Opinion ID: 2809695
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Awarding such other relief as the Court deems

Text: just. ¶30 On May 7, 2012, the Commission filed an answer to the Newspaper's complaint. In its answer the Commission argued that the mandamus action was moot because the Commission provided the information requested to [the Newspaper] within a reasonable time after the request. One of the Commission's affirmative defenses was that the mandamus action was not properly brought under the Wisconsin Public Records Law, because a 'record,' as defined by § 19.32(2), Wis. Stats., containing the information sought has never existed. 13. 15 No. 2013AP1715 ¶31 At the time that the Commission filed its answer to the Newspaper's complaint, no record was yet in existence. The Commission had not drafted minutes for the February 20 special meeting prior to its regular meeting on March 19 but it had drafted minutes before its next regular meeting on May 22. Specifically, on or about May 21, 2012, Attorney Letteney sent proposed language for February 20 meeting minutes to the police chief's secretary, Dianne Flannery. However, Attorney Letteney did not draft any minutes. Instead, on May 21 Flannery drafted minutes for the February 20 meeting. After Commissioner Rogers approved Flannery's draft minutes, Flannery sent the draft minutes to the five commissioners via e-mail. She did not send the draft minutes to Attorney Letteney. The next day, May 22, the Commission approved the minutes at its regular, bi-monthly meeting. ¶32 On September 13, 2012, the Newspaper filed a motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit. In a brief supporting the motion, the Newspaper clarified that it was seeking disclosure of a record——specifically, meeting minutes. The Newspaper argued that, [a]lthough the Newspaper does not question the accuracy of the information provided by Mr. Letteney, his e-mail does not satisfy its public records request. . . . The [Commission] has never provided to the Newspaper the minutes of its February 20 meeting. On October 3, 2012, the Commission filed a brief opposing the Newspaper's motion for summary judgment. 16 No. 2013AP1715 ¶33 On October 25, 2012, the circuit court held a hearing on the Newspaper's motion for summary judgment. At the hearing, Attorney Letteney, unaware that draft minutes were circulated to the Commission on May 21, stated that he has never seen minutes for [the February 20, 2012] meeting. He further stated, I don't think it's reasonable to anticipate that two days after a meeting a newspaper reporter that understands the process of minutes being taken, minutes being posted, minutes being approved should actually believe that a record actually exists two days after a meeting . . . . He concluded that if the [Newspaper] wins this motion, there is still no record to give them. The circuit court denied the motion. The court stated that it was not satisfied on this record the Court can find that there has been a prima facie case made out that there are documents that exist here. There's no fact asserting that minutes——draft minutes were created or that minutes themselves were created, and thus, to grant the motion for summary judgment would yield potentially an order of the Court that would produce nothing and have no meaningful effect. The court allowed the case to proceed for more discovery.17 ¶34 On December 3, 2012, Attorney Letteney sent a letter to the circuit court and to the Newspaper's counsel. The letter reiterated that Attorney Letteney was previously unaware of the existence of any minutes for [the February 20, 2012] meeting. 17 On January 9, 2013, Commissioner Rogers answered interrogatories submitted by the Newspaper. He was previously deposed on June 18, 2012. 17 No. 2013AP1715 However, he explained that sometime after the October 25 hearing he learned that the police chief's secretary, on May 21, circulated draft minutes for the February 20 meeting to the commissioners. The letter further explained that Attorney Letteney provided [a] copy of such draft minutes to [the Newspaper's counsel]. The February 20 meeting minutes that were sent to the Newspaper's counsel were almost verbatim with the information that the Commission e-mailed to the Newspaper on March 22.18 The letter emphasized that the draft minutes did not exist on February 22, 2012, the date the public records request at issue was made. The letter further emphasized that the approved minutes for the February 20 special meeting had not yet been published on the City of Racine's Web site.19 ¶35 On March 22, 2013, the Commission filed a motion for summary judgment. Three days later, the Newspaper filed a renewed motion for summary judgment. ¶36 On April 22, 2013, the circuit court held a hearing on those two motions. The circuit court found that no responsive 18 The minutes read: Reopening the Police Chief recruitment to the extent of those applicants who were qualified, but not previously granted interviews, approved on a motion by Commissioner Wanggaard and seconded by Commissioner Black. Motion carried three to two, with Commissioners Johnson, Wanggaard, and Black voting in the affirmative, and Commissioners Hargrove and Rogers voting in the negative. 19 The circuit court record does not indicate when the February 20 minutes were published on the city's Web site. 18 No. 2013AP1715 record existed at the time of the Newspaper's request. In particular, it found that it's not disputed I guess that at the time the demand was made there wasn't any written recording to be supplied to the City [sic] pursuant to their request. Further, the minutes of February 20th . . . were never approved until the Commission's May 22nd meeting . . . . ¶37 The circuit court also found that it's clear the City hadn't or didn't know exactly what had happened at the [February 20, 2012] meeting with respect to minutes . . . . The court found that: [I]n this case I think the issue on the part of the [Newspaper] is created by the lack of knowledge on the part of the governmental entity to know exactly what was happening in a committee that was meeting to discuss the hiring of a chief of police and the way it did or did not keep its records, and that's why this case in its instance had to lead to a process to discover whether there was a record that existed or not. It wasn't known . . . . ¶38 At the end of the hearing, the circuit court denied the Newspaper's motion for summary judgment, granted the Commission's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the action.20 After an in-depth discussion of State ex rel. Zinngrabe v. School District of Sevastopol, 146 Wis. 2d 629, 431 N.W.2d 734 (Ct. App. 1988), the circuit court stated that Zinngrabe is controlling and on point here. The circuit court concluded, based on Zinngrabe, that it was not satisfied that the pleadings which were couched in terms of [public] records 20 On May 2, 2013, the circuit court entered a written order to that effect. 19 No. 2013AP1715 law allow us to reach the issue about . . . the open meetings law. ¶39 On May 28, 2014, the court of appeals reversed the circuit court's order and remand[ed] solely for a determination of whether the Newspaper is entitled to attorney fees and costs. Journal Times v. City of Racine Bd. of Police & Fire Comm'rs, 2014 WI App 67, ¶2, 354 Wis. 2d 591, 849 N.W.2d 888. The court of appeals held that, although the Newspaper's record request became moot when the Commission provided the information, the action should not be dismissed because [t]he Newspaper still has a viable claim for attorney fees and costs if the litigation 'was a cause, not the cause' of the Commission's March 22 release. Id., ¶11 (citation omitted). The court of appeals held that the Commission is estopped from arguing that a record of the vote did not exist.21 Id., ¶12. ¶40 On June 17, 2014, the Newspaper filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting that it was entitled to reasonable attorney fees, damages, and other actual costs as a matter of law because it prevailed in substantial part in the mandamus action. On June 20, 2014, the court of appeals denied the motion for reconsideration. 21 In its response brief, the Newspaper states that it agrees with the [Commission] that the court of appeals should not have applied equitable estoppel here. The Newspaper argues that we should rely on Newspapers, Inc. v. Breier, 89 Wis. 2d 417, 279 N.W.2d 179 (1979), instead of equitable estoppel, to bar the Commission from raising its defense that no record existed. Thus, we do not address equitable estoppel. 20 No. 2013AP1715 ¶41 On July 21, 2014, the Commission filed a petition for review. On August 20, 2014, the Newspaper filed a crosspetition for review. On November 14, 2014, we granted the petition and cross-petition for review.