Opinion ID: 2809695
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Requests and Responses

Text: ¶77 What complicates and also clarifies this case is that each party may have made mistakes that exacerbated confusion regarding what was being requested and the fact that no responsive record existed. However, those misunderstandings do not equate to a public records law violation such that the Newspaper prevailed in substantial part. It is in part because the Commission acted with reasonable diligence and provided more information than the public records law required and no record existed to produce, that the Newspaper has not prevailed in substantial part such that it is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees, damages, and other actual costs under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2). A review of the facts highlights the reasonable confusion. ¶78 The Commission held a special meeting in closed session on February 20, 2012. Two days later, Christine Won, a reporter for the Newspaper, e-mailed two commissioners and Racine Deputy City Attorney Scott Letteney. Won's e-mail asked for information, not a record. Her e-mail stated, I am officially asking on the record to know the vote of each 42 No. 2013AP1715 commissioner from the closed [Commission] meeting Monday [February 20, 2012,] in which they decided to reopen the police chief search. (Emphasis added.) ¶79 Won sent a clarification e-mail hours later, which stated: Under statute 19.88(3) —— I am asking for the recorded motions and votes of each [] Commissioner at the closed meeting . . . . Although this time Won asked for recorded motions and votes, her request was based on Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3), which is part of the open meetings law, not the public records law. Section 19.88(3) requires governmental bodies to record their motions and roll call votes. Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3). That statute does not expressly state when a record must be created.27 In the same e-mail, Won again asked for information, stating, I would appreciate this information as soon as practicable and without delay. (Emphasis added.) ¶80 The Commission's March 7 response stated that [y]our request for the specific vote of the [Commission] . . . is denied. (Emphasis added.) Similarly, in its March 9 e-mail, the Commission stated that it had a lawful basis for denying the release of the vote of the [Commission] from its February 20, 2012 meeting. (Emphasis added.) Although that e- 27 The Newspaper argues that Wis. Stat. § 19.88(3) implicitly requires a record to be created as soon as practicable and without delay. See Wis. Stat. § 19.35(4)(a). We express no opinion on this argument. However, we note that the as soon as practicable and without delay language of § 19.35(4)(a) allows a reasonable amount of time to respond to a public records request. 43 No. 2013AP1715 mail stated that the Commission was performing the required balancing test for the release of records, it seemingly meant that it was applying this balancing test to determine whether it should release the requested information immediately. Specifically, the Commission stated that it understood the import to the [Newspaper] of having this information and, therefore, offered to release the specifics of the February 20 vote within five business days of hiring a new police chief. (Emphasis added.) ¶81 On March 12 the Newspaper's final request again asked for information, not a record. The Newspaper stated that it would like the information immediately. ¶82 On March 22, two days after hiring a new police chief, the Commission e-mailed the requested information to the Newspaper. The Commission did not release a record at that time because no record containing the requested information existed before May 21. The Newspaper argues, in part, that waiting this long for the information is waiting too long. The Commission is under no obligation to provide information in response to a records request. ¶83 The Commission reasonably interpreted the Newspaper's e-mails as requests for information, not minutes. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that a local reporter, sophisticated requester and wordsmith, who displayed familiarity with the Commission, would have thought that meeting minutes were available a mere two days after a special meeting was held and before they would have been completed in the Commission's 44 No. 2013AP1715 ordinary course of business. Perhaps that is why the requests and responses are framed in terms of access to information. In fact, the Newspaper did not clarify until September 2012, when it moved for summary judgment, that it was actually seeking meeting minutes and that the information it received in March 2012 was unsatisfactory. Could both sides have done better? Yes. Although not required, the Newspaper could have specified that it wanted only an actual record or, more specifically, minutes. The Commission could have clearly replied that no record existed. However, the Newspaper's requests and the Commission's responses demonstrate a dialogue between the parties wherein information was provided in response to a request for information at a time when no record existed. Notably, the Newspaper does not complain that it failed to receive the record. ¶84 Nonetheless, the circumstances presented in this case demonstrate that the