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

Heading: Did the Newspaper Prevail in Substantial Part?

Text: ¶53 The crux of the issue before the court is whether the Newspaper prevailed in substantial part in this action so to 27 No. 2013AP1715 entitle it to reasonable attorney fees, damages, and other actual costs under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2)(a). ¶54 We conclude that under the facts of this case, the Newspaper did not prevail in substantial part in this action and is therefore not entitled to reasonable attorney fees, damages, and other actual costs under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2), because the Commission did not unlawfully deny or delay release of the subject record. In other words, the Newspaper is not entitled to its requested relief because its request is not supported by the facts of this case or the law. Both parties contributed to the misunderstanding, if there was any, of what was being requested and the sufficiency of the responses. In any event, no responsive record existed at the time of the request and no record was produced because of the lawsuit. While a records request need not be made with exacting precision to be deemed a valid public records request,22 the Newspaper is a requester and wordsmith with experience and sophistication. Here, the requests could reasonably be perceived as seeking information, rather than a record. Moreover, the request cites the open meetings law. The Commission initially denied the requests but later agreed to provide, and did provide, responsive information. At the time of the request and at the time that the information was provided, no record existed that could have been responsive to the request. The Commission was not required to provide information in response to a records request. The 22 See ECO, Inc., 259 Wis. 2d 276, ¶¶23, 26. 28 No. 2013AP1715 Newspaper no longer seeks production of a record; it seeks only reasonable attorney fees, damages, and other actual costs under § 19.37(2)(a). Whether a record should have been in existence at the time of the request is a matter of the open meetings law, not public records law. Certainly the Commission cannot avoid a public records request by failing to timely create a record. In this case, however, the Commission responded to the Newspaper with reasonable diligence and released the requested information while maintaining that it was not legally required to do so and at a time when no record existed. As will be discussed, neither the facts nor the law support the conclusion that the Newspaper prevailed in substantial part.23
¶55 The public records law is designed to make existing records available to the public unless withholding such documents is specifically authorized by law. State ex rel. Gehl v. Connors, 2007 WI App 238, ¶13, 306 Wis. 2d 247, 742 N.W.2d 530 (emphasis added) (citing Zinngrabe, 146 Wis. 2d at 633). However, the public records law does not require an 23 The Newspaper cross-petitioned this court for review, seeking to have us create a new test for recovery of reasonable attorney fees, damages, and other actual costs under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2). It argues that [t]his Court should hold that when a custodian abandons its stated reasons for denial, it has no defense at all and the requester necessarily has prevailed 'in substantial part' under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2). We decline to adopt this proposed test in the present case. As we will explain, the Commission has a valid defense for denying the Newspaper's request: no record containing the requested information existed. 29 No. 2013AP1715 authority to provide requested information if no record exists, or to simply answer questions about a topic of interest to the requester. Wis. Dep't of Justice, Wisconsin Public Records Law, Compliance Outline, at 18 (Sept. 2012), available at http://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/default/files/dls/publicrecords-compliance-outline-2012.pdf.24 See also Zinngrabe, 146 Wis. 2d at 635; George v. Record Custodian, 169 Wis. 2d 573, 579, 485 N.W.2d 460 (Ct. App. 1992) (The [public] records law does not require the custodian to . . . create a record for the benefit of a requester.). While a record will always contain information, information may not always be in the form of a record. ¶56 Each authority, upon request for any record, shall, as soon as practicable and without delay, either fill the request or notify the requester of the authority's determination to deny the request in whole or in part and the reasons therefor. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(4)(a). For purposes of the production of public records under Wis. Stat. § 19.35(4)(a), the statutory language 'as soon as practicable' implies a reasonable time for response . . . . Watton v. Hegerty, 2007 WI App 267, ¶36, 306 Wis. 2d 542, 744 N.W.2d 619, rev'd on other grounds, 2008 WI 74, 311 Wis. 2d 52, 751 N.W.2d 369. See also Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 341 Wis. 2d 607, ¶56 & n.31 (explaining that 24 See also Wis. Stat. § 19.39 (Any person may request advice from the attorney general as to the applicability of this subchapter under any circumstances. The attorney general may respond to such a request.). 30 No. 2013AP1715 § 19.35(4)(a) allows a reasonable time for a response). [W]hat constitutes a reasonable time for a response by an authority depends on the nature of the request, the staff and other resources available to the authority to process the request, the extent of the request, and other related considerations. WIREdata, Inc. v. Vill. of Sussex, 2008 WI 69, ¶56, 310 Wis. 2d 397, 751 N.W.2d 736 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, whether an authority is acting with reasonable diligence in a particular case will depend upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding the particular request. Id. ¶57 The public records law provides a requester with the ability to enforce a public records request in a mandamus action. Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1). A requester who prevails in substantial part in such an action is entitled to reasonable attorney fees, damages of not less than $100, and other actual costs . . . . Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2)(a). However, [i]f the failure to timely respond to a request was caused by an unavoidable delay accompanied by due diligence in the administrative processes, . . . the plaintiff has not substantially prevailed. Racine Educ. Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ. for Racine Unified Sch. Dist., 145 Wis. 2d 518, 524, 427 N.W.2d 414 (Ct. App. 1988) (Racine Educ. Ass'n II) (citing Racine Educ. Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ. for Racine Unified Sch. Dist., 129 Wis. 2d 319, 327, 385 N.W.2d 510 (Ct. App. 1986) (Racine Educ. Ass'n I)). Stated differently, if a custodian acts with reasonable diligence, a requester is not entitled to 31 No. 2013AP1715 reasonable attorney fees, damages, and other actual costs under § 19.37(2) on grounds of unlawful delay. See id. at 524-25.
¶58 The Newspaper argues that it filed this lawsuit to obtain a record that it was led to believe existed, but to which access was being denied. The Newspaper asserts that under Breier, 89 Wis. 2d 417, the Commission is limited to defending on the reasons it gave for denying access and is precluded from explaining that no record existed. The Newspaper argues that because the Commission no longer relies on the reasons that it originally provided for denying the Newspaper's request, reasonable attorney fees, damages, and other actual costs must be awarded as a matter of law. ¶59 The Newspaper further argues that it prevailed in substantial part because the Commission did not respond and provide the requested information as soon as practicable and without delay, as required by Wis. Stat. § 19.35(4)(a).25 The Newspaper is not still seeking a record. Instead, the Newspaper's argument focuses on the timing of the response, contending that [t]he [Commission's] initial response, coming nearly two weeks after the request, was hardly 'as soon as practicable and without delay.' Similarly, the Newspaper contends that it was entitled to the information when the 25 Relying on an attorney general opinion, the Newspaper argues that a 24-hour delay is illegal under the public records law. See 67 Wis. Op. Att'y Gen. 117, 119-20 (1978) (OAG 24-78) (I am not aware of any sufficient reason to justify a 24-hour delay.). 32 No. 2013AP1715 Newspaper first requested its production, not a month later when the [Commission] actually disclosed it. The Newspaper accuses the Commission of deliberate failure to create the record and strategically delaying disclosure for an illicit purpose, . . . to shield public officials from public accountability for their official actions. The Newspaper urges this court to hold it is entitled to recover damages for that delay, along with reasonable attorney fees and costs, under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2). ¶60 On the other hand, the Commission argues that the Newspaper did not prevail in substantial part because the Commission acted reasonably. Foremost, the Commission argues that it could not be required to produce a record that did not exist at the time of the request. No record existed until the end of May 2012. The lawsuit was filed about two months earlier, in March 2012. The Commission argues that we may consider its affirmative defense——that no record responsive to the Newspaper's request existed at the time of the request—— because this defense is based on a statutory exception to the public records law. According to the Commission, the court of appeals in Blum, 209 Wis. 2d 377, clarified that Breier does not prevent a court from considering whether a requested record is statutorily exempt from disclosure under the public records law, even if the statutory exemption was not mentioned in a custodian's response to a public records request. ¶61 The Commission further argues that even though no record existed and it was not required to provide information, 33 No. 2013AP1715 it acted reasonably and provided the information requested by the Newspaper. The Commission argues that it reasonably believed that the Newspaper was requesting information, not a record, and that it did not actively mislead the Newspaper into believing that a record existed. The Commission emphasizes that the Newspaper's requests were ambiguous and that the Newspaper could not reasonably have thought that meeting minutes existed only two days after the meeting at issue. The Commission also argues that it responded to the requests for information in a timely manner. It argues that [n]either the Public Records Law nor the Open Meetings Law requires it to create a record earlier than it would in the regular course of its business for the purpose of responding to a [public] records request. The Commission argues that there is no requirement in the law that the [Commission] create the record immediately. According to the Commission, the Newspaper's accusation that the Commission deliberately failed to create a record to shield [its members] from accountability for their official actions is preposterous. The Commission argues that it created and approved the meeting minutes at issue according to its regular course of business and that a clerical error slightly delayed their creation. The Commission argues that [t]hese facts do not support a conclusion that the [Commission] was covering up its 'failure' to create these minutes earlier.
