. See, e.g., In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424-28 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Osband v. Ayers, No. CIV 97-152, 2009 WL 230636, at *3 n.2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2009); Hillside Dairy, Inc. v. Kawamura, No. CIV-S-97-1179, 2004 WL 3733409, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 6, 2004). Moreover, the Court has the authority to impound the Creditors List under Rule 1007(j) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which provides that [o]n motion of a party in interest and for cause shown the court may direct the impounding of the lists filed under this rule, and may refuse to permit inspection by any entity.

The Citys suggestion that no party raised the issue at the August 17, 2012 hearing or prior to the filing of the Documents is unfounded as: (1) the Creditors List had not yet been filed and, as such, the issue was not before the Court; (2) the cities of Vallejo and Stockton have undertaken efforts in their respective bankruptcy cases to protect the confidentiality and privacy rights of their retired employees when filing their lists of creditors with the court; and (3) there is no possible way any party could have known at the August 17th hearing that the City would engage in a wholesale violation of the Retirees privacy rights just two weeks later. 2 See Declaration of Steven Jay Katzman in support of this Motion (Katzman Decl.), filed concurrently herewith, at Exhibit A (the Letter). 2
RETIRED EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINOS JOINDER TO THE CITYS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 139 Filed 09/04/12 Entered 09/04/12 15:40:35 Main Document Page 3 of 4

Desc

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

Accordingly, as set forth in the Letter, the private, confidential home addresses of the Citys retired employees are subject to protection from disclosure and the Court should grant the relief requested in the Motion and the additional relief requested below. II. THE ORDER SHOULD INCLUDE DIRECTIVES THAT THE CITY DEMAND THE RETURN OF THE CREDITORS LIST FROM ALL MEDIA OUTLETS AND CERTIFY TO THE COURT OF SUCH EFFORTS The Retirees also respectfully request that any protective order issued by this Court require the City to take the following actions: (1) demand the return of the Creditors List from all media outlets who are known to have obtained or may have otherwise obtained a copy of such materials; (2) obtain assurances from the media outlets that the Creditors List have been destroyed and that they will not publicize the confidential information contained in the Creditors List; (3) provide each such media outlet a copy of the Courts Order on this Motion; and (4) file a certification with the Court that it has performed such actions. See, e.g., S.E.C. v. Reyes, Case No. C 06-04435 CRB, 2007 WL 528718, *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2007) (with respect to a document inadvertently produced by the SEC to defendants, the court ordered that all copies of the document in the possession of defendants or their counsel shall be immediately destroyed or returned to the SEC and that each party and his or her counsel shall also immediately retrieve any copies that he or she provided to any other person and shall furnish such persons with a copy of the order); E.E.O.C. v. Dial Corp., Case No. 99 C 3356, 2001 WL 1945089, *8 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 6, 2001) (where the plaintiffs attorney provided a news crew with an unredacted brief which reflected the names and other identifying information of class members of a sexual harassment suit and their alleged harassers and the news crew thereafter displayed this information in a broadcast, the court ordered the plaintiff to, among other things, file proof that it had obtained assurances from the news crew that the unredacted brief had been returned or destroyed, all related notes had been destroyed, the news crew would not use the recording of the news story again unless it edited out the confidential information, and the news crew would not further publicize the names or identities of any claimants or alleged harassers obtained from the unredacted brief); see also U.S. ex rel. Bagley v. TRW, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 170, 187 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (court ordered plaintiff and relator to return all copies of the inadvertently produced privileged documents to defendant and destroy the relevant portions of documents or computer files containing summaries of, or quotations from, the inadvertently produced 3
RETIRED EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINOS JOINDER TO THE CITYS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 139 Filed 09/04/12 Entered 09/04/12 15:40:35 Main Document Page 4 of 4

Desc

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

documents); Transp. Equip. Sales Corp. v. BMY Wheeled Vehicles, 930 F. Supp. 1187, 1188 (N.D. Ohio 1996) (where court granted defendants motion seeking the return of a document that was inadvertently produced to plaintiffs counsel during discovery, and ordered the immediate return of the document to defendant's counsel and avoidance of any further use of the document or any information gained as a result of its disclosure, that plaintiffs counsel give a copy of the order to all persons to whom the document was made available, and that all persons who received a copy of the order were prohibited from disclosing or using information obtained as a result of the inadvertent disclosure). The Retirees have repeatedly requested the City to attempt to retrieve the Creditors List from all media outlets who may have either been provided a copy of the Creditor List, downloaded or otherwise obtained a copy from the Courts filing system.
3

The City has not advised the Retirees whether it intends to undertake
4

such efforts or the results of any such efforts.

