Opinion ID: 6108351
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Arkansas Freedom of Information Act

Text: AIS argues the circuit court erroneously found it was a covered entity, ruled it violated FOIA, and granted the permanent injunction. We agree. For a record to be subject to FOIA it must be (1) possessed by an entity covered by the Act; (2) fall within the Act's definition of a public record; and (3) not be exempted by the Act or other statutes. Nabholz Constr. Corp. v. Contractors for Pub. Prot. Ass'n , 371 Ark. 411 , 266 S.W.3d 689 (2007). The county officials are covered entities because they are the custodians of the public records. The General Assembly has tasked county officials with the custodial responsibility of their public records. Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-111 (Repl. 2013). It was clear. Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-111 (a)(2) states [public] records are routinely kept in electronic format by the county officials who are the custodians of the records.  Id. (emphasis added). The General Assembly specifically stated its intent was to ensure that all public records kept by county officials are under the complete care, custody, and control of the county officials responsible for the records. Ark. Code Ann. 14-14-111(a)(3)(A). FOIA provides that  '[c]ustodian' does not mean a person who holds public records solely for the purposes of storage, safekeeping, or data processing for others.  Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-103 (1)(B) (Supp. 2017). Occasionally, a private entity or individual may keep a public record for a public official; however, the public official retains the obligation to produce the public record. See City of Fayetteville v. Edmark , 304 Ark. 179 , 801 S.W.2d 275 (1990) (requiring the city to produce memoranda prepared by the city's private attorney); Swaney v. Tilford , 320 Ark. 652 , 898 S.W.2d 462 (1995) (holding the Arkansas Development Finance Authority must produce its outside auditor's working papers); Fox v. Perroni , 358 Ark. 251 , 188 S.W.3d 881 (2004) (finding the circuit judge was custodian of personal check written by his law clerk). The General Assembly clearly intended for the responsibility of initially determining whether a record sought was a public record to rest with the public official, not a private entity. Nabholz, 371 Ark. at 418 , 266 S.W.3d at 694 . The circuit court's conclusion that the county officials were unnecessary parties to a dispute over access to those officials' public records was clearly erroneous. The effect would be to usurp them from their obligations in the FOIA process. This is why in Nabholz we held a private entity alone is not a proper defendant in a FOIA action. Id. In Nabholz , the Contractors for the Public Protection Association (CFPPA) sent a FOIA request to Nabholz as general contractor of a state project. Id. After Nabholz refused to comply, CFPPA sued under FOIA. Id. We refused to extend the scope of FOIA to Nabholz, a private entity doing business with the state. Id. We stated, Nabholz is an Arkansas corporation and is not an entity of the state. It alone cannot be sued under the Act and directed to turn over documents under the Act. 371 Ark. at 418 , 266 S.W.3d at 693 . We reversed and dismissed that case. 371 Ark. at 419 , 266 S.W.3d at 694 . Here, DataScout sued only AIS, a private corporation. As we held in Nabholz , DataScout cannot sue AIS alone under FOIA and direct AIS to produce public records because it is a private corporation and is not the custodian of the public records. Therefore, because AIS had no liability under the FOIA claim brought, DataScout was not entitled to permanent injunctive relief under this claim.