¶62 The Newspaper argues that Breier bars the Commission from raising a defense that no responsive record existed at the 34 No. 2013AP1715 time of the Newspaper's request. The Commission argues that, under Blum, it may assert that defense although it did not raise that defense before the Newspaper filed the mandamus action. ¶63 In Breier The Milwaukee Journal requested that the Milwaukee Police Department disclose daily arrest records, including the charges upon which persons were arrested. Breier, 89 Wis. 2d at 420-21. The police department refused to disclose records of the charges, so The Milwaukee Journal brought a mandamus action seeking an order compelling disclosure of those records. Id. at 421-22. The Breier court stated: The duty of the custodian is to specify reasons for nondisclosure and the court's role is to decide whether the reasons asserted are sufficient. It is not the trial court's or this court's role to hypothesize reasons or to consider reasons for not allowing inspection which were not asserted by the custodian. Id. ¶64 Unlike the case at issue, in Breier the requested records existed at the time of the request. The police department denied the public records request for public policy reasons in order to protect the arrested individuals from possible personal and economic harm. Id. at 421. This court held as a matter of law that the harm to the public interest in the form of possible damage to arrested persons' reputations does not outweigh the public interest in allowing inspection of the police records which show the charges upon which arrests were made. Id. at 440. Accordingly, this court remanded for the circuit court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling 35 No. 2013AP1715 disclosure of the requested records. Id. In the present case, the circuit court could not have ordered that relief at the time the lawsuit was commenced because no record existed then, and in the Commission's ordinary course of business a record would not have existed until the next regular meeting in late March. ¶65 Thus, Breier will sometimes prohibit a court from considering reasons for denying a public records request that were not asserted by a custodian prior to the commencement of a mandamus action. See Oshkosh Nw. Co. v. Oshkosh Library Bd., 125 Wis. 2d 480, 484, 373 N.W.2d 459 (Ct. App. 1985) (Where inspection is denied, it is the custodian, not the attorney representing the governmental body after a mandamus action is commenced, who must give specific and sufficient reasons for denying inspection.). But Breier does not always require that prohibition, especially if no record exists. ¶66 In Blum a student, Elizabeth Blum, filed a public records request with the Johnson Creek Board of Education. Blum, 209 Wis. 2d at 379. The request sought records indicating the interim grades of a student who received a scholarship over Blum. Id. The board denied the request, stating that calculating interim grades would be burdensome and that interim grades were immaterial for determining the recipient of the scholarship. Id. at 380. Blum then filed a mandamus action to compel the board to disclose the requested records. Id. ¶67 The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's order denying Blum's mandamus petition. Id. at 380, 391-92. The court of appeals held that Wis. Stat. § 118.125, which 36 No. 2013AP1715 states that pupil records maintained by a public school are confidential, exempted the requested records from disclosure under the public records law. Id. at 385. [U]nless there exists: (1) a 'clear statutory exception'; (2) a common law limitation; or (3) an overriding public interest in keeping the record confidential, the information sought must be disclosed. Id. at 383 (quoting Hathaway v. Joint Sch. Dist. No. 1, City of Green Bay, 116 Wis. 2d 388, 397, 342 N.W.2d 682 (1984)). The court of appeals concluded that § 118.125 was a clear statutory exception to disclosure. Id. at 385. ¶68 The court of appeals rejected Blum's argument that, because the board did not rely on Wis. Stat. § 118.125 in its response to her public records request, Breier forbade the court from considering whether that statute exempted the requested records from disclosure. Id. at 391-92. Because the board relied on § 118.125 in its response to the mandamus petition, [t]he trial court thus was not required to 'hypothesize' the applicable statutory exception, which would have been prohibited under Breier. See id. at 388 n.6. The court of appeals concluded, the Board's insufficient denial letter to Blum does not prevent a court from determining whether a 'clear statutory exception' applies to the requested interim grades. Id. at 388. ¶69 Thus, under Blum, Breier does not prohibit a court from considering whether a requested record is statutorily exempt from disclosure under the public records law, even if a 37 No. 2013AP1715 custodian did not assert the statutory exemption prior to the commencement of a mandamus action. ¶70 The Newspaper urges this court to rely on Breier and conclude that it has prevailed in substantial part. The Newspaper argues that Breier requires a custodian to be specific in its response to a public records request so that a requester can challenge the response and so a court can review the sufficiency of the response. The Newspaper contends that the Commission actively misled the newspaper into believing that it had created a record of the motion at issue, only to assert that no record existed after the mandamus action was filed. The Newspaper argues that, had it known that no record existed, it would have filed suit under the open meetings law instead of the public records law. ¶71 The Commission urges us to rely on Blum and thus allow it to raise its affirmative defense that no responsive record existed at the time of the Newspaper's request. It argues that a record's non-existence provides a clear statutory exception to disclosure under the public records law. The Commission reasons that the public records law does not require the creation of a record or the release of a record that does not exist. The Commission further argues that there is no evidence . . . that the [Commission] purposefully or maliciously misled the Newspaper into believing that a record existed. Rather, the Commission argues that it mistakenly believed that the Newspaper was requesting information, not records, and that the lack of clarity of the Newspaper's requests resulted in confusion. 