Finally, this Joinder is filed without prejudice to any and all additional relief, rights, and remedies that the Retirees may possess for the actions as described in the Motion and Letter.

Dated: September 4, 2012

BIENERT, MILLER & KATZMAN, PLC

By: /s/ Steven Jay Katzman /s/ Steven Jay Katzman Anne A. Uyeda Anthony R. Bisconti Attorneys for Retired Employees of the City of San Bernardino Jenifer Aragon, Michael Billdt, Michael Eckley, Walt Goggin, Wayne Harp, Steve Klettenberg, Frank Mankin, Scott Paterson, and Robert Simmons

3 4

See Katzman Decl., 3. Id.

RETIRED EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINOS JOINDER TO THE CITYS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ Doc 139-1 Filed 09/04/12 Entered 09/04/12 15:40:35 Affidavit Declaration of Steven Jay Katzman Page 1 of 2

Desc

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

Steven Jay Katzman, State Bar No. 132755 skatzman@bmkattorneys.com Anne Uyeda, State Bar No. 235306 auyeda@bmkattorneys.com Anthony Bisconti, State Bar No. 269230 tbisconti@bmkattorneys.com BIENERT, MILLER & KATZMAN, PLC 903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 San Clemente, California 92673 Telephone: (949) 369-3700/Facsimile: (949) 369-3701

Attorneys for Retired Employees of the City of San Bernardino Jenifer Aragon, Michael Billdt, Michael Eckley, Walt Goggin, Wayne Harp, Steve Klettenberg, Frank Mankin, Denis Moon, Scott Paterson, and Robert Simmons UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE DIVISION

In re: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Debtor.

CASE NO. 6:12-bk-28006 MJ CHAPTER 9 DECLARATION OF STEVEN JAY KATZMAN IN SUPPORT OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINOS JOINDER TO THE CITYS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. 107(c) AND FRBP 9037 TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO FILED DOCUMENTS CONTAINING PERSONAL DATA IDENTIFIERS

1 DECLARATION OF STEVEN JAY KATZMAN IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER TO CITYS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ Doc 139-1 Filed 09/04/12 Entered 09/04/12 15:40:35 Affidavit Declaration of Steven Jay Katzman Page 2 of 2

Desc

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

I, STEVEN JAY KATZMAN, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at the law firm of Bienert Miller & Katzman PLC, counsel of record for

Retired Employees of the City of San Bernardino Jenifer Aragon, Michael Billdt, Michael Eckley, Walt Goggin, Wayne Harp, Steve Klettenberg, Frank Mankin, Scott Paterson, and Robert Simmons (collectively, the Retirees) in the above-captioned action. This Declaration is submitted in support of the Retirees Joinder (the Joinder) to the City of San Bernardinos (the City) Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 107(c) and FRBP 9037 to Restrict Access to Filed Documents Containing Personal Data Identifiers (the Motion). I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under oath. All capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined in this declaration have the same meaning given to them in the Motion and the Joinder. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a letter I sent to Paul

Glassman, counsel for the City, on September 1, 2012. 3. For the past few days, I have repeatedly requested the City to attempt to retrieve the

Creditors List from all media outlets who may have either been provided a copy of the Creditor List, downloaded or otherwise obtained a copy from the Courts filing system. The City has not advised me whether it intends to undertake such efforts or the results of any such efforts. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on September 4, 2012, at San Clemente, California.

/s/ Steven Jay Katzman /s/ STEVEN JAY KATZMAN

2
DECLARATION OF STEVEN JAY KATZMAN IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER TO CITYS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ Doc 139-2 Filed 09/04/12 Entered 09/04/12 15:40:35 Exhibit A to the Declaration of Steven Jay Katzman Page 1 of 5

Desc

EXHIBIT A

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ Doc 139-2 Filed 09/04/12 Entered 09/04/12 15:40:35 Exhibit A to the Declaration of Steven Jay Katzman Page 2 of 5

Desc

BIENERT, MILLER & KATZMAN, PLC

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 San Clemente, CA 92673 Telephone (949) 369-3700 Facsimile (949) 369-3701

September 1, 2012 VIA EMAIL ONLY Paul R. Glassman Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 440 Los Angeles, CA 90401 Re: City of San Bernardino Bankruptcy, Case No. 6:12-bk-28006; and Demand for Immediate Redaction of Addresses of Retired Employees Improperly Disclosed on List of Creditors

