DISTRICT	COURT,	EL	PASO	COUNTY,	COLORADO

270	S.	Tejon

Colorado	Springs,	CO	80901

					COURT	USE	ONLY

LESLIE	WEISE,

Petitioner	

v.	

COLORADO	SPRINGS	UTILITIES,	

Respondent Case	Number:

2015CV _____________

Leslie	Weise,	Pro	Se Div.:															Ctrm:

17780	Caribou	Drive

Monument,	CO	80132

Phone	Number:	(303)	523-0016

Email:		leslie@weise.us

PETITION	FOR	ORDER	REQUIRING	DISCLOSURE	OF	CERTAIN	PUBLIC	RECORDS	

UNDER	THE	COLORADO	OPEN	RECORDS	ACT

This	case	involves	the	wrongful	withholding	of	public	records	by	the	Colorado	Springs	

Utilities	(“CSU”)	in	violation	of	the	Colorado	Open	Records	Act	(“CORA”	or	“Act”),	C.R.S.	24-

72-204(3)(a)(IV),	24-72-201,	et	seq. 		In	support	of	this	petition,	the	following facts,	law	and	

other	relevant	background	information	are	respectfully	submitted	to	the	District	Court	in	

El	Paso	County,	4th Judicial	District (Court).
2

Petitioner,	Leslie	Weise,	acting	Pro	Se, petitions	this	Court	for	an	order	requiring	disclosure	

of	certain	records	responsive	to a	request	I	made	to	Colorado	Springs	Utilities	(CSU)	under	

the	Colorado	Open	Records	Act	(CORA),	C.R.S.	§§ 24-72-201,	et	seq. The	public	records	

requested	are	relevant	to	serious	inquiry	by	many	interested	citizens whether	Colorado	

Springs	is	in	compliance	with	National	Ambient	Air	Quality	Standards	(“NAAQS”)	for	sulfur	

dioxide	(“SO2”)	established	under	the	Federal	Clean	Air	Act, concerning	certain	regulated	

criteria	pollutants	emitted	by	the	Martin	Drake	Power	Plant.1		Respondent	attempts	to	

wrongfully	withhold	public	documents,	citing	they	are		“privileged”	under 24-72-

204(3)(a)(IV) (see	paragraphs	3	and	6, below).	

I. Jurisdiction	and	Venue

Petitioner is	a	resident	of	El	Paso	County,	and	Respondent	is	a	governmental

organization	within	the	City	of	Colorado	Springs,	also	within	El	Paso	County.		The	act	of	

improper	withholding	of	public	records	in	violation	of	CORA	took	place	by	Respondent	

against	Petitioner	within	this	jurisdiction.			Therefore,	Petitioner submits	that	this	Court	

has	jurisdiction	over	this	matter	and	that	this	is	the	proper	venue	for	resolving	this	dispute.

II. Factual	Background – Summary	of	Communications	Regarding	Public	

Records	Withheld	by	Respondent

1. I,	Petitioner, submitted an	open	records	CORA	request	to	CSU on	August	14,	2015	

(“Weise	CORA”).

2 The	Weise	CORA contained	a	request for	information and	records

relevant	to	Colorado	state,	and	federal	air	quality	regulations and	whether	Colorado	

Springs	was	in	compliance	with	standards	set	forth	therein.	The specific	requests	for	

records	included in	the	Weise	CORA	are	as	follows:

																																																							 1 More	than	a	dozen	Colorado	Springs	citizens	attended	and	spoke	to	AQCC	Commissioners	during	

public	comment	session	of	the	August	20,	2015	Public	Hearing for	Colorado	Springs	compliance	

designation,	and	more	so	provided	written	comment	in	advance.		

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/082015-SO2-comments_1.pdf A	petition	in	

protest	of	the	“unclassifiable”	designation	recommendation	made	by	APCD	was	also	submitted	to	

AQCC.		http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/epa-colorado-springs

2 Exhibit	1	is	the	Weise	CORA,	August	14,	2015	open	records	requested	submitted	by	Petitioner,	to	

Colorado	Springs	Utilities,	Respondent.
3

1.	All	contracts	entered	into	directly	or	indirectly	by	Colorado	Springs	Utilities	with

AECOM	to	provide	modeling	or	any	other	services	regarding	air	issues	with	regard

to	the	areas	affected	by	the	Martin	Drake	and	/	or	the	Ray	Nixon	power	plants	since

January	1,	2012.

2.	All	progress	reports,	studies,	results	and/or	invoices	received	by	CSU	with	regard	to	

such	contracts	with	AECOM	referenced	in	the	preceding	request.

2. On	August	18,	2015,	John	Butler	of	CSU	replied	by	email	and	provided	a	partial	

response	to	the	Weise	CORA	that	included	a	single	document	(the	Professional	Services	

Agreement	for	air	quality	services between	AECOM	Technical	Services, Inc.	and	CSU,	the	

“AECOM	CSU Air	Quality	Services	Contract”)3 while	also	informing	me	that:		

Additional	documents	that	may	be	responsive	to	your	request	are	being	reviewed	to	

determine	whether	or	not	they	are	subject	to	mandatory non-disclosure	under	

CORA. Colorado	Springs	Utilities	will	provide	those	documents	if	it	is	determined	they	

may	be	released	under	CORA	as	soon	as	this	review	is	complete. If	it	is	determined	they	

may	not	be	disclosed,	Utilities	will	so	notify	you	and	cite	the	basis	for	the	nondisclosure	as	requested	in	your	CORA	request.

3. On	August	20,	2015,	John	Butler	again	emailed	me	with	another	single	document	(an	

invoice	dated	May	28,	2015 submitted	by	AECOM to	CSU under	the	AECOM	CSU	Contract

“Invoice	1”)4,	while	also	informing	me	that:

Additional	documents	responsive	to	your	request	have	been	redacted	in	their

entirety	on	the	basis	that	they	are	subject	to	mandatory	non-disclosure

under	CORA	pursuant	to	s.	24-72-204(3)(a)(IV),	C.R.S.,	because	they	contain

privileged	information.

4. On	August	28,	2015,	John	Butler	again	emailed	me	that	he	had	discovered	additional	

records	responsive	to	the	Weise	CORA,	and	attached	two	more	invoices	submitted	by	

AECOM	to	CSU	for	work	AECOM	performed	in	2015	under	the	AECOM	CSU	Air	Quality	

																																																							 3 Exhibit	4 is	the	Professional	Services	Agreement	between	Colorado	Springs	Utilities	and	AECOM	

Technical	Services,	Inc.	dated	December	2,	2013.		

