Opinion ID: 874073
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Is Mr. Henry Entitled to an Award of Costs and Attorney Fees?

Text: Respondents asserted during oral argument that this case was now moot because they had produced the documents at issue. However, it is not moot because Mr. Henry requests an award of attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code sections 9-344(2), 12-117, and/or 12-121. Since the requested documents were provided after this lawsuit was instituted to compel their production, the issue of attorney fees remains an issue to be resolved. Idaho Code section 9-344(2) provides a standard for the awarding of reasonable costs and attorney fees to the prevailing party in actions to compel disclosure of public records for examination and/or copying under the Public Records Act. It states, In any such action, the court shall award reasonable costs and attorney fees to the prevailing party or parties, if it finds that the request or refusal to provide records was frivolously pursued. In Roe v. Harris, 128 Idaho 569, 917 P.2d 403 (1996), we held that after the enactment of Idaho Code section 12-117 setting forth the standard for awarding attorney fees against a state agency, the private attorney general doctrine was no longer a basis for such an award. Id. at 573, 917 P.2d at 407. Likewise, in Lake CDA Investments, LLC v. Idaho Dept. of Lands, 149 Idaho 274, 285, 233 P.3d 721, 732 (2010), we held that Idaho Code section 12-117(1) is the exclusive basis for awarding court costs and attorney fees in an action between a person and a state agency, where that statute entitled the prevailing party in such action to reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees and other reasonable expenses when the court finds that the nonprevailing party acted without a reasonable basis in fact or law. Idaho Code section 9-344(2) sets forth the standard for awarding reasonable costs and attorney fees in actions pursuant to the Public Records Act. To base an award on some other statute would be contrary to the legislature's intent in including in the Act an attorney fee provision with a specified standard for awarding attorney fees in proceedings to enforce compliance with the Act. That statute is the exclusive basis for such an award. Therefore, Idaho Code sections 12-117 and 12-121 do not apply. Idaho Code section 9-343 authorizes a person aggrieved by the denial of a request to examine or copy public records to institute an action to compel the public agency or independent public body corporate and politic to make the information available for public inspection in accordance with the provisions of sections 9-337 through 9-348, Idaho Code. In any such action, the court shall award reasonable costs and attorney fees to the prevailing party or parties, if it finds that the request or refusal to provide records was frivolously pursued. I.C. § 9-344(2). Because a public record is one prepared, owned, used or retained by any state agency, independent public body corporate and politic or local agency, I.C. § 9-337(13), a particular agency cannot be required to produce records that it had not prepared, owned, used, or retained. [5] Respondents did not refuse to produce any public record that they had prepared, owned, used, or retained. Mr. Henry contends that because the county commissioners of Canyon County had the authority under Idaho Code sections 31-802 and 31-809 to require the prosecuting attorney to make reports, to present his books and accounts for inspection, and to audit them, the county should have exercised that authority to obtain the requested public records from Mr. Bujak. Although the county commissioners could have exercised their authority under those statutes, they did not do so. These statutes are not part of the Public Records Act. That act does not require an agency to obtain records that it had never prepared, owned, used, or retained. In his third public records request, Mr. Henry stated, with respect to the records identified in categories 1 and 2, I make this request regardless of whether such records are in the custody or control of Canyon County, Mr. Bujak, or any third party financial institution. A party making a public records request cannot unilaterally modify the Public Records Act. The inclusion of that wording did not require Respondents to produce records that they had never prepared, owned, used, or retained. Likewise, Mr. Taylor, as prosecuting attorney after Mr. Bujak resigned, had not prepared, owned, used, or retained any of the requested records. The office of the prosecuting attorney, as distinct from Mr. Bujak, had also never prepared, owned, used, or retained the records. Only Mr. Bujak had access to the records, and there is no indication that they could have been located somewhere in the office of the prosecuting attorney after he resigned. Idaho Code section 9-344(2) states, If the court finds that the public official's decision to refuse disclosure is not justified, it shall order the public official to make the requested disclosure. Mr. Bujak was the public official who refused to produce the records for examination and/or copying and whose decision to refuse to disclose the records was not justified. Respondents' failure to produce the public records at issue was not frivolous. Therefore, Mr. Henry is not entitled to an award of attorney fees against any of the Respondents. Because Mr. Bujak is not a party to this appeal, we need not address whether his refusal to provide the records was frivolous.