38 No. 2013AP1715 ¶72 To determine whether the Commission may assert its affirmative defense that no responsive record existed at the time of the Newspaper's request, we will determine whether a requested record's non-existence provides a clear statutory exception to disclosure under the public records law. See Blum, 209 Wis. 2d at 388. The [public] records law affords the right to inspect and make or receive a copy of a 'record.' George, 169 Wis. 2d at 579 (quoting Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(b)). Wisconsin Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) states that, [e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, any requester has a right to inspect any record. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) (emphasis added). Similarly, § 19.35(1)(b) states that, [e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, any requester has a right to inspect a record and to make or receive a copy of a record. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(b) (emphases added). ¶73 Accordingly, the public records law provides neither a right to inspect nor a duty to disclose a non-existent record. See George, 169 Wis. 2d at 579 (holding that [a] non-existent record cannot be inspected or copied and [t]he [public] records law does not require the custodian to . . . create a record for the benefit of a requester.). A governmental entity may not circumvent disclosure of a record by failing to create a record that it is legally required to create. However, the public records law does not require the government to create a record or release a non-existent record. The public records law is designed to make existing records available to the public unless withholding such documents is specifically authorized by 39 No. 2013AP1715 law. Gehl, 306 Wis. 2d 247, ¶13 (emphasis added) (citing Zinngrabe, 146 Wis. 2d at 633). See also Compliance Outline, supra, at 18 (The public records law provides access to existing records maintained by authorities.). Thus, [t]he public records law does not require an authority to provide requested information if no record exists . . . . Compliance Outline, supra, at 18. In short, a record's non-existence provides a clear statutory exception to disclosure under the public records law. ¶74 We are not persuaded by the Newspaper's argument that Blum applies only to a confidentiality-based clear statutory exception to disclosure. The court of appeals in Blum held that it may consider a clear statutory exception to disclosure, although the custodian did not rely on the exception in its response to a public records request. Blum, 209 Wis. 2d at 38788. Although the court discussed a confidentiality statute, it did so because that kind of statute was at issue in that case. The court did not suggest that its holding was limited to confidentiality-based statutory exceptions. Further, in Breier, the court did not address the issue of whether a custodian could assert a statutory exception, such as a record's non-existence, for the first time after a mandamus action has been filed. ¶75 We are also not persuaded by the Newspaper's argument that the Commission's affirmative defense is barred because the Commission, by failing to disclose that no record existed, hindered both the Newspaper's ability to prepare a challenge and a court's ability to review the sufficiency of the Commission's 40 No. 2013AP1715 denial. Accepting this argument would require us to overturn Blum, which we are unwilling to do. In fact, the court of appeals in Blum rejected the same argument. See id. at 386-88. The court of appeals in Blum explained that Breier requires custodians to be specific in their responses to public records requests so that courts can review the sufficiency of the responses. Id. at 386-87. However, if the information requested is specifically exempted by statute from disclosure, the legislature has already determined that the information need not be disclosed. Id. at 387. [A] reviewing court's de novo determination whether certain information is statutorily exempted from disclosure is not aided by anything a custodian might say in a denial letter, nor is it deterred by the custodian's silence. Id. at 387-88. In the present case, although the Commission's responses did not state that no record existed, that omission does not impair our ability to determine whether a statutory exemption to disclosure applies.26 ¶76 We conclude that under the circumstances presented, this court may consider whether a record existed when the public records request was made, even though the custodian's response 26 We also disagree with the Newspaper's argument that we should ignore the Commission's affirmative defense because the Commission actively misled the Newspaper into believing that a record existed. There is no evidence that the Commission actively misled the Newspaper. The Commission did not know whether a responsive record existed when it responded to the requests. In addition to the fact that no record existed that could be produced, the Commission acted reasonably in responding to what it deemed to be a request for information. 41 No. 2013AP1715 to the request did not specifically state that the record did not exist. See id. at 388 (holding that a court may consider a clear statutory exception to disclosure even if a custodian did not rely on that exception in its response to a public records request). Based on the foregoing discussion, the Commission lawfully denied the Newspaper's request because no responsive record existed at the time of the request.