Commission provided, rather than hid, information pertinent to the request. The Newspaper filed this action before the record was created and after it knew that it would receive the information. The creation of the record, rather than the lawsuit, caused the record's production. The Newspaper's argument rests upon the timing of the record's creation under the open meetings law. Again, this is not an open meetings law case. ¶85 We note that the Commission was not required to respond by a specific date and time. The Commission could have answered in a number of ways. It was not necessarily required 45 No. 2013AP1715 to notify the Newspaper that it would provide the information after it decided to do so. [U]nder [Wis. Stat.] § 19.35(4)(a), receipt of [a public] records request triggers either a duty to respond to the request or a duty to produce the requested records. ECO, Inc. v. City of Elkhorn, 2002 WI App 302, ¶24, 259 Wis. 2d 276, 655 N.W.2d 510. Wisconsin's Public Records Law does not explicitly require [a custodian] to notify . . . the requester, as long as the [custodian] 'fill[s] the request' and does so 'as soon as practicable and without delay.' Racine Educ. Ass'n II, 145 Wis. 2d at 523 (quoting Wis. Stat. § 19.35(4)(a)). Nevertheless, the Commission did both. It notified the Newspaper on March 9 that it would release the requested information soon. The Newspaper responded——by filing a lawsuit. On March 22 the Commission followed through and provided the Newspaper with the requested information, albeit not in record form. The Newspaper responded by serving the lawsuit on the Commission. Moreover, even before the Newspaper made its public records request, the Commission had already issued a press release. ¶86 While the public records law does not impose a specific timing requirement instructing when to file a mandamus action, when a mandamus action is filed may significantly influence whether the requester has prevailed in substantial part so to be awarded reasonable attorney fees, damages, and other actual costs. Here, the timing and language of the requests and responses, the timing of the filing and service of the lawsuit, the voluntary provision of information, and the 46 No. 2013AP1715 fact that no responsive record existed, all play a role in our analysis that the Newspaper has not prevailed in substantial part so to receive the award that it seeks.28 The lawsuit was not causally related to the release of the record——the record was not in existence when the lawsuit was commenced or even served. Here, the Commission's conduct was reasonable under the circumstances. ¶87 As a practical matter, in many smaller jurisdictions, a local governmental body can be swamped with public records requests and may need a substantial period of time to respond to any given request. See Racine Educ. Ass'n II, 145 Wis. 2d at 523-24 (holding that a custodian timely released a record 35 days after it was requested). Many jurisdictions, like the one in the case at issue, function with the help of part-time, volunteer citizens. Governmental meetings may occur fairly infrequently. Even in a larger jurisdiction, a significant period of time may be needed to respond to a public records request. For example, the court of appeals has held that the passage of 41 days between a request and the City of Milwaukee Police Department's release of the requested record was reasonable. Watton, 306 Wis. 2d 542, ¶36, rev'd on other grounds, 311 Wis. 2d 52. The Newspaper is incorrect in arguing that Wis. Stat. § 19.35(4)(a) requires immediate disclosure. 28 Even if the Newspaper would have known that no record existed and pursued an action under the open meetings law, it would have been required to file a complaint with a district attorney and then wait 20 days for a response from the district attorney before filing suit. See Wis. Stat. § 19.97(1), (4). 47 No. 2013AP1715 See id. The public records law is less exact than the Newspaper wishes. ¶88 We conclude that although the requests and the responses are less than precise, the Newspaper has not prevailed in substantial part so to entitle it to reasonable attorney fees, damages, and other actual costs under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2). No record existed. Although not required, the timing of the Commission's voluntary release of the requested information further demonstrates that the Newspaper's requested relief is not justified. The Newspaper argues that it was entitled to the information when the Newspaper first requested its production, not a month later when the [Commission] actually disclosed it. We note that what the Newspaper received a month later was, in fact, information, not a record. The Newspaper's argument about the timing of the release is curious given that it seems to argue that the information, not a record, should have been released earlier. In fact, the Newspaper had the information that it requested, just not in record form, before it served this lawsuit on the Commission. Therefore, contrary to the Newspaper's assertion, the public records law does not declare that the Newspaper prevailed in substantial part when it made the request and filed and served the lawsuit before any record existed, and when the Newspaper's request was for information, which was provided, even though the Commission was not required to provide information in response to a public records request.