Title: Burlington Free Press v. Univ. of Vermont

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Burlington Free Press v. Univ. of Vermont (2000-260); 172 Vt. 303; 779 A.2d 60

[Filed 29-Jun-2001]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of  Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any  errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                No. 2000-260

The Burlington Free Press	                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         Washington Superior Court

University of Vermont	                         March Term, 2001

Alden T. Bryan, J.

Philip H. White of Wilson & White, P.C., Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jeffrey J. Nolan of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C., Burlington, for 
  Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       SKOGLUND, J.   The Burlington Free Press (BFP) appeals the superior
  court's denial of its  request for approximately $8000 in expenses and
  attorney's fees incurred in its lawsuit seeking the  release of documents
  related to hazing incidents that took place at the University of Vermont 
  (UVM).  We affirm based on our conclusion that BFP has failed to
  demonstrate that the court abused  its discretion in declining to award
  attorney's fees in this case.

       Beginning in the fall of 1999, UVM officials became aware of hazing on
  its hockey team  and took certain steps to deal with it.  In response to an
  October 28 written complaint submitted by  an attorney representing a
  member of the team, UVM initiated a formal investigation to be conducted 
  by a local law firm.  On November 11, BFP asked UVM to release certain
  documents that would  reveal both the nature of the hazing allegations and
  UVM's response to those allegations.  

 

  UVM refused, and on December 7, BFP filed an action in the superior court
  seeking an injunction  that would require UVM to release the documents
  pursuant to the Public Records Act.  See 1 V.S.A.  §§ 315-320.

       Following a December 10 hearing, the superior court reviewed the
  pertinent documents in  camera and issued a December 16 decision on BFP's
  request for a preliminary injunction.  Based on  its in camera review, the
  court ordered disclosure of documents that merely detailed UVM's response 
  to the formal complaint but that did not reveal any identifying information
  about the students that  might violate the Family Educational Rights and
  Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g.   The court also noted that
  nothing new would be revealed by disclosing the details of the hockey 
  player's written complaint because they had already been disclosed in the
  federal lawsuit and widely  reported in the media.  The court concluded
  that, by filing the federal court action, the complaining  hockey player
  had abandoned any protection of his identity to which he might have been
  entitled  under FERPA.

       The court declined, however, to order disclosure of the transcripts
  and notes of statements  made by members of the hockey team to UVM
  investigators.  In the court's view, those documents  were student records
  protected by FERPA.  The court ordered the release of other documents 
  requested by BFP, but required that individual names be redacted to protect
  the students' privacy.   Neither party sought to appeal the court's ruling,
  and on January 4, 2000, UVM complied with the  court's orders.

       After the release of the documents, BFP sought to recover
  approximately $8000 in expenses  and attorney's fees incurred in its
  lawsuit against UVM.  On May 10, 2000, the court issued a ruling  denying
  the request in its entirety.  In so ruling, the court stated as follows:

 

         Finally, there is the question of attorney's fees.  The
    briefing  on this issue is well done and interesting.  In the end,
    however, it  comes down to the court's discretion.  True, the
    desired results  required the litigation, otherwise they would not
    have been achieved.   Yet the opposition was not without some
    merit.  An opposition to  production was probably advisable, at
    least to avoid the appearance of  irresponsible disclosure, which
    might have led to certain legally or  financially adverse
    consequences.  I conclude that in the end the just  result is to
    put this litigation down to the cost of doing business, and  there
    should be no award of attorney's fees in this case.

  (Citation omitted).  BFP appeals this ruling, arguing that the superior
  court abused its discretion by  failing to give adequate consideration to
  the policies behind the Public Records Act and the relevant  criteria, as
  reflected by federal court decisions addressing the award of attorney's
  fees under the  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E).

       The relevant provision of the Public Records Act provides that:

         The court may assess against the public agency reasonable
    attorney's  fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in
    any case under  this section in which the complainant has
    substantially prevailed.

  1 V.S.A. § 319(d).  This provision requires the requesting party to make a
  threshold showing that it  is eligible for attorney's fees because it
  substantially prevailed in its lawsuit seeking the release of  public
  records.  Federal courts construing a nearly identical attorney's fees
  provision in the FOIA  have held that, to establish eligibility, the
  requesting party must prove that legal action could  reasonably be regarded
  as necessary to obtain the requested documents, and that in fact the
  litigation  had a substantial causative effect on the release of the
  documents.  E.g., Chesapeake Bay Found. v.  Dep't of Agric., 11 F.3d 211,
  216 (D.C. Cir. 1993); Abernathy v. I.R.S,