4 Exhibit	2,	is	the	May	28, 2015	Invoice	1	by	AECOM	to	CSU,	Invoice	#	37571641.
4

Services	Contract (Invoices	2	and	3).

5

		

5. On	September	17,	2015,	I	emailed	John	Butler	requesting	that	CSU	reconsider	its’

withholding	of	public	records	from the	Weise	CORA.		While	at	the	time	I	improperly	

confused	law	concerning	the	deliberative	process	privilege	with	that	of	the	attorney-client	

privilege,	the	substance	of	the	request	made	(for	reconsideration	of	the	withholding)	was	

clearly	communicated	by	Petitioner,	received	by	Respondent	and	then refused (see	

paragraph	6	below).		The	contents	of	the	communication	I	sent	are as	follows:

Dear	John,

As	a	follow	up	to	your	August	20,	2015	response	below,	I	would	like	to	request	

reconsideration	of	the	redaction/withholding	of	requested	results	conducted	by	

Colorado	Springs	Utilities	(CSU)	vendor	AECOM,	for	which	three	invoices	by	this	vendor	

have	been	(or	are	currently	being)	processed	by	CSU.	 It	is	believed	that	these	vendor	

results	contain	technical	information	regarding	air	quality	analysis	near	the	Martin	

Drake	Power	Plant	and/or	overall	Colorado	Springs	region.	

Pursuant	to	the	provision	of	the	CORA	statute	you	cited	for	the	withholding, 24-72-

204(3)(a)(IV),	C.R.S.	(copied	below), a	custodian	may	deny	the	right	of	inspection	of	

certain	records	on	the	basis	that	it	contains	trade	secrets,	privileged	information,	and	

other	statutorily-permitted	subject	matter	exclusions.	 However,	upon	review	of	the	

statute	including	the	annotations	(the	relevant	section	also	copied	below	with	

highlight),	it	is	clear	that	the	right	to	withhold	information	under	the	"privileged	

information"	exception	only	applies	to	"material	prepared	by	a	governmental	

employee".	 Since	the	requested	information	was	in	fact	prepared	by	a	vendor	which	

CSU	has	contracted,	payment	for	which	undoubtedly	flows	from	the	ratepayer-owners	

of	CSU,	this	exception	would	not	apply.	

Accordingly,	please	recognize	this	oversight	on	your	part	and	provide	the	requested	

information	at	your	earliest	convenience.

Sincerely,

Leslie	Weise

24-72-204:

																																																							 5 Exhibit	3,	includes the	June	24,	2015	Invoice	2	by	AECOM	to	CSU,	Invoice	# 37584436;	and	the	

July	29,	2015	Invoice	3	by	AECOM	to	CSU,	Invoice	# 37600375.		
5

(3)	(a)	The	custodian	may	deny	the	right	of	inspection	of	the	following	records,	unless	

otherwise	provided	by	law,	on	the	ground	that	disclosure	to	the	applicant	would	be	

contrary	to	the	public	interest:

(IV)	Trade	secrets,	privileged	information,	and	confidential	commercial,	financial,	

geological,	or	geophysical	data,	including	a	social	security	number	unless	disclosure	of	

the	number	is	required,	permitted,	or	authorized	by	state	or	federal	law,	furnished	by	

or	obtained	from	any	person;

https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/info_center/files/CORA_Act.pdf

6. On	September	21,	2015,	I	received	a	response	by	email	from	“Colorado	Springs	

Utilities”	from	the	email	address	CORA@csu.org with	the	following	contents:

Ms.	Weise,

Colorado	Springs	Utilities	is	in	receipt	of	your	request	for reconsideration	of	Utilities'	

determination	that	certain	records	that	may be	responsive	to	your	August	14,	2015,	

Colorado	Open	Records	Act	(CORA) request	are	subject	to	mandatory	non-disclosure	

under	CORA. Utilities	and the	City	Attorney's	Office	have	reviewed	your	request	for	

reconsideration and	the	original	basis	of	denial	of	certain	records	pursuant	to	Section

24-72-204(3)(a)(IV),	C.R.S.,	and	have	reaffirmed	that	the	records	you requested	are	

subject	to	mandatory	non-disclosure	as	"privileged information"	under	the	cited	

exemption. For	this	reason,	respectfully,	the original	decision	to	withhold	the	records	

will	remain.

Thank	you,

Colorado	Springs	Utilities

7. Petitioner	submits	this	Petition	for	Order	Requiring	Disclosure	of	Certain	Public	

Records	Under	the	Colorado	Open	Records	Act.	Respondent	has	wrongfully	withheld	public	

records,	and	in	so	doing	has	abused	its	discretion	under	CORA.		As	discussed	below,	the	

withheld	documents	are	not	subject	to	“mandatory	non-disclosure”	as	Respondent	has	

claimed,	as	the	information	withheld	cannot	by	its	nature	and	under	the	law,	be	classified	

as	“privileged	information” and	therefore	must	be	disclosed	to	Petitioner.	Thus,	Petitioner

requests	that	the	Court	accept	this Petition,	declare	that	CSU violated	CORA	by	wrongfully	

withholding	public	records,	direct	CSU to	produce	the	requested records to	Petitioner	

within three days	of	the	Court’s	order,	and	order	other	relief	requested	herein	or	which	the	

Court	deems	appropriate.				
6

III. Additional	Factual	Background Concerning Petitioner’s	Right	to	Public	

Records

8. I,	Leslie	Weise,	am	a	resident	of	Monument,	Colorado,	in	El	Paso	County.		My	son	

attends	4th grade	at	a	public	charter	school	in	Colorado	Springs located	2.5	miles	from	the

Martin	Drake	Power	Plant	owned	and	operated	by	the	Colorado	Springs	Utilities	(CSU).		It	

has	been	demonstrated	by	multiple	professional,	technical	air	quality	studies	that	the	

school	is located	directly	within	the	sulfur	dioxide	(“SO2”)	pollution	plume	path	emitted	by	

the	Martin	Drake	Plant,	an	important	factor	driving	my	involvement	in	this	matter	and	my	

pursuit	to	obtain	access	to	the	documents	withheld	by	Petitioner	for	which	review	by	the	