¶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.
48 No. 2013AP1715 ¶89 Precedent instructs us that, as public records litigation is concerned, the Newspaper has not prevailed in substantial part in this action because the Commission acted with reasonable diligence. See Racine Educ. Ass'n II, 145 Wis. 2d at 524. ¶90 In Racine Education Association I the Racine Education Association made a public records request to the Board of Education for the Racine Unified School District on May 18, 1984. Racine Educ. Ass'n I, 129 Wis. 2d at 323. The board did not respond, so the association filed a mandamus action on June 7, 1984. Id. Also on June 7, the board filed an answer to the mandamus petition, arguing that it was exempt under sec. 19.35(1)(l), Stats., which states that compliance with a public records request is not mandated if a new record would need to be made by extracting information from existing records. Id. On June 22, 1984, the board furnished the information to the association. Id. Thereafter, the circuit court held that the action was moot and denied costs to the association. Id. The association appealed, seeking attorney fees and costs. Id. ¶91 The court of appeals held that the association was not entitled to attorney fees and costs under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2) because it had not prevailed in substantial part.29 Racine Educ. 29 In Racine Education Association I the court of appeals adopted a test for determining whether a plaintiff prevailed in substantial part and thus was entitled to reasonable attorney fees, damages, and other actual costs under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2). Racine Educ. Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ. for Racine Unified Sch. Dist., 129 Wis. 2d 319, 326-28, 385 N.W.2d 510 (Ct. App. 1986) (Racine Educ. Ass'n I). The court of appeals 49 No. 2013AP1715 Ass'n II, 145 Wis. 2d at 525. The court of appeals conclude[d] that the request was filled as soon as practicable. Id. at 524. The court of appeals reasoned that [t]he board presented evidence that three computer programs had to be written to extract the information from the archived computer tapes. Id. Further, [t]here were duplication errors and the usual program 'bugs' to be corrected. Id. The public records request was diligently, if not expediently, being worked on by several departments simultaneously. Id. at 523. The board's position throughout has been that it was not required to turn over the information to [the association], but was doing so voluntarily . . . . Id. Because the failure to timely respond to a request was caused by an unavoidable delay accompanied by due diligence in the administrative processes, the association has not substantially prevailed. Id. at 524. ¶92 Similarly, in the present case, the Commission responded with reasonable diligence to the Newspaper's public records request. Like the board in Racine Education Association, the Commission voluntarily released the requested information but maintained that it was not required to release information because no responsive record existed. In fact, the remanded the matter for the circuit court to make factual findings. Id. at 329. On remand, the circuit court awarded attorney's fees to the association. Racine Educ. Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ. for Racine Unified Sch. Dist., 145 Wis. 2d 518, 525, 427 N.W.2d 414 (Ct. App. 1988) (Racine Educ. Ass'n II). On appeal the court of appeals in Racine Education Association II reversed, holding that the association was not entitled to attorney fees. Id. 50 No. 2013AP1715 Commission released the requested information about three weeks before being served with this lawsuit, one and a half months before filing an answer to the mandamus petition, and two months before drafting the meeting minutes at issue. Before the minutes were drafted, no record containing the requested information existed. The Commission was even more diligent than the board in Racine Education Association because the Commission responded twice to the Newspaper's request before the Newspaper filed this lawsuit, whereas the board did not respond prior to being sued. ¶93 Like the duplication errors and computer bugs that prevented the requested record from being created earlier in Racine Education Association, a clerical error may have contributed to the timing of the Commission's creation of a record. The Commission intended to approve the minutes for the February 20 special meeting at its next regular meeting on March 19, according to its standard practice for approving minutes. But it was unable to do so because the minutes had not been drafted in time for the March meeting. Commissioner Rogers——the Commission's part-time volunteer secretary who typically takes notes and drafts minutes for Commission meetings——was unable to take notes on the February 20 special meeting because he could not physically attend the meeting, which was called on short notice. Accordingly, the minutes were drafted shortly before and approved at the Commission's next regular meeting, on May 22, according to its standard practice. In fact, the Commission has maintained that it was not legally 51 No. 2013AP1715 required to create those minutes, but it created them anyway. These facts do not support the Newspaper's accusation that the Commission deliberate[ly] fail[ed] to create the record in order to avoid public scrutiny for its official acts. ¶94 The Commission's reasonable conduct stands in stark contrast to record custodians' conduct that resulted in awards of reasonable attorney fees, damages, and other actual costs in other cases brought under Wis. Stat. § 19.37. For example, in State ex rel. Vaughan v. Faust, 143 Wis. 2d 868, 422 N.W.2d 898 (Ct. App. 1988), an inmate named Ralph Vaughan made a public records request on January 26, 1987, seeking records of certain parole board staff meetings. Vaughan, 143 Wis. 2d at 869. Having received no response, Vaughan repeated his records request several weeks later on February 19. Id. Still having received no response, he filed a mandamus action approximately one month later on March 13. Id. Two weeks later, on March 31, the records custodian, Gail Faust, supplied the requested information and apologized for her lateness in responding to his request. Id. Faust did not allege that the records did not exist at the time of the requests. ¶95 The court of appeals held that Vaughan was entitled to costs, fees and damages under sec. 19.37(2) . . . . Id. at 899. It reasoned that, [a]fter Vaughan began this mandamus action, Faust complied with Vaughan's requests and, by letter, apologized for the delay. She gave no explanation for that delay. Id. at 872. Faust voluntarily ceased her unexplained delay in complying with Vaughan's requests after he instituted 52 No. 2013AP1715 this mandamus action. Vaughan prevailed in substantial part. Id. at 873. ¶96 Similarly, a requester was awarded reasonable attorney fees, damages, and other actual costs in ECO, Inc., 259 Wis. 2d 276. In that case, ECO, Incorporated made a public records request to the City of Elkhorn on April 24, 1996, seeking engineering records. ECO, Inc., 259 Wis. 2d 276, ¶2. ECO was looking for these records because of severe water problems occurring on its property[.] Id. ECO suspected the problems were caused by a disruption of either a man-made or natural underground flowage as a result of utility construction. Id. [T]he City neither responded to the April 24, 1996 request nor produced the requested documents. Id., ¶24. In 1997 ECO sued the city to recover damages for the water damage to ECO's property. Id., ¶3 n.3. ¶97 After several years passed without a response to its 1996 public records request, ECO made an identical request on September 22, 2000. Id., ¶4. On October 16, 2000, the city denied the request, reasoning that the request improperly cited to the federal Freedom of Information Act instead of the Wisconsin public records law. Id., ¶4. On October 19, 2000, ECO repeated its request. Id., ¶5. On December 1, 2000, the city clerk stated that she would provide the requested records when they were ready. Id. ECO never received any further response. Id. At ECO's suggestion, the district attorney's office contacted the city at least twice, urging it to release the requested records. Id. On March 8, 2001, having heard no 53 No. 2013AP1715 further response from the city, ECO filed a mandamus action under Wis. Stat. § 19.37. Id., ¶6. The City conceded a lack of defense to the [public] records request and offered to release the records upon payment of copying costs. Id., ¶8. On March 26, 2001, the city released the records to ECO. Id. ¶98 Despite these disclosures, [ECO's chief executive officer, E. Christian Olsen] remained suspicious that additional records existed. Id., ¶9. Olsen went to city hall, where a city employee showed him that many of the records that he requested had not been disclosed. Id. Those records had been removed from the city engineer's office around the time ECO sued the city in 1997 over the water damage. Id. The records existed at the time of ECO's initial public records request in 1996. Id., ¶¶3 n.3, 9. Olsen informed the city attorney that many of his requested records had been withheld, and the city attorney stated that he would investigate the matter. Id., ¶10. On March 29, 2001, ECO sent a letter to the city attorney's office, requesting release of the withheld records. Id. The city attorney's office never responded. Id. ECO moved the circuit court to award actual, consequential and punitive damages and costs and attorney's fees . . . . Id., ¶11. ¶99 The court of appeals held that ECO is entitled to costs, fees and damages pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2). Id., ¶30. It