Governments turn tables by suing public records requesters

#3
#3
Shouldn't this be in the "List the things that government does well" thread?

/s
 
#5
#5
I'm surprised armchair hasn't made an appearance to tell us how the government is doing this for our own good.
 
#7
#7
Your tax dollars at work. Governments suing citizens who are seeking information they can't get anywhere else.
 
#10
#10
i really don't think the government should have the ability to use a civil lawsuit. seems like double dipping. at least against individuals and citizens. I would be fine if used against corporations, but they would never bite the hand that feeds them.
 
#11
#11
Literally appears to be tax dollars being used by people payed by tax dollars from doing the job for which they are being paid the aforementioned tax dollars.

State freedom-of-information laws generally allow requesters who believe they are wrongly denied records to file lawsuits seeking to force their release. If they succeed, government agencies can be ordered to pay their legal fees and court costs.
Suing the requesters flips the script: Even if agencies are ultimately required to make the records public, they typically will not have to pay the other side’s legal bills.


“You can lose even when you win,” said Mike Deshotels, an education watchdog who was sued by the Louisiana Department of Education after filing requests for school district enrollment data last year. “I’m stuck with my legal fees just for defending my right to try to get these records.”
Click to expand...

Burn this all to the ground. Anybody and everybody associated with such shenanigans needs ousted.
 
#12
#12
Well, I can't speak for other states, but in Florida if you make a public records request and the agency does not respond quickly you can sue the agency and you get your attorney fees if the failure to give you the records was unjustified. There are attorneys who routinely take such cases.

The headline is a bit misleading because it's not until fairly far down in the article that you read that the lawsuits do not seek money or damages from the person who made the request. These kinds of lawsuits have to name somebody as the respondent and the agency is just seeking what we called declaratory relief,ie they want the court to determine whether a request should be granted.

For example, I saw that one of the requests was for investigations of sexual abuse. I can see why an agency would be very concerned that it is disclosing confidential information. They don't want to get sued by the subject of the information by having disclosed that information to a random person who asked for it.

So I can see filing suit to ask a court what the answer is in a particular situation. They name the person who asked as a vehicle to get it into court, not because they are seeking anything from them for having made the request. The article gives the misimpression that the lawsuit is somehow retaliatory. In reality, I can certainly see situations in which such a lawsuit seeking guidance from the court would be very wise by a public agency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
Well, I can't speak for other states, but in Florida if you make a public records request and the agency does not respond quickly you can sue the agency and you get your attorney fees if the failure to give you the records was unjustified. There are attorneys who routinely take such cases.

The headline is a bit misleading because it's not until fairly far down in the article that you read that the lawsuits do not seek money or damages from the person who made the request. These kinds of lawsuits have to name somebody as the respondent and the agency is just seeking what we called declaratory relief,ie they want the court to determine whether a request should be granted.

For example, I saw that one of the requests was for investigations of sexual abuse. I can see why an agency would be very concerned that it is disclosing confidential information. They don't want to get sued by the subject of the information by having disclosed that information to a random person who asked for it.

So I can see filing suit to ask a court what the answer is in a particular situation. They name the person who asked as a vehicle to get it into court, not because they are seeking anything from them for having made the request. The article gives the misimpression that the lawsuit is somehow retaliatory. In reality, I can certainly see situations in which such a lawsuit seeking guidance from the court would be very wise by a public agency.
Click to expand...

They may not be asking for damages but unless the requester has deep pockets the legal fees are a huge deterrent.
 
#14
#14
hog88 said:
They may not be asking for damages but unless the requester has deep pockets the legal fees are a huge deterrent.
Click to expand...

As I say, in Florida, it doesn't work that way. If you don't get the records and sue, you get awarded your attorneys fees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
As I say, in Florida, it doesn't work that way. If you don't get the records and sue, you get awarded your attorneys fees.
Click to expand...

So you are out of pocket your attorney fees until it goes to court? That could be put off for months.
 
#16
#16
hog88 said:
I'm surprised armchair hasn't made an appearance to tell us how the government is doing this for our own good.
Click to expand...


