Opinion ID: 4204980
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: [¶2.] In 2014, the City of Sioux Falls raised questions regarding the aesthetic appearance of the exterior siding of the newly constructed Denny Sanford Premier Center. The City reached a settlement agreement with the general contractor and four subcontractors of the project. The agreement addressed both the final amounts due and the City’s dissatisfaction with the work. One of the subcontractors later disputed the terms of the agreement. The City retained outside counsel, who drafted a complaint to enforce the settlement agreement. However, after further negotiation, the parties to the original agreement reached another settlement agreement. The City’s outside counsel sent the drafted -1- #27903 complaint with an admission of service to one of the subcontractors, but it did not commence a lawsuit prior to settlement. [¶3.] In September 2015, the City announced through its website that it had reached a global settlement of the dispute with the contractors of the Premier Center. In October, a reporter for the Argus Leader contacted the city attorney and requested a copy of the settlement between the City and the contractors involved in construction of the Premier Center. The city attorney denied the request, citing SDCL 1-27-1.5(20) and the agreement’s confidentiality provision as grounds for the denial. The reporter sent another letter asking for the City to reconsider the denial. Again, the City denied the request. On December 1, 2015, pursuant to SDCL 1-2738, the Argus Leader commenced a civil action contending that the agreement is a public record and asking that the court order the City to produce a copy of the agreement. [¶4.] Both the Argus Leader and the City moved for summary judgment. The circuit court denied the Argus Leader’s motion and granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The court found that pursuant to SDCL 1-27-1.5(20), the contract is not open to public inspection. On appeal, the Argus Leader contends the court erred when it determined that the contract is not an open record. Furthermore, the Argus Leader contends that even if the circuit court correctly interpreted SDCL 1-27-1.5(20), more specific provisions provide that the settlement agreement is an open public record. -2- #27903