Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2014/TN/Friedmann-v-Corrections-Corporation-of-America-TN-Appeals-Court-Ruling-2013/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:28:23+00:00

Document:
the trial court shall make the appropriate award.
F RANK G. C LEMENT, J R., J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which P ATRICIA J.
C OTTRELL, P.J., M.S., and R ICHARD H. D INKINS, J., joined.
as Associate Editor of Prison Legal News.
numerous correctional facilities, five of which are in the State of Tennessee.
of the requested documents would be overly burdensome.
Friedmann v. Corrections Corp. of Am., 310 S.W.3d 366, 370 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).
10-7-301 et seq., that he had requested the documents, and that CCA had refused his request.
subject to the Act. CCA contended it was a private corporation and not subject to the Act.
documents. CCA appealed that decision.
This court’s opinion in the first appeal of this case was filed on September 16, 2009.
agency and remanded the matter to the trial court for the determination of several issues.1 Id.
they were protected from disclosure by the attorney work product doctrine or any other law.
March 1, 2010. Id. at 366.
Vice-President and General Counsel for CCA.
however, were not operated pursuant to that statute and therefore the PPCA did not apply to those facilities.
PPCA and therefore his request as to that facility was dismissed. Id. at 381.
reserved the issue of whether Friedmann was entitled to recover his attorney’s fees.
then awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $28,367.50. CCA filed a timely appeal.
required by the Act. We shall address each issue in turn.
with no presumption of correctness. Id.
Servs., Inc., 87 S.W.3d at 74 (quoting Cole v. Campbell, 968 S.W.2d 274, 275 (Tenn. 1998)).
v. Giles Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No.M2004-00998-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 1996625, at *2 (Tenn.
WL 22469808, at * 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2003)). In Memphis Publishing Co. v.
of any private entity which operates as the functional equivalent of a state agency.” Id. at 79.
private entity is operating as the functional equivalent of a government agency. See id.
Private Prison Contracting Act, was an obvious delegation of the constitutional function of imprisonment.
protected as attorney work product, which issue we shall address in the next section of this opinion.
business, that of litigation; therefore, they do not fall within the definition of public records.
such disclosure under the Act because the settlement was reached in Rule 31 mediation. Id.
Newspapers v. Westlake Bd. of Educ., 601 N.E.2d 173 (Ohio App. 1991); Tenn. Atty. Gen.
subject to disclosure under the Act. Id at *4.
states that this court “implicitly” limited our finding regarding CCA as a government entity.
functional equivalent of a government agency in its management of correctional facilities.
agency”, therefore, they are public records as defined by Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-7301(6).
This conclusion is supported by the ruling in Memphis Publishing v. City of Memphis.
in Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-7-301(6).
within the definition of public records set forth at Tennessee Code Annotated § 10-7-301(6).
“All state, county and municipal records shall at all times during business hours . . .
CCA does not contend that the settlement agreements are attorney work product.
properly authorized rules and regulations.” The Tennesseean v. Tenn. Dep’t of Personnel, No.
Procedure is exempt from the Act”).
other representative of a party in the litigation.” Id.
for legal counsel.” The Tennesseean, 2007 WL 1241337, at *10 (citing Tenn. R. Civ. P.
Boyd, 88 S.W.3d at 225 n.33 (citing Simon v. G.D. Searle & Co., 816 F.2d 397, 401 (8th Cir.
1987); Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 936 P.2d 844 (Nev.
Practice and Procedure § 2024, at 346).
work product doctrine.” Id. at 783-84 (citing Downing v. Bowater, 846 S.W.2d 265 (Tenn.
in the requested documents are essential elements of its prima facie case. Boyd, 88 S.W.3d at 221-22.
However, that is not the case when the documents are requested pursuant to the Public Records Act.
the water company through a negotiation. Id.
objectively reasonable. Id. at 210.
be able to give advice on cases going forward.
Friedmann seeks pursuant to the Public Records Act do not.
qualify as attorney work product. Accordingly, CCA must disclose the settlement reports.
by the office of open records counsel as created in title 8, chapter 4.
The willfulness requirement of the statute is synonymous with bad faith. Arnold v.
City of Chattanooga, 19 S.W.3d 779, 789 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
one’s rights or duties, but by some interested or sinister motive.
mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill will.
Dictionary 127 (5th Ed. 1979)).
access. The Tennesseean v. City of Lebanon, 2004 WL 290705, at *9.
therefore, affirm the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to Friedmann.
Friedmann also requests his reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this appeal.
entitled to their reasonable attorney’s fees incurred on appeal in a Public Records Act action).

References: v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v.

 v. 
 § 10
 v. 
 § 10
 § 10
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2024
 v. 
 v.

 v.