Court	is	sought.	(See	paragraph	11	and	footnote 8,	Modeling	Reports	I-III).		My	goals	in	

pursuing	this	matter	are	to	ensure	the	air	is	healthy to	breathe near	my	son’s	school and	

throughout	the	Colorado	Springs	region	where	my	family	regularly	frequents. 6			The	only	

way	I	can	ensure	that	the	air	is	healthy	is	by	reviewing	documents	in	possession	of	CSU—

the	governmental municipal	utility responsible	for	managing	emissions	from	the	Martin	

Drake	Power	Plant	and	ensuring	air	quality	complies with	ambient	air	quality	standards	

required	by	the	State	of Colorado and	the	federal	government.		As	discussed	below,	CSU has	

wrongfully	withheld	public	records relevant	to	whether	the	air	quality	in	Colorado Springs	

complies with	National	Ambient	Air	Quality	Standards	(“NAAQS”)	for	the	1-hour	sulfur	

dioxide	standard.		I	ask	this	Court	to	order	CSU to	produce	those	records to	protect a	

Mother’s	right	to	the information	necessary	to	protect	her	child from	potentially	unhealthy	

air	quality	in	Colorado	Springs.	

9. In	2010,	the	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(US	EPA)	promulgated	a	revised	

primary	National	Ambient	Air	Quality	Standard	(NAAQS)	for	sulfur	dioxide	emissions	as	a	

1-hour	average	(referred	to	herein	as	“2010	Revised	NAAQS	SO2	Standard”	or	“NAAQS	

Standard”).

10. On	March	17,	2011,	the	Air	Pollution	Control	Division	(APCD)	of	the	Colorado	

Department	of	Public	Health	and	Environment	(CDPHE) submitted	a determination	to	the	

Air	Quality	Control	Commission	for	the	State	of	Colorado	(AQCC)	and	the	US	EPA,	stating	

																																																							 6 http://gazette.com/drake-gets-more-time-for-air-quality-compliance-after-state-commissionruling/article/1557783
7

that	all	regions	within	the	State	of	Colorado	were	either	in	“attainment”	or	were	

“attainment	/	unclassifiable”	under	the	NAAQS	Standard.7

11. Between	2011	and	March	2015,	multiple	analyses	of	air	quality	in	the	Colorado	

Springs	region	conducted	independently	by	two	professional	air	quality	engineering	firms,	

showed	serious	violations	of	the	2010	Revised	NAAQS	SO2	Standard	concerning	sulfur	

dioxide	emissions.8 		These	studies were	individually submitted	to	both	CSU	and CDPHE.		

Because	of	the	exceedances	of	federally	defined	air	quality	limits	concerning	SO2	in	the	

Colorado	Springs	region,	it	was	separately	determined	by	these	two	firms	that	Colorado	

Springs	should	be	properly	designated	as	“non-attainment”	of	the	NAAQS	Standard.			Based	

on	public	records available,	neither	CDPHE	nor	CSU	had	conducted	any	similar	studies	of	

air	quality	compliance	of	the	NAAQS	Standard	in	the	Colorado	Springs	region,	with	the	

possible	exception	of	work	performed	for	CSU	by	AECOM in	2015	under	the	AECOM	CSU	

Air	Quality	Services	Contract	described	below.	Public	information	concerning	this	work	by	

CSU’s	air	quality	services vendor	AECOM	has	been	wrongfully	withheld	by	Respondent	and	

is	the	subject	of	this	Petition.	

																																																							 7 AQCC	Agenda	Item	Summary	for	August	20,	2015	Public	Hearing,	dated	June	2,	2015, page	2,	at:	

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/061815-SO2-materials.pdf

8 On	March	28,	2013	the	Sierra	Club	submitted	to	CDPHE	a	modeling	analysis	and	report	of	air	

quality	of	the	Colorado	Springs	region	that	had	been	conducted	by	an	experienced	air	quality	

professional	engineering	firm	Wingra	Engineering	(Modeling	Report	I).	This	report	demonstrated	

that	emissions	from	the	Martin	Drake	Coal	Plant	were	causing	serious	violations	of	the	2010	

Revised	1-hour	NAAQS	SO2	Standard	in	Colorado	Springs	and thus	the	area	should	be	designated	as	

“non-attainment”.	Prior	to	the	August	20,	2015	Compliance	Designation	Hearing,	on	August	5,	2015	

the	Sierra	Club	submitted	to	CDPHE	an	updated	air	quality	modeling	analysis	of	the	Colorado	

Springs	region	(Modeling	Report	II).	Additionally,	APCD	had	received	another	engineering	firm’s	

modeling	analysis	and	report	in	September	2013	(independent	of	all	Sierra	Club	submissions),	

which	separately	demonstrated	serious	violations	of	the	2010	NAAQS	SO2	Standard	in	the	Colorado

Springs	region	due	to	SO2	emissions	from	the	Martin	Drake	Power	Plant	(Modeling	Report	III).

Modeling	Report	I	submitted	to	CSU	and	CDPHE	by	Sierra	Club	dated	October	4,	2012,	at:	

http://content.sierraclub.org/coal/sites/content.sierraclub.org.coal/files/Evaluation%20of%20Co

mpliance%20with%20the%201-hour%20NAAQS%20for%20SO2%20-

%20Martin%20Drake%20CO%20DRAFT,4oct12.pdf		Correspondence	submitted	by	Sierra	Club	to	

CDPHE	on	August	7,	2015	regarding	its	updated	Modeling	Report	II	dated	August	5,	2015,	page	17	

at	https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/082015-SO2-comments_1.pdf		

Correspondence	submitted	by	M.	Barrett,	Professional	Engineer,	Air	Expertise	Colorado,	LLC,	to	

Garry	Kaufman,	Deputy	Director,	APCD,	dated	March	5,	2014	regarding	Modeling	Report	III	dated	

September	23,	2013,	at:	

http://www.draketaskforce.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/AECtoCDPHE-Kaufman3-5-

14.68113008.pdf
8

12. Pursuant	to	a Request	for	Information (RFI–KV-105937:	Air	Quality	Modeling	and	

Meteorology) published	by	CSU	on	May	13,	2013,	the air	quality	services	firm,	AECOM	

Technical	Services,	Inc.	(AECOM)	submitted	a	proposal on	May	24,	2013.	 CSU	thereby	

selected	AECOM	from	multiple	third	party	responses	to	the	RFI, and	entered	into	a	

“Professional	Services	Agreement” with	AECOM,	having a	“Project	Title:	Air	Quality	

Meteorology	and	Modeling,” and “Contract	Number	201317272”,	dated	December	2,	2013.