Dear Paul: The purpose of this correspondence is to follow up on my voicemail message earlier today,1 requesting that: (a) you identify the purpose in disclosing, on the List of Creditors and Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 924 and 925 (the Creditors List), the private home addresses of the City of San Bernardinos (the City) retired employees (the Retirees); and (b) you take immediate action to mitigate the damage caused by the unauthorized disclosure of the Retirees confidential, private information.2 As I mentioned on my voicemail message, yesterday the City filed the Creditors List which improperly disclosed the private home addresses of what appear to be all the Retirees for the City, numbering well in excess of a thousand individuals. See Docket No. 132 in the case entitled In re City of San Bernardino, California, Case No. 6:12-bk-28006-MJ (the San Bernardino Bankruptcy), at pp. 14-45. To the best of our knowledge, the City did so without advance notice or consent of any of the Retirees. The disclosure of this confidential information constitutes a violation of the Retirees rights of privacy under state and federal law. For all employees, but in particular peace officers and those who have worked daily for decades with numerous dangerous and violent criminals, this disclosure poses a grave threat to the safety and well-being of the Retirees and their families.
I received a text from you approximately three hours later, indicating that you were checking into it and would get back to me as soon as possible. As I have not heard anything further and given the urgency of this matter, please consider this correspondence as well in assessing the action that should be taken. 2 It is further worth noting that this disclosure of confidential, private information could have been avoided had the City accepted our repeated offers to initiate a dialogue with the Retirees, where we could have discussed the Citys intentions prior to taking this action.
1

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ Doc 139-2 Filed 09/04/12 Entered 09/04/12 15:40:35 Desc Exhibit A to the Declaration of Steven Jay Katzman Page 3 of 5 September 1, 2012 Re: Demand for Immediate Redaction of Addresses of Retired Employees Improperly Disclosed on List of Creditors Page 2

California Penal Code 832.7 provides that [p]eace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records maintained by any state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code. See California Penal Code 832.7 (emphases added). Personnel records include records relating to [p]ersonal data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses, or similar information. See California Penal Code 832.8(a) (emphases added). The California Public Records Act, California Government Code 6250 et seq. (CPRA), specifically exempts from disclosure any [r]ecords, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, the provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege. See California Government Code 6254(k). As noted above, California Penal Code 832.7 and 832.8 deem information contained in personnel records, like the home addresses of peace officers, to be confidential and, accordingly, such information is exempt from disclosure under the CPRA. Several other provisions of the CPRA acknowledge that the home addresses of active and retired peace officers and other city employees are exempt from public disclosure. See California Government Code 6254(u), 6254.21(a)-(c), 6254.21(f)(13), and 6254.24. Other provisions of the CPRA also recognize that the contact information of other public employees are confidential and not subject to disclosure. See, e.g., California Government Code 6254.3(a) (The home addresses and home telephone numbers of state employees and employees of a school district or county office of education shall not be deemed to be public records and shall not be open to public inspection). The CPRA broadly exempts the personal, private information of public employees from disclosure. See California Government 6254(c) (noting that the privacy exemption of CPRA includes [p]ersonnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy). California Vehicle Code 1808.4 also recognizes that the home addresses of certain individuals, including active or retired police officer[s], as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, are confidential and not subject to disclosure. See California Vehicle Code 1808.4(a)(11), (b), (c). Indeed, this statute provides that [w]ith respect to a retired peace officer, his or her home address shall be withheld from public inspection permanently and recognizes that the disclosure of the confidential home address of a peace officer could potentially result in bodily injury to the peace officer, employee of the city police department or county sheriff's office, or the spouses or children of these persons. See California Vehicle Code 1808.4(c)(3), (d). Moreover, state and federal case law recognize that the home addresses of police officers are confidential and not subject to disclosure. See, e.g., Hackett v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. App. 4th 96, 98-101 (1993) (where a deputy sheriff was ordered to disclose his home address and telephone number as part of discovery in a civil suit, the appellate issued a writ of mandate,

