Dear Sarah Zeeman,
Thank you for your email. Regarding the duplicate charge, I am in touch with the Finance department to ensure that this is rectified as soon as possible. I will be in contact in the case that I need any information from you for this transaction.
Regarding your request, all responsive records were included in what the City provided on March 2, 2026. As for communications, you are correct that there was originally a larger set of records, however none of these records were responsive to your request. The City Clerk's office cross-checked every document to ensure responsiveness, and found no results concerning or related to the addresses at 2740 Grove St NE, Brookhaven, GA 30319, or 2746 Grove St NE, Brookhaven, GA 30319. When we followed up after you provided new search parameters, the IT department found no additional responsive documents for your request. No records were excluded or filtered out if the records fit within the search parameters of your request or follow-up emails. We assure you that you are not missing anything, and that the provided documents represents the full scope of responsive records held by the City of Brookhaven.
Thank you,
Office of the City Clerk
City of Brookhaven
4001 Peachtree Rd.
Brookhaven, GA 30319
On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 1:14 pm, Sarah Zeeman wrote:
Dear Mr. Poindexter,
I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to first follow up on the duplicate credit card charge related to PRR-726-2025 — when convenient, could you please review and let me know when that will be rectified?
Additionally, thank you for confirming that the production is complete. After reviewing the materials, several of the files provided (including photos and plans) do not appear to be responsive to the request, as they seem fully unrelated to the Grove Street properties.
Given the earlier indication of a larger set of potentially responsive records, I just want to make sure I’m not missing anything.
When you have a moment, could you please confirm:
• That all responsive records (including communications) were included
• Whether any records were excluded or filtered out, and on what basis
I appreciate your help and attention to this.
Thank you,
Sarah Zeeman
On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 5:13?PM Sarah Zeeman <<a href="" style="background-repeat: no-repeat; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(0, 0, 238); cursor: pointer; user-select: auto; box-sizing: inherit;" fr-original-style="background-repeat: no-repeat; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(0, 0, 238); cursor: pointer; user-select: auto; box-sizing: inherit;">szeeman@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Poindexter,
Thank you for providing the file associated with PRR-726-2025. I appreciate the time and effort involved in coordinating the search and production.
After reviewing the materials that were made available, I wanted to respectfully clarify a few items.
As outlined in the original request, PRR-726-2025 seeks records relating to the properties located at 2740 and 2746 Grove Street NE, including communications between the City of Brookhaven and Gaddy Surveying & Design, Inc., Frank Gaddy, Virgil (Al) Gaddy, Jr., and related representatives, as well as communications involving Todd Shoemaker, in connection with boundary, survey, zoning, right-of-way, permitting, or related matters.
The file provided appears to contain 19 items, and the materials I have been able to open do not appear to include communications responsive to that scope, including communications for the Grove Street properties with or involving Gaddy Surveying & Design, Inc. or the individuals referenced in the request.
This also seems somewhat inconsistent with the City’s earlier correspondence, indicating that the IT search identified nearly 1,000 emails matching the relevant search terms, so I wanted to confirm whether the materials provided represent the full production responsive to the request.
In addition, several photo files and project plans attachments appear unrelated to the Grove Street properties referenced in the request.
Finally, it appears that my credit card may have been charged twice, which looks like a duplicate transaction. When convenient, could you please review the billing and correct the duplicate charge?
When you have a moment, I would greatly appreciate confirmation of the following:
• Whether the materials provided represent the complete production responsive to PRR-726-2025
• Whether additional responsive records identified in the IT search remain to be produced, including communications involving the City Attorney’s Office (for example, emails to or from Jeremy Berry (including email address jberry@cglawfirm.com), relating to the Grove Street properties
• The status of the duplicate charge
Thank you again for your assistance.
I appreciate your help in ensuring