9		

The	scope	of	the	AECOM	CSU	Air	Quality	Services	Contract is	set	forth	in	Exhibit	A to	the

contract,	“Statement	of	Work”,	which	establishes AECOM’s	contracted	role for	which	it	was	

entering	a	relationship	to	provide	services	to CSU:

“Colorado	Springs	Utilities	requires	services	and	assistance	to	support	[its]	air	quality	

services	on	an	as	needed	basis.		This	is	expected	to	include,	but	not	be	limited	to	include	

demonstrations	of	compliance	with	National	Ambient	Air	Quality	Standards	(NAAQS)	

using	ambient	air	quality	monitoring	and	modeling	method.

As	needed,	the	Contractor	shall	assist	Utilities	with	air	quality	assessments,	air	quality	

modeling,	meteorological	monitoring	to	support	air	quality	assessments	and	modeling,	

and	minor	and	synthetic	minor	air	quality	permitting	to	support	Utilities’	compliance	

with	the	Clean	Air	Act,	Colorado	Air	Pollution	Prevention	and	Control	Act	and	related	

laws,	regulations,	policy	and	guidance.		All	assessments,	modeling,	monitoring	and	

permitting	will	meet	regulatory	standards.	

As	requested	by	Utilities,	the	Contractor(s)	shall	provide	professional	services	for	

ambient	air	quality	and	meteorological	data	analysis,	meteorological	monitoring,	air

quality	modeling, air	quality	permit	support	and	support	for	review	of	State	and	Front	

Range	air	quality	technical	reports	and	proposals.”

Nowhere	in	the	RFI,	proposal	or	contract	is	it anywhere	specified	that	AECOM	would	be	

requested	or	required to	provide	information	of	a	privileged	legal	nature	to	its	

client/customer	CSU.		It	is	understood that	any	and	all	funds	used	to	pay	for	the	services

AECOM provides	CSU in	their	role	as	a	contracted air	quality	services	provider	are	from	its

ratepayer/customers.		

13. Pursuant	to	a	federal	legal	proceeding,	a Consent	Decree	was	issued	by	a	Federal	

District	Court	in	March 2015	(2015	Consent	Decree)	for	a	legal	action	brought	by	the	Sierra	

																																																							 9 Exhibit	4,	AECOM	CSU	Air	Quality	Services	Contract	dated	December	2,	2013.
9

Club	and	the	Natural	Resources	Defense	Council	(NRDC)	(plaintiffs),	against the	US	EPA	

(defendant),	as	filed	in	August	2013.		Plaintiffs	had asserted	that	the	US	EPA	is	not	

adequately	enforcing	the	NAAQS	Standard	for	sulfur	dioxide for	many	regions	throughout	

the	U.S. and	the	US	EPA	essentially	did	not	contest	the	assertions.		The	2015	Consent	

Decree	identified	Colorado	as	one	of	28	states	that	would	require	further	review	of	

compliance	under	the	Revised	2010	NAAQS	SO2	Standard.10		

14. Concerning	Colorado,	CDPHE	was	required	to	submit	an	updated	recommendation	

to	the	US	EPA	for	the	air	quality	attainment	status	concerning	just two	specific	polluting	

sources	and	surrounding	geographical	areas,	one	of	which	being	the	Colorado	Springs	

region	concerning	sulfur	dioxide	pollution	emitted	from	the	Martin	Drake	Power	Plant	

(2015	Updated	Colorado	Springs Compliance	Designation).11 As	required	by	this 2015	

Consent	Decree and	EPA	rulemaking	process,	on	August	20,	2015,	a	public	hearing	was	

scheduled at	the	meeting	of	the	AQCC in	Denver,	at	which	the	APCD of	CDPHE	was	to

present its recommendation	for	the	2015 Updated	Colorado	Springs	Compliance	

Designation (August	20,	2015	Public	Hearing).

15. From	the	Weise	CORA,	it	is	known	from	three	invoices	submitted	by	AECOM	to	CSU	

(Exhibits	2 and	3,	Invoices	1-3)	that	the	only	work	that	was	performed	by	AECOM	since	the	

date	of contract	commencement	of	December	2,	2013,	occurred during	the	period	of	May	8	

– July	17,	2015. 12		It	is	presumed	the	invoiced	work	was	requested	by	CSU.	Therefore,	it

was	only	after	Colorado	Springs	was	identified	as	one	of	just	two	areas	in	the	State	of

Colorado	requiring	further regulatory	review	(see	paragraph	13),	and	prior	to	the	August	

20,	2015	Public	Hearing	when	CDPHE	was	required	to	provide	its	2015	Updated	Colorado	

Springs	Compliance	Designation	recommendation	to	AQCC and	US	EPA	under	the	2015	

Consent	Decree (see	paragraph	14),	that	any	work	was	performed	by	AECOM	for	CSU

under	the	contract	with	the	Project	Title	“Air	Quality	Meteorology	and	Modeling.”

It	is	believed	that	CSU	is	withholding	from	the	public	important	records	concerning	this	

factual	air	quality	data	by	AECOM	that	may	impact	proper	designation	of	air	quality	

																																																							 10 http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/designations/data.html

11 2015	Consent	Decree	found	on	pgs.	4-17,	at	

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/082015-SO2-materials.pdf

12 All	three	Invoices	1-3	submitted	by	AECOM	and	received	by	CSU	responsive	to	the	Weise	CORA	

reference	the	AECOM	CSU	Air	Quality	Service	Contract	Number	201317272.
10

compliance	in	the	Colorado	Springs	region	(Restricted	Air	Quality	Records) and	when

properly	disclosed	could	inform	the	public	regarding	potentially	unhealthy	air	quality	in	

the	region.	

16. It	was	with	the	concern of	ensuring	that	all	relevant	information	was	being	

considered	before	the	AQCC	and	US	EPA	for	this	matter	of	significant	implications	of	air	

quality	and	public	health including	that	of	my	son	at	his	school	located	directly	within	the	

modeled	plume	path	for	SO2 exceedances	of	the	NAAQS	Standard, that	I	submitted	the	

August	14,	2015	CORA	request	in	response	to	which	CSU	withheld	public	records from	

disclosure. By making	this	open	records	request	for	public	information,	I was attempting	

to	learn	what other, if	any,	air	quality	studies	had	been	conducted,	or	data	collected,	by	CSU	

(through	its	contracted	professional	air	quality	services	firm	AECOM)	pertaining to	the	

matter	of	SO2	compliance	that	might	also	be	relevant	to	CDPHE’s	recommendation to	AQCC	

and	US	EPA,	and	that	may	not	have	been	included	in	proper	consideration	of	the	matter.