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ Doc 139-2 Filed 09/04/12 Entered 09/04/12 15:40:35 Desc Exhibit A to the Declaration of Steven Jay Katzman Page 4 of 5 September 1, 2012 Re: Demand for Immediate Redaction of Addresses of Retired Employees Improperly Disclosed on List of Creditors Page 3

noting the existence of a conditional privilege for peace officer personnel records and the information contained therein, including home addresses, and observing that a personal officers personal safety is endangered by unrestricted disclosure.); Davis v. City of Sacramento, 24 Cal. App. 4th 393, 399-400 (1994) (where appellate court held that personnel records of a retired police officer who testified as a defense expert was protected from disclosure); Motley v. Parks, Case No. CV 00-01472 MMM BQX, 2001 WL 682791, *2 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2001) (citing numerous cases which recognize that the home addresses of police officers should be redacted, the court ultimately denied plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of an order sustaining defendants objection to discovery seeking the home addresses of certain Los Angeles police officers). In Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027 (9th Cir. 1990), the court recognized that governmental personnel files are generally subject to privilege and, to determine whether the information sought is privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against potential disadvantages; [i]f the latter is great, the privilege bars discovery. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1033-1034. After balancing the competing interests involved, the Sanchez court determined that the confidentiality interests of Santa Ana Police Department employees outweighed the plaintiffs interest in conducting a general search of personnel files. Applying Sanchez, it is clear that here, on balance, the Retirees justified and significant concerns about privacy and the potential harm that could come to them and their families upon disclosure of their private addresses greatly outweigh any interest the City may have in performing the ministerial function of listing addresses in its Creditors List. In marked contrast to the actions of the City, the cities of Vallejo and Stockton have apparently undertaken efforts in their respective bankruptcy cases to protect the confidentiality and privacy rights of their retired employees when filing their lists of creditors with the court. See Docket No. 5 in the case entitled In re City of Vallejo, California, Case No. 08-26813 (the Vallejo Bankruptcy) (List of Creditors and Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 924 and 925), which listed the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) as the creditor for retiree health benefits and did not disclose the retirees contact information; see also Docket No. 237 in the Vallejo Bankruptcy (List of Creditors Holding 20 Largest Unsecured Retiree Health Benefit Claims), which did not disclose the addresses of these retired city employees and instead noted that the addresses will be provided to the Office of the United States Trustee by CalPERS); Docket No. 2 in the case entitled In re City of Stockon, California, Case No. 1232118 (the Stockton Bankruptcy) (List of Creditors and Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 924 and 925), which listed the P.O. Box address for CalPERS as the address for the citys retired employees. Additionally, we would note that the City did not disclose the personal addresses of current active employees on the Creditors List, but instead scheduled their work addresses. Through disclosure of the private home addresses of retired police officers and firefighters into the public domain for any person to see, including those who may have personal grudges against these Retirees or vendettas against law enforcement in general, the City has exposed the Retirees and their family to serious danger. Although the damage has been done, the

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ Doc 139-2 Filed 09/04/12 Entered 09/04/12 15:40:35 Desc Exhibit A to the Declaration of Steven Jay Katzman Page 5 of 5 September 1, 2012 Re: Demand for Immediate Redaction of Addresses of Retired Employees Improperly Disclosed on List of Creditors Page 4

City should take immediate steps now to minimize any on-going damage. Accordingly, we demand that you immediately take steps to: (1) remove the offending Creditors List from all sources from which it is now publicly available, including but not limited to the Citys website (http://www.ci.san-bernardino.ca.us/) and the website maintained by Rust Consulting/Omni Bankruptcy (http://www.omnimgt.com/cityofSanBernardino); and (2) file an emergency petition with the court to redact the Retirees home addresses from the Creditors List pursuant to Rule 9037 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. In the mean time, we further demand that you contact the court clerk in the San Bernardino Bankruptcy as soon as possible to apprise them of the situation and request that they block, from access, the Creditors List from the case docket.3 Please advise us immediately (i.e. by this evening if feasible, but in any event no later than tomorrow) of your intentions in this regard. If the City fails to take such actions as soon as possible, we will forced to bring an emergency motion to attempt to mitigate the harm caused by this unauthorized disclosure.

BIENERT, MILLER & KATZMAN, PLC

Steven Jay Katzman

Steven Jay Katzman cc: Abram Feuerstein Everett L. Green Laura Buchanan Kathleen DeVaney James F. Penman

This is something that, in my experience, I have seen the clerks office do when a matter was inadvertently placed into the public record and a request to seal was forthcoming.

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 139-3 Filed 09/04/12 Entered 09/04/12 15:40:35 Affidavit Proof of Service Page 1 of 2
CHAPTER 9 Debtor(s).