reasoned that, under [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. Id., ¶24. The City did not provide any response 54 No. 2013AP1715 whatsoever [to ECO's initial request in 1996] and therefore did not comply with [public] records law. Id. Because we conclude that both the April 24, 1996 letter and September 22, 2000 letter were, in fact, [public] records requests which were wrongfully denied, damages must be addressed. Id., ¶30. Because the City failed to respond to ECO's request and thus failed to comply with the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 19.35(4)(a), ECO is entitled to costs, fees and damages pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2). Id. ¶100 Unlike the record custodians in Vaughan and ECO, the Commission acted with reasonable diligence in providing the requested information even when no record existed. In addition to issuing a press release, the Commission voluntarily released the requested information before being served with this lawsuit and before creating a record containing that information. Further, the Commission released that information when it said that it would——shortly after it hired a new police chief. By contrast, the custodian in Vaughan released the requested records after being sued, provided no reason for failing to release the requested records earlier, and apologized for not releasing the records sooner. In ECO, after being sued, the city conceded that it had no defense against releasing the requested records. Further, in ECO, the city still withheld some of the requested records and it ignored ECO's subsequent request to provide the records that had been withheld. ¶101 Furthermore, unlike the custodians in Vaughan and ECO, the Commission responded to the requests before being sued. In 55 No. 2013AP1715 Vaughan Vaughan made two identical requests several weeks apart, got no response to either request, and filed a mandamus action approximately two months after making the initial request. In ECO the requester got no response after several years, so he made more requests and filed a mandamus action. Some of those later requests went unanswered. In the present case, the Commission issued a press release before receiving a public records request, responded to the Newspaper's first request within two weeks, and responded to the second request within two days. The Commission did not respond to the Newspaper's final request because the Newspaper filed this lawsuit only four days after making its final request. However, the Commission released the requested information to the Newspaper within six days of this lawsuit being filed, before being served and before any record existed. ¶102 A record custodian should not automatically be subject to potential liability under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2)(a) for actively providing information, which it is not required to do in response to a public records request, to a requester when no record exists. While it might be a better course to inform a requester that no record exists,30 the language of the public 30 See Wis. Dep't of Justice, Wisconsin Public Records Law, Compliance Outline, at 18 (Sept. 2012) (citing State ex rel. Zinngrabe v. School Dist. of Sevastopol, 146 Wis. 2d 629, 431 N.W.2d 734 (Ct. App. 1988)) (If no responsive record exists, the records custodian should inform the requester of that fact.), available at http://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/default/ files/dls/public-records-compliance-outline-2012.pdf. 56 No. 2013AP1715 records law does not specifically require such a response. Indeed, custodians in ECO and Vaughan were liable for attorney fees, damages, and other actual costs, in part, because they did not respond at all to public records requests when responsive records existed at the time of the requests. Here, the Commission provided information to the Newspaper even though no record existed. The Commission's responses could have been better but the Newspaper's requests could have been clearer. To hold the Commission liable under § 19.37(2)(a) under the facts of this case would discourage, rather than encourage, communication between the government and a requester. ¶103 While the Newspaper is entitled to a timely response, it is without precedential support to argue that it was entitled to an immediate response. The Commission is under no obligation to create a record in response to a request. The Newspaper is not entitled to the release of information in response to a public records request. As we noted earlier, Wis. Stat. § 19.35(4)(a) allows a custodian a reasonable amount of time to respond to a public records request. Here, the Commission did not withhold a record or fail to timely respond; no record existed at the time of the request, the filing of the lawsuit, or even when the lawsuit was served.