17. The	public	benefit	of this	information concerning	public	health is	obvious	and	

significant.		If	all	relevant	information	had	not	been	provided	by	CSU	to	CDPHE,	or	not	

properly	considered	by	APCD,	it	may	be	found	that an	improper	designation	of	air	quality	

in	the	Colorado	Springs	region	may	be	found	to	have	occurred,	thus	directly	impacting	the	

measures	that	should	be	taken	to	ensure	the	air	quality	in	the	region	is	safe	for	residents,	

workers, visitors and	children.

13 Over	387,000	total	residents	(of	which over	120,000	

children	and	teenagers	under	the	age	of	20)	live	within	a	five-mile	radius	of	the	Martin	

Drake	Power	Plant,	where	approximately	40	schools	are	located including	that	which	my	

son	attends.		Sulfur	dioxide	is	one	of	six	common	air	pollutants	regulated	under	NAAQS,	

and	is	known	to	cause	adverse	respiratory	and	other	health	effects	especially	within

vulnerable	populations,	including	children,	the	elderly,	and	asthmatics.

																																																							 13 http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/health.html Current	scientific	evidence	links	

short-term	exposures	to	SO2,	ranging	from	5	minutes	to	24	hours,	with	an	array	of	adverse	

respiratory	effects	including	bronchoconstriction	and	increased	asthma	symptoms.	 These	effects	

are	particularly	important	for	asthmatics	at	elevated	ventilation	rates	(e.g.,	while	exercising	or	

playing.) Studies	also	show	a	connection	between	short-term	exposure	and	increased	visits	to	

emergency	departments	and	hospital	admissions	for	respiratory	illnesses,	particularly	in	at-risk	

populations	including	children,	the	elderly,	and	asthmatics...	SOx	can	react	with	other	compounds	

in	the	atmosphere	to	form	small	particles.	These	particles	penetrate	deeply	into	sensitive	parts	of	

the	lungs	and	can	cause	or	worsen	respiratory	disease,	such	as	emphysema	and	bronchitis,	and	can	

aggravate	existing	heart	disease,	leading	to	increased	hospital	admissions	and	premature	death.
11

18. The	US	EPA	will	decide	whether	to	accept	CDPHE’s	2015	Updated	Compliance	

Designation	of	“unclassifiable”	for	the	Colorado	Springs	region	sometime	between	January	

and	early	March	2016	pursuant	to	the	schedule	set	forth	in the	2015	Consent	Decree.		It	is	

Petitioner’s	belief	that	Respondent is	attempting	to	withhold	the	Restricted	Air	Quality	

Records so	that	the	relevant	information	contained	in	the	withheld	records is	not	made	

publicly	available,	i.e.	“of	record”	to	the	US	EPA	for	their anticipated	decision,	and	to	avoid	

disclosure	of	the	extent	and	nature	of	potentially	unhealthy	air	quality	in	Colorado	Springs.	

IV. Petitioner’s	Request	for	Oral	Argument	and	Expedited	Ruling

Given	the	upcoming	imminent	review	and	decision by	US	EPA	for	designation	of	the	

Colorado	Springs	region	under	the	2015	Consent	Decree,	Petitioner	requests	an	expedited	

ruling	of	this	Matter.		If	the	Court	believes	oral	argument	would	benefit	the	Court	in	

resolving	this	Petition,	Petitioner	is	willing	and	able	to	participate.	 Accordingly,	Petitioner	

specifically	requests a	hearing	for	oral	argument and/or in	camera	review	of	the	withheld	

information	(Restricted	Air	Quality	Records) by	the	Court,	and	declines	to	waive	any	right	

that	may	be	available	to Petitioner	to	participate	in	this	matter if	the	Court	deems	it	

appropriate.

14			Immediate	disclosure	of	the	withheld	documents	is	extremely	important	

for	reasons	of	public	health	and	safety	detailed	herein.		

V. Memorandum	in	Law	and	Fact	in	Support	of the	Petition

CORA	– Disclosure	of	Public	Records	is	of	Paramount	Importance	

Colorado	Revised	Statutes	24-72-201	sets	forth,	"It	is	declared	to	be	the	public	policy	of	

this	state	that	all	public	records	shall	be	open	for	inspection	by	any	person	at	reasonable	

times,	except	as	provided	in	this	part	2	or	as	otherwise	specifically	provided	by	law."

Attorney-Client	Privilege	Information	Is	An	Exclusion	Available	Under	CORA

																																																							 14 C.R.S.	24-72-204(6)(a)	If,	in	the	opinion	of	the	official	custodian	of	any	public	record,	disclosure	

of	the	contents	of	said	record	would	do	substantial	injury	to	the	public	interest	...	the	official	

custodian	may	apply	to	the	district	court	of	the	district	in	which	such	record	is	located	for	an	order	

permitting	him	or	her	to	restrict	such	disclosure	or	for	the	court	to	determine	if	disclosure	is	

prohibited.	Hearing	on	such	application	shall	be	held	at	the	earliest	practical	time.	 (emphasis	added)
12

A	government	custodian	is	entitled	to	deny	the	right	of	inspection	of	privileged	

information, properly	classified.	C.R.S.	24-72-204(3)(a)(IV).		The	privilege	is	available	to	

governmental	entities,	and	may	include	certain qualifying	communications	made	by	an	

Independent	Contractor.	Alliance	Construction	Solutions	v.	Dept.	of	Corrections,	54	P.3d	861	

(Colo.	2002).		

The	burden	of	establishing	a	document	is	attorney-client	privileged	is	on	the	claimant	of	

the	privilege.		In	this	case,	Respondent	has	failed	to	meet	that	burden as	it	has	provided	no	

justification	why	the	privilege	is	proper – but	has	only	declared	it	to	be	so.		It is	Petitioner’s	

contention	that	no	such	justification	exists.		