Desc

IN RE: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, CASE NUMBER 6:12-bk-28006 MJ

PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT

I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is: 903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 San Clemente, California 92673 A true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled (specify): RETIRED EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINOS JOINDER TO THE CITYS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. 107(c) AND FRBP 9037 TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO FILED DOCUMENTS CONTAINING PERSONAL DATA IDENTIFIERS AND DECLARATION OF STEVEN JAY KATZMAN will be served or was served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner stated below: 1. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF): Pursuant to controlling General Orders and LBR, the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the document. On September 4, 2012, I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the following persons are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email addresses stated below: Jerrold Abeles Joseph M Adams Andrew K Alper Thomas V Askounis Jeffrey E. Bjork Sarah C. Boone J Scott Bovitz Jeffrey W Broker Deana M Brown Michael J Bujold Laura L. Buchanan Christina M. Craige Nathan F. Coco Alex Darcy Susan S Davis Kathleen D. DeVaney Robert H. Dewberry Todd J. Dressel Chrysta L. Elliot Scott Ewig Paul R. Glassman Everett L Green Chad V. Haes James A Hayes M Jonathan Hayes D. Edward Hays Eric M. Heller Bonnie M Holcomb Whitman L Holt Michelle C. Hribar Miles W. Hughes Jane Kesparadit Mette H. Kurth Richard A. Marshack Gregory A Martin abeles.jerry@arentfox.com jadams@lawjma.com aalper@frandzel.com, efiling@frandzel.com;ekidder@frandzel.com taskounis@askounisdarcy.com jbjork@sidley.com sboone@marshackhays.com bovitz@bovitz-spitzer.com jbroker@brokerlaw.biz dbrown@milbank.com Michael.J.Bujold@usdoj.gov lbuchanan@sycr.com ccraige@sidley.com ncoco@mwe.com adarcy@askounisdarcy.com sdavis@coxcastle.com kdevaney@sycr.com robert.dewberry@dewlaw.net dressel@chapman.com elliottc@ballardspahr.com contact@omnimgt.com pglassman@sycr.com everett.l.green@usdoj.gov chaes@ marshackhays.com jhayes@cwlawyers.com jhayes@hayesbklaw.com;carolyn@hayesbklaw.com; roksana@hayesbklaw.com elizabeth@hayesbklaw.com ehays@ marshackhays.com eric.m.heller@irscounsel.treas.gov bonnie.holcomb@doj.ca.gov wholt@ktbslaw.com mch@sdlaborlaw.com mhughes@mwe.com jane.kespradit@limruger.com kurth.mette@arentfox.com rmarshack@ marshackhays.com gmartin@winston.com

This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. June 2012

F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 139-3 Filed 09/04/12 Entered 09/04/12 15:40:35 Affidavit Proof of Service Page 2 of 2
CHAPTER 9 Debtor(s).

Desc

IN RE: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, CASE NUMBER 6:12-bk-28006 MJ

David J. Mccarty Reed M. Mercado Aron M. Oliner Scott H Olson Dean G Rallis Christopher O. Rivas Kenneth N Russak Gregory M Salvato Mark C. Schnitzer Benjamin Seigel Diane S. Shaw William P. Smith Jason D. Strabo Matthew J. Troy United States Trustee (RS) Annie Verdries Brian D Wesley

dmaccarty@sheppardmullin.com rmercado@sheppardmullin.com roliner@duanemorris.com solson@seyfarth.com drallis@sulmeyerlaw.com crivas @reedsmith.com krussak@frandzel.com, efiling@frandzel.com;dmoore@frandzel.com gsalvato@salvatolawoffices.com, calendar@salvatolawoffices.com mschnitzer@rhlaw.com bseigel@buchalter.com, IFS_filing@buchalter.com diane.shaw@doj.ca.gov wsmith@mwe.com jstrabo@mwe.com matthew.troy@usdoj.gov ustpregion16.rs.ecf@usdoj.gov verdries@lbbslaw.com brian.wesley@doj.ca.gov

Service information continued on attached page 2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: On _____________, I served the following persons and/or entities at the last known addresses in this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed. Service information continued on attached page 3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, OVERNIGHT MAIL, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL (state method for each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on September 4, 2012, I served the following persons and/or entities by personal delivery, overnight mail service, or (for those who consented in writing to such service method), by facsimile transmission and/or email as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that personal delivery on, or overnight mail to, the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed. Honorable Meredith A. Jury (Personal Delivery) U.S. Bankruptcy Court 3420 Twelfth Street, Suite 325 Riverside, CA 92501-3819 Courtesy Copies E-mailed to: Ryan Carter ryan.carter@inlandnewspapers.com Dug Bagley dbagley@pe.com Service information continued on attached page I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Everett L. Green (Personal Delivery) Office of the U.S. Trustee 3685 Main Street, Suite 300 Riverside, CA 92501

September 4, 2012
Date

Coleen Grogan
Printed Name

/s/ Coleen Grogan /s/

Signature

This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. June 2012

F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE