Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2015/TN/friedmann-v-marshall-county-tn-order-public-records-request-attorney-fees-2015/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:20:39+00:00

Document:
ALEX FRIEDMANN, ET AL. v. MARSHALL COUNTY, TN, ET AL.
we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to award attorneys‟ fees.
ARMSTRONG, J., joined. BRANDON O. GIBSON, J., filed a separate concurring opinion.
through, Marshall County Sheriff‟s Department, Norman Dalton, Sheriff.
requesting a number of public records related to the Marshall County Jail Complex.
Assistant Administrator at the Marshall County Jail. Ms. Wright‟s letter informed Mr.
available to assist Mr. Friedmann.1 On February 19, 2014, Mr. Friedmann contacted Ms.
request” was not required under Tennessee law. To support his position, he provided Ms.
specifically stated that citizens are not required to request records in person. Mr.
Friedmann concluded his email by renewing his original records request.
Reasserting his position that the law does not require requestors to personally appear, Mr.
that the law required the records request to be made in person.
On March 12, 2014, Tennessee Open Records Counsel Elisha Hodge (“Ms.
Hodge”) emailed Mr. Haywood concerning Mr. Friedmann‟s public records request. Ms.
request, and he attached the correspondence Ms. Hodges previously sent to Mr.
statutory time period required for a response to his request. On April 11, 2014, Mr.
response to his March 24 records request. Having still received no response, Mr.
Friedmann emailed Ms. Wright once more on April 17, 2014. In this latest email, Mr.
statement of evidence which was approved by the trial court, it is clear that Ms. Wright emailed Mr.
2014. At the hearing, the trial court heard testimony from both Sheriff Dalton and Mr.
Friedmann. It also entertained arguments from Mr. Friedmann‟s counsel and Mr.
Mr. Friedmann about the residency issue. Mr. Friedmann‟s testimony confirmed this.
Friedmann on April 22, 2014, and suggested that he direct any further questions to Mr. Haywood.
§ 10-7-503(a)(2)(B), it constituted a denial within the meaning of the Tennessee Public Records Act.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-503(a)(3) (2012).
he placed on the matter, Sheriff Dalton‟s testimony also reveals he had some concerns about Mr.
to the contrary, that the responses did not constitute a denial of the records per se.
Rather, the trial court concluded that the responses merely imposed a condition that Mr.
March when the renewed requests were made.
to a denial without a stated reason.
With respect to the question of Mr. Friedmann‟s citizenship, the trial court noted that Mr.
Sheriff Dalton and the Sheriff‟s Office should turn over the requested records to Mr.
By granting Mr. Friedmann access to the requested records, the trial court implicitly affirmed that Mr.
that they are to provide the requested records to Mr. Friedmann at no cost.
“willful” as contemplated by the Tennessee Public Records Act.
attorneys‟ fees pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act.
finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.” Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d).
unambiguous, we should look no further to ascertain its meaning. Id. (citations omitted).
statutory scheme.” Id. (citation omitted).
At issue in this case is the application of the Tennessee Public Records Act.
promote public oversight of governmental activities[,]” Gautreaux v. Internal Med. Educ.
by government in its official capacity.‟” Patterson, 421 S.W.3d at 606 (quoting Griffin v.
inspection to any citizen, unless otherwise provided by state law.
the nondisclosure must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence.” Tenn. Code Ann.
the Sheriff‟s Office did not “deny” or “refuse to disclose” public records until after Mr.
copies of the records without making a personal appearance.
identify the requested records, we find it unnecessary to answer any such questions.
We next address Mr. Friedmann‟s issues relating to his request for attorneys‟ fees.
actions were not willful, we consider whether the trial court erred in failing to award Mr.
S.W.2d 681, 689 (Tenn. 1994) (citing Abernathy v. Whitley, 838 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Ct.
review it for an abuse of discretion. Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hosp.
against logic or reasoning that causes an injustice to the party complaining. Eldridge v.
been the subject of varying judicial statements. The Tennessean v. City of Lebanon, No.
(Tenn.Ct.App. Jan. 29, 1992) (no Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application filed).
Arnold v. City of Chattanooga, 19 S.W.3d 779, 789 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
(Tenn. Ct. App. May 11, 1999).
Rule 11 standard. No reference was made to bad faith.
willfulness standard is one synonymous to a bad faith requirement.
at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 1994).
exempt from disclosure. See Greer v. City of Memphis, 356 S.W.3d 917, 922 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
predicated on an alleged legal justification, i.e., his failure to make an in-person request.
with willfulness was Capital Case Resource Center of Tennessee, Inc. v. Woodall, No.
the statutory standard. Id. at *14 n.7.
to disclose the field interview cards.
clarity, or lack thereof, of the law on the issue involved.
The Tennessean, 2004 WL 290705, at *9.
In the case at bar, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to award Mr.
validity of the position that the city used to support its refusal of access to the requested records.
County‟s attorney, was also directed to consider the relevant law on several occasions.
to records due to residency concerns, these concerns were not communicated to Mr.
At no point did the Sheriff‟s Office‟s responses indicate a willingness to process Mr.
As previously noted, the Sheriff‟s Office did not respond to the March 24 request until April 22.
make his records request in person.
pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-7-505(g). This is a case marked by Mr.
that Sheriff Dalton‟s residency investigation was relevant to the issue of attorneys‟ fees.
Office failed to carry out its responsibility in facilitating access to governmental records.
County, for which execution may issue if necessary.
claim for appellate attorneys‟ fees.
BRANDON O. GIBSON, J., concurring.
Tenn., Inc. v. Woodall, No. 01-A01-9104-CH-00150, 1992 WL 12217, at *8 (Tenn. Ct.
with the Public Records Act or the purpose of the attorney fee provision).
appeal was entered on January 14, 2000.
When the Tennessee Supreme Court considered attorneys‟ fees in Schneider v.
Memphis Publ’g Co. v. City of Memphis, 871 S.W.3d [681, 689 (Tenn.
Law Dictionary definition of “bad faith” applies. As the majority points out, in Little v.
City of Chattanooga, No. E2011-02724-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 4358174, (Tenn. Ct.
records upon personal appearance show the Court that he was not willfully denying Mr.
existing law.” Tennessean, 2004 WL 290705, at *9, fn. 9.

References: v. 

§ 10
 § 10
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 10
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.