Attorney-Client	Privilege	is	Not	Available	For	Public	Records	Withheld

The	Court	in	Alliance	Construction	Solutions makes	clear	that	all	elements	of	a	four-part	

test	must	be	met	for	an	independent	contractor’s	communications	to	fall	within	the	

privilege.		Alliance	Construction	Solutions	at	861.		First,	there	must	exist	a:

“significant	relationship	not	only	to	the	governmental	entity	but	also	to	the	transaction	

that	is	the	subject	of	the	governmental	entity’s	need	for	legal	services.		This	type	of	

relationship	between	the	client	and	the	information-giver	must	be	closely	analyzed	to	

determine	the	application	of	the	privilege.”	Id.15

Neither	the	RFI	that	CSU	released in	2013,	nor	the	response	to	RFI	that	AECOM	

submitted	from	such	request,	nor	the	contract	that	CSU	and	AECOM	entered in	December	

2013,	mentions	anywhere	that	privileged	legal	advice	might	be	sought	or	provided	

regarding	air	quality	matters	under	the	relationship.		Indeed,	all	regulatory	related	data	is	

“legal”	in	nature	for	its	intended	use to	ensure	adherence by	a	polluting	industrial	source	

(CSU), of its	operations	within	the	laws	by	which	they	are	regulated	-- such	as	in	the	

present	case,	NAAQS under	the Federal	Clean	Air	Act.		CSU	may	not	now	isolate	an	instance	

where	it	sought	such	very	type	of	air	quality	information	pertaining	to	compliance	with	

regulations,	and	assert	that	information	is	subject	to	“privilege” because	it	wants	to	shield	

the	results	from	the	public	and	the	federal	government.		 Here,	CSU	contracted	AECOM	in	

2013	(nearly	two	years	prior	to	the	additional	scrutiny	brought	on	by	the	2015	Consent	

																																																							 15 Alliance	Construction	Solutions,	Footnote	5, makes	clear	that	the	privilege	cannot	be	de	facto	

applied	simply	to	resist	demand	for information	from	another.
13

Decree)	for	the	purposes	of	providing	air	quality	services	for	regulatory	matters of	this	

very	nature.		CSU	cannot	use	the vendor	for	the	services	it	contracted	to	provide under	the	

relationship	that	was	established,	and	then	for convenience,	assert	that	the	results	of	air	

quality	services	performed	fall	under	the	privilege.		This	action	constitutes	an	improper	

abuse	of	discretion	under	CORA	and violation	of	the	Federal	Clean	Air	Act.	

Nonetheless,	the	attorney-client	privilege	only	protects	against	disclosure	of	

communications,	not	the	underlying	facts	on	which	the	communication	is	based.		National	

Farmers	Union	Prop.	&	Cas.	Co.	v.	Dist.	Court,	718	P.	2d	1044	(Colo.	1986). 		Even	if	

Respondent can	establish	that	the	communications	to	or	from	a	CSU attorney	give	rise	to	a	

reasonable	expectation	that	certain statements	would be	treated	as	confidential	legal	

advice,	it	must	still	disclose the	underlying	facts	of	the	communication	concerning	air	

quality	information	provided	by	the	services	vendor,	AECOM.		AECOM	is	a	service	provider	

to	CSU,	specifically	contracted	to	provide:

“professional	services	for	ambient	air	quality	and	meteorological	data	analysis,	

meteorological	monitoring,	air	quality	modeling,	air	quality	permit	support	and	

support	for	review	of	State	and	Front	Range	air	quality	technical	reports	and	

proposals.“16		

It	is	Petitioner’s	understanding that	the	work	AECOM	performed	for	CSU	in	2015

pertained	to	air	quality	related	services, and	that	technical	data	would	have	resulted.		CSU	

may	not	hide	behind	the	“attorney-client”	shield	out	of	convenience	to	avoid	providing	that	

important	air	quality	related	factual	information	to	the	public.		

Under	National	Farmers,	no	facts	generated	by	AECOM	for	CSU	(i.e.	air	quality,	technical	

data)	can	even	be	considered	as candidates	for	withholding	under	the	privilege.	 National	

Farmers	Union	Prop.	at	1044.		Notwithstanding,	even a	request	(or	review	of	the	request)

for	such	type	of	information	by	the	legal	department	of a	government	entity	that	is	involved	

in	a federal	review	of	air	quality	compliance through	a	federally	ordered	judicial	consent	

decree,	is	subject	to	mandatory	disclosure provisions	for	disclosure	of	“emissions”	related	

data	under	the	Federal	Clean	Air	Act.		Determining	compliance	of	a	federal	regulatory	and	

legal	mandate	(the	2015	Consent	Decree) concerning	safe	levels	of	air	quality	of	its	

hundreds	of	thousands	of	customers	and	the	many	visitors	to	the	region	each	year,	is	a	

																																																							 16 Exhibit	4,	Statement	of	Work,	Exhibit	A	to	the	AECOM	CSU	Air	Quality	Services	Contract.
14

matter	among	the	highest	of	public	importance	and	must	trump any	conceivable	exemption	

for	public	disclosure	the	Respondent	is	acting	as	if	exists.

Attorney-Client	Privilege	is	Not	Available	For	Information	Generated	by	Independent	

Contractor	Under	Existing	Professional	Services	Agreement

While	Alliance	Construction	Solutions acknowledges	that	certain	communications	

between	a	governmental	entity’s	legal	counsel	and	an	independent	contractor	may	be	

attorney-client	privileged,	CSU	fails	to	meet	yet	another	of	the	four-part	test	for	such	

privilege	to	apply. Specifically,	another part	that	CSU	fails	to	meet	is	that	the	subject	matter	

of	the	communication	must	be	within	the	scope	of	the	duties	provided	by	the	entity	by	its	

independent	contractor.		Alliance	Construction	Solutions at	861.	 As	stated	previously,	the	

relationship	between	the	entities	must	be	examined	closely,	and	here	none	of	the	several	

documents	that	exist	that	establish	the	scope	of	the	relationship	between	CSU	and	AECOM	

supports	that	privileged	information	could	be	sought,	including the	contract	that	CSU	and	

AECOM	entered.		Nowhere	is	it	stated that	services	other	than	those	concerning regulatory	

/	legal	compliance	for	air	quality	matters would be	provided	by	AECOM.	Here,	such	

relationship	fails the	Alliance	Construction	Solutions	test where	a	distinction	is	made	

between	the	treatment	of	“sound	legal	advice”	from	communications	regarding services	it	

otherwise	is	expected	of	the	independent	contractor based	on	the	relationship	that	has	

been	established	between	the	two	entities.		Id. 		And	even	if	CSU	legal	counsel	directly	made	

such	a	request	of	such	nature	for	“legal	advice”	concerning	the	2015	Consent	Decree	to	

AECOM,	it	would	be	outside	the	scope	of	the	AECOM	CSU	Air	Quality	Services	Contract,	and	

finally	an	impermissible	request	under	the	Federal	Clean	Air	Act	and	State	regulations	

which	require	that	all	“emissions	data”	from	“emissions	source”	be	made	available	to	the	

public	concerning	pollutants	monitored	under	NAAQS,	such	as	sulfur	dioxide,	and	that	all	

such	related	factual	information	be	disclosed	under	CORA.	

