It looks like the public will finally get a glimpse of records documenting the problems that forced the five-month delay of the Gold Line Eastside Extension opening.

After the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board ignored my one-minute appeal delivered during last week's meeting, I was even more determined to push forward and obtain the documents sought in my original request filed under the California Public Records Act.

For the next step in my reporting journey, I contacted Marc Littman, Metro's deputy executive officer for media relations, to make sure he heard my request at the board meeting. More importantly, I wanted him to direct me to someone who cared enough to help me get all of the inspection records that would explain why three huge portions of pavement had to be torn up and replaced to get rid of iron oxide paint that somehow caused electrical leakage problems. I also want to see all correspondence between the board and Metro officials and their contractor about the problem.

"It's me, Christine Trang," I said to Littman, for probably the 100th time since the beginning of September.

Littman said he heard my spiel before the Metro board, and how I thought the stated excuse for not giving me the records because the agency faces "pending future litigation" was a groundless one. He was nice enough, but said the best he could do was forward my request to the staff in charge of records management and an attorney in the County Counsel office who often reviewed similar appeals.

Then he went a bit further and said: "I think you raise a good point about rejecting requests because of the potential for future litigation. It would have been helpful if they addressed the issue you raised at the Board meeting."

At least someone from Metro thought so.

Littman raised the issue earlier this week in follow-up phone calls with records management and county counsel, but the denial of my request still stood.

"But let's see what happens with your formal appeal," Littman said.

There was still a chance.

That was the good news, but there was also bad news.

I was wrong about something.

I was wrong to hold out hope for Zev Yaroslavsky, county supervisor and Metro Board member, and Gloria Molina, also county supervisor and Metro Board member, to pronounce that these records should be handed over to allow L.A.'s transit-riding public a chance to scrutinize the performance of Metro.

 After endless telephone calls and e-mails to their press deputies, I still did not get a response from Yaroslavsky, who was mysteriously "unavailable for comment," or from Molina, who was "very sick and working from home." So much for Zev's going public and supporting our right-to-know the details of crucial transportation projects.

On a side note, I expected more than just a response from Molina, who represented the Eastside for about two decades, because more than just a response is what she gave hundreds of people at the last board meeting. She expressed so much anger about safety issues on the Gold Line Eastside Extension and so much distrust for Metro that Los Angeles Times and LA Curbed reported on it.

I then contacted Joel Bellman again, Yaroslavsky's press deputy, to see what I could find. Bellman directed me to Terry Francke, general counsel and founder of Californians Aware, to get his take on Metro's excuse of "pending future litigation."

Not surprisingly, Francke did not believe Metro had a legitimate reason to refuse handing over the documents. The Public Records Act did not recognize "pending future litigation" as an exemption from disclosure.

Okay, here is the lesson for the day. The words "pending" and "future" contradict each other. If litigation is pending, that means the litigation has already been initiated and is "pending" before the court. According to the dictionary (yes, I will quote the dictionary), both parties are "awaiting conclusion or confirmation."

If there is future litigation, however, litigation has not yet been filed, so nothing is pending. Therefore, litigation is either pending because it has been filed, but no conclusion has been given, or it is not filed, but may come up in the future.

So, which one is it?

Anyway, Francke mentioned that records created in the ordinary course of business - such as any e-mails, correspondence or reports to or from the contractor, Eastside Light Rail Transit Contractors, detailing any electrical leakage issues during or after construction - were not exempt from public disclosure. Exemption under section 6254 only applies when Metro specifically prepares documents for use in litigation.

The purpose of this is to serve the public's interest in examining the performance of a public agency, such as Metro, on a project of great public interest, such as the Gold Line Eastside Extension.

Perfect.

I compiled all of this information and addressed a letter to Metro CEO Art Leahy and all of the board members. In that letter, I explained my situation again, offered the advice Francke gave me and asked everyone to respond to this matter by 5 p.m. on Nov. 2. I hurried to the post office and sent out a stack of letters.

Then, I e-mailed the letter directly to Leahy, Yaroslavsky, Molina and Richard Katz, Metro Board member. I also spoke with Vivian Rescalvo, transportation deputy for Yaroslavsky, who apologized and said she did not see my first letter sent at the beginning of the month.

Apparently, Yaroslavsky did not put the letter in her inbox, as he normally does with transit-related letters.

I e-mailed her and attached my public records request, the denial of that request, my initial letter to Yaroslavsky and my latest memo to Leahy and the board members. She replied a short time later and said that she and Nicole Englund, senior transportation and planning deputy for Molina, worked together to ask county counsel to review my request.

Rescalvo called me less than an hour later. Some documents will be released, but they are still claiming some kind of exemption that will keep others from public disclosure.

 "I don't know exactly which ones you can get because you kind of asked for a lot," she chuckled. "But I do know that county counsel asked Metro to work with you."

The next morning, I received a call from Augustin Zuniga of the County Counsel's Office. He told me he and Lor would have some documents for me by the middle of next week.

Being an optimist, I'm hopeful that by this time next week I'll be able to report the cost and full extent of the electrical leakage problems that delayed the summer opening of the Gold Line.

Otherwise, maybe I'll drop by to see if I can corner one of the so-called champions of the public's right-to-know at the Nov. 15 opening of the Gold Line Eastside Extension.