Opinion ID: 1723461
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: reverse foia

Text: While we agree with the conclusion [7] of the Court of Appeals, we arrive at that destination by a different route. The Court of Appeals did not evaluate this case under the FOIA because it concluded that this action was a reverse FOIA action. [8] While that description may be apt, it does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the FOIA is irrelevant. As the plaintiffs' cases demonstrate, an action challenging an FOIA request may turn on an interpretation of whether the FOIA requires disclosure, notwithstanding that the FOIA does not prevent disclosure. [9] For example, in Bradley, the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that her personnel records were exempt from disclosure under the FOIA because the school district had informed her that it was releasing the information under the belief that it was compelled to do so. If the plaintiff had prevailed in showing that her personnel file was exempt, she may have been able to persuade the school district not to release the information. Similarly, LASA's complaint asserted that the requested documents were exempt from disclosure under the FOIA and that certain administrative review procedures prevented the circulation of evaluation documents. If LASA had prevailed in its argument that its records were exempt, it could have enforced the confidentiality provision of the collective bargaining agreement to prevent disclosure of the evaluatory documents. Because a favorable ruling on the applicability of the FOIA exemptions to their personnel records could have permitted the plaintiffs their requested relief under the FOIA, [10] the Court of Appeals erred in not analyzing this case under the FOIA.