Federal	Clean	Air	Act	– No	Data	Concerning	“Emissions	Data”	

From	An	“Emissions	Source”	May	Be	Withheld	From	Public

The	Federal	Clean	Air	Act,	42	U.S.C.	7401, et	seq. provides	a	Congressional	regulatory	

mandate	with	specific	statutory	protections	for	the	public’s access	to	information	
15

concerning	the	emissions	data	from	pollutants	(sulfur	dioxide	and	others)	this	regulation	

safeguards	against	their	over-exposure.		Information	protected	under	the	Federal	Clean	Air	

Act	includes	all	“records,	reports,	and	implementation	plans” used	“in	determining	whether	

any	person	is	in	violation”	of	such	plan.	40	C.F.R.	2.301(c).		Further,	42	U.S.C.	7414	40	C.F.R.	

2.301	(a)	requires	information	and	records	regarding	“emissions	data	from	an	emission	

source” to	be “kept	by	an	Authority	to	that	source,” and	40	C.F.R.	2.301	(c)	requires	“this	

information	be	made	available	to	the	public,” with	the	only	exception	being	in	the	case	of	

“trade	secrets,” which	Respondent	has	made	no	contention	the	Restricted	Air	Quality	

Records contains.		It	is	specified	that	the	information	is	necessary	“to	allow	EPA	to	disclose	

publicly	that	a	source	is	(or	is	not)	in	compliance	with	an	applicable	standard	or	limitation,	

or	to	allow	EPA	to	demonstrate	the	feasibility,	practicability,	or	attainability	(or	lack	

thereof)	of	an	existing	or	proposed	standard	or	limitation.”	40	C.F.R.	2.301(a)(1)(C)(ii).

The	Federal	Clean	Air	Act	mandates	that	only	a	trade	secret	may	be	withheld	from	the	

public	concerning	any	and	all	emissions	data	from	an	emission	source,	and	is	further	

confirmation	that	CSU	is	not	entitled	to	withhold	such	emissions-related data	regarding	

SO2,	a	criteria	air	pollutant	monitored	under	the	Act.		Factual	information	concerning	air	

quality	in	the	region affecting	millions	of	people on	an	annual	basis is	not	subject	to	the	

privilege.		Not	only	are	the	withheld	records	not	subject	to	the	attorney-client	privilege	

under	CORA,	their	release	to	the	public	is	mandated	under	this	federal	law.		

Respondent	Has	Improperly	Applied	Attorney-Client	Privilege	and	

Public	Records	Withheld	Must	Be	Released

In	summary,	there	is	no	right	for	CSU	to	withhold	technical	or	other	data	requested	

from	and/or	provided	by AECOM,	its	contracted	vendor	of	professional	air	quality	services,	

even	in	its	role	as “independent	contractor” to	CSU.		Respondent	cannot	use	the	“attorneyclient	privilege”	as	a	shield	to	withhold	factual	data	concerning	air	quality	and	compliance	

with	federal	standards	for	pollutants	under	the Clean	Air	Act.		Conversely,	such	type	of	

emissions	data	is	specifically	mandated	for	disclosure	under	the	Federal	Clean	Air	Act,	and	

is	of	critical	public	importance	as	it	directly	impacts	the	air	quality	and	health	of	residents	

and	visitors	to	the	Colorado	Springs	area.		Further,	ratepayers/residents	fund	and	are	

legally	and	administratively	the	owner	of that	information	that	directly	impacts	their	
16

health	and	well-being.		Finally,	this	information	is	relevant	to	a	federal	legal	action	that the	

State	(CDPHE)	and	local	municipal	utility	(CSU)	is	under mandate	to	review	and	disclose	all	

relevant	information	to	the	State	of	Colorado	AQCC	and	the	US	EPA.17		The	information	

withheld	from	the	Weise	CORA	must	be	ordered	for	release	by	the	government	custodian	

making	the	improper	withholding,	CSU.	 Upon	review of	this	matter,	even	if	the	Court	finds	

that	some	“privileged	information”	does	exist within	the withheld	Restricted	Air	Quality	

Records,	the	Court	must	order	release	of	those	sections	of	the	records	containing	nonprivileged	factual	information	and/or	emissions	data.		CSU	may	not	arbitrarily	or	recklessly	

choose	to	deny	records	of	this	nature	by	“redact[ing]	in	their	entirety”	such	important	

information	that	belongs	to	the	public	for	multiple	important	health	and	policy	reasons.

Public	Benefit	to	the	Information	Must	Be	Outweighed	by	Rights	

Available	to	the	Government	Custodian

Even	outside	the	limited	exemption	for	Attorney-Client	Privilege,	CORA,	state and	

federal	laws	(to	which	the	Restricted	Air	Quality	Records concerning	this	matter	pertain	

under	the	Federal	Clean	Air	Act)	make	clear	that	the	government	custodian	of	information	

must	show	that	the	extremely	high public	benefit	to	government	information	is	outweighed	

by	any right	that	may	exist	for	the	Government	to	shield	information	from	the	public.		

Information	reviewed	or	even	requested	by	a	legal	department	does	not	de	facto	shield	

information	under	a	privilege	exception	of	CORA and	relevant	case	law.	Conversely,	such	

information	is	heavily weighted	toward	public	disclosure,	and	is	strongly	supportive	of	the

reason	for	the	CORA	and	FOIA	laws	to	exist	– to	protect	the	right	of	public	access	to	

government	information	as	a	method	to	check	the	proper	role	and	functioning	of	

government	-- which	citizen	taxpayers	fund!	

Here,	ample	reasons	exist	for	a	member	of	the public	to	discern	that	CDPHE	and	CSU	

misrepresented	and/or	erred	in	its	analysis	and	judgment	for	its	Colorado	Springs	Region	

Compliance	Designations	of	“unclassifiable”.		The	public	has	a	right	to	know	if	this	is	the	

case,	particularly	when	the	public’s	health	and	safety	is	directly	at	risk	from	the	actions	CSU	

takes	on	behalf	of	its	ratepayers,	and that	CDPHE	takes	on	the	entire	State’s behalf	

																																																							 17 See	footnote	11	supra,	regarding	the	2015	Consent	Decree.
17

concerning	monitoring	and	regulating	air	quality	and	dangerous	pollutants.		All	facts,	

reasoning	and	justification	used	by	the	government	entity	to	make	such	determinations	

directly	impacting	public	health	are	subject	to	CORA.		

Moreover,	Respondent	has	an	extremely high	burden	to	meet	to	demonstrate	that,	as	

governmental	custodian	of	public	information,	its	interests	in	shielding	the	Restricted	Air	

Quality	Records	from	the	public,	outweighs	the	public’s	right	to	know	whether	there	is	

compliance	with	an	air	quality	regulation	regarding	a	known	dangerous	pollutant,	sulfur	

dioxide,	directly	affecting	the	public	health	and	safety	of	the	second	largest	urban	region	of	

the	State	of	Colorado	with	over	one	half	million	residents.		Particularly	since	multiple	

independent	professional	air	quality	engineering	firms	have	submitted	air	quality	modeling	

reports	to	CSU	and	CDPHE	consistently	showing	exceedances	of	federal	and	state	standards	

of	allowable	levels	of	sulfur	dioxide	pollutant	impacts	from	the	Martin	Drake	Power	Plant,	

the	benefit	of	allowing	the	public	to	access	information	concerning	why	this	same	

government	agency	is	withholding	related	air	quality	information most	certainly	outweighs	

any	potential	risk	to	the	public	for	its	release.		The	public	has	the	right	to	any	and	all	

technical	data	that	a	government	run	utility	has	requested	and/or	was	provided by	its	

contracted vendor	regarding	air	quality	and	emissions	of	pollutants	monitored	and	

regulated	by	the	State	and	Federal	government.		Moreover,	ratepayers	of	the	government	

utility	are	those	members	of	the	public	who	pay	for	such data	collection	that	directly	

pertains	to	the	quality	of	the	air	they	breathe,	and	whether	that	quality	is	deemed	within	

federally	mandated	levels	that	are	safe	for	their	health.

To	determine	whether	appropriate	action	is	being	taken,	or	whether	meaningful	action	

should	be	taken	to	ensure SO2	emissions	are reduced	to	safe	levels	for	public	air	quality,	

public	access	to	relevant	government	information,	including the	Restricted	Air	Quality	

Records,	is	critical.		Clearly	the	public	interest	and	potential	benefit	of	information	

regarding	compliance	of	a	dangerous	air	pollutant	to	a	regulatory	standard	greatly	

outweighs	the	government’s	interest	in	withholding	such	information	from	the	public.
18

VI. CONCLUSION

In	conclusion,	the	Attorney-Client Privilege	only	applies	in	very	limited	circumstances,	

which are	not	met	with	regard	to	Respondent’s	attempt	to	assert	the	privilege	under	the	

Colorado	Open	Records	Act.		The	public	right	to	access	government	information	is	a	highly	

respected	right	in	Colorado	and	the	United	States,	and	can	only	be	overcome	by	statutory	

exemption	which	supports	an	overriding	need	by	the	government	custodian	to	conceal	

certain	information	because	of	the	risk	of	substantial	injury	to	the	public	interest.		

Respondent has	failed	to	present	an	adequate	justification for	any	right	it	might	have	to	

invoke	this	privilege	with	respect	to	the	Restricted	Air	Quality	Records withheld	from	the	

Weise	CORA.	

Respondent	improperly	asserts	that	the	public	records	fall	under	the	“privilege”	

exemption	to	CORA.		CORA	and	case	law	limited	requirements	for	this	privilege have not	

been	met by	Respondent.		Further,	the	Federal Clean	Air	Act	mandates	the	disclosure	of	this	

very	type	of	information,	with the	very	narrow exception	in	the	case	of	information	

containing trade	secrets.			Finally,	the	public	benefit	to	the	information	concerning	air	

quality	greatly	outweighs	the	government’s	right	(if	any	exists)	to	withhold	the	information	

from	the	public.		A proper	analysis	of	the	Attorney-Client Privilege	exemption	to	the	

Colorado	Open	Records	Act	clearly	shows	that	Petitioner’s	withholdings	of	public	

documents	was	improper and	constitutes	an	abuse	of	discretion,	and	therefore	the	

Restricted	Air	Quality	Records and	any	other	relevant	public	information	that	falls	within	

the	Weise	CORA	(including Task	Orders	submitted	by	CSU	under	the	AECOM	CSU	Air	

Quality	Services	Contract, or	other	communications	where	the	requested	work	performed	

by	AECOM	was	communicated	by	CSU),	must	be	released	to	the	public.	

Wherefore,	the	Respondent	requests	the	following	relief:

1) Expedited review	of	this	matter because	of	an	impending	federal	decision	

concerning	the	matter	of	sulfur	dioxide	violations	of	air	quality	in	the	Colorado	

Springs	region,	for	which	the	withheld	information	may	be	directly	relevant,	and	

because	the	issue	directly	impacts	public	health	of	the	citizens	of	Colorado	Springs;
19

2) Conduct	either	or	both	an	in	camera	review	of	the	withheld	public	information,	and	

a	hearing	on	the	matter	where	both	parties	can	present	a	discussion	to	the	Court;

3) Declare	that	CSU	violated	CORA	by	wrongfully	withholding	public	records	from	

disclosure;

4) Order	CSU	to	produce	and	disclose	to	Petitioner	the	following	documents:

All	records withheld	by	Petitioner	regarding	the	Weise	CORA,	and	any	other	

communications	that	are	responsive	but	not	already	provided	regarding	the	Weise	

CORA	including	updated	records	that	are	relevant	subsequent	to	the	date	of	its	

original	submission,	August	14,	2015,	and	with	no	financial	charge	to	Respondent;

5) Order	other	relief	as	the	Court	deems	proper.	

Respectfully	submitted	this	17th day	of	December	2015.

LESLIE	WEISE,	Pro	Se

17780	Caribou	Drive

Monument,	Colorado	80132

Ph:	303.523.0016