Just the opposite in this case. Freedom of Information is a very big deal--very important for any democracy as the people are entitled to see public records, though they are exceptions and, in some states, quite a lot of them. Unsurprisingly, Republican are more likely to try and cover their trail in agencies and legislative matters. Indeed, Trump has refused to provide lists of people visiting Mar-a-Largo and is being sued--and rightfully so. Of course the Republicans have worked in secret to devise their health-care bills because they know what they are doing (screwing Americans) is not going to be popular. The Kansas GOP legislator who's leading Trump's fraudulent voter-fraud commission, Kris Kobach, has been using a private email for commission business so that he doesn't have to reveal correspondence. Kobach has been caught lying about "voter fraud" repeatedly over the years--he's another dishonest GOP sleaze.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kris-kobach-private-email_us_59c15bfbe4b0f22c4a8d1dbd
 
#17
#17
lawgator1 said:
Well, I can't speak for other states, but in Florida if you make a public records request and the agency does not respond quickly you can sue the agency and you get your attorney fees if the failure to give you the records was unjustified. There are attorneys who routinely take such cases.

The headline is a bit misleading because it's not until fairly far down in the article that you read that the lawsuits do not seek money or damages from the person who made the request. These kinds of lawsuits have to name somebody as the respondent and the agency is just seeking what we called declaratory relief,ie they want the court to determine whether a request should be granted.

For example, I saw that one of the requests was for investigations of sexual abuse. I can see why an agency would be very concerned that it is disclosing confidential information. They don't want to get sued by the subject of the information by having disclosed that information to a random person who asked for it.

So I can see filing suit to ask a court what the answer is in a particular situation. They name the person who asked as a vehicle to get it into court, not because they are seeking anything from them for having made the request. The article gives the misimpression that the lawsuit is somehow retaliatory. In reality, I can certainly see situations in which such a lawsuit seeking guidance from the court would be very wise by a public agency.
Click to expand...

Okay, the big question is who makes that initial determination that it should be filed in court to make the determination on whether it can be released.

Does that make sense? I.E. State Agency gets a FOIA request, who says whether it's reasonable and it should go to court. What justification or conditions do they use to make that initial call?
 
#18
#18
Grand Vol said:
Okay, the big question is who makes that initial determination that it should be filed in court to make the determination on whether it can be released.

Does that make sense? I.E. State Agency gets a FOIA request, who says whether it's reasonable and it should go to court. What justification or conditions do they use to make that initial call?
Click to expand...

In my experience dealing with local agencies dealing with these, they designate someone to run that task. They automatically react things like dates of birth and social security numbers. And if there is a concern about releasing confidential info they go to the agency attorney for guidance.
 
#19
#19
lawgator1 said:
In my experience dealing with local agencies dealing with these, they designate someone to run that task. They automatically react things like dates of birth and social security numbers. And if there is a concern about releasing confidential info they go to the agency attorney for guidance.
Click to expand...

Right, I think you missed what I was asking (I might not have been clear)

What conditions are set on whether or not someone could/should have access and who doesn't? And are there uniform standards/state guidelines on such things?

It's easy to say "nah, you don't need access" and put it into court to determine if they really do or should get access. To me, it seems like a system set up for potential abuse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#20
#20
Grand Vol said:
Right, I think you missed what I was asking (I might not have been clear)

What conditions are set on whether or not someone could/should have access and who doesn't? And are there uniform standards/state guidelines on such things?

It's easy to say "nah, you don't need access" and put it into court to determine if they really do or should get access. To me, it seems like a system set up for potential abuse.
Click to expand...


Oh, I'm sorry, yes I did not understand the question.

In Florida, all documents are public records, but then there is a very lengthy and intricate statute describing exemptions. Medical records, school records, other sensitive things. Or records within records, like social security numbers, home addresses of police officers, state attorneys, that sort of thing.

It is very detailed, so most of the time it is easy to figure out what is, and is not, public record. But of course there are exceptions. They rarely get litigated and usually get worked out. The most famous I can think of is when Dale Earnhardt Sr. got killed at Daytona. A lot of the local news media wanted his autopsy, including photos, and there was litigation over whether that was to be disclosed, though I do not recall the outcome.
 
#21
#21
lawgator1 said:
Oh, I'm sorry, yes I did not understand the question.

In Florida, all documents are public records, but then there is a very lengthy and intricate statute describing exemptions. Medical records, school records, other sensitive things. Or records within records, like social security numbers, home addresses of police officers, state attorneys, that sort of thing.

It is very detailed, so most of the time it is easy to figure out what is, and is not, public record. But of course there are exceptions. They rarely get litigated and usually get worked out. The most famous I can think of is when Dale Earnhardt Sr. got killed at Daytona. A lot of the local news media wanted his autopsy, including photos, and there was litigation over whether that was to be disclosed, though I do not recall the outcome.
Click to expand...

Seems like Florida is on the right track (no pun intended) however, other States can (and probably will) use this kind of thing as an excuse not to go through with an FOIA request.
 
#22
#22
Grand Vol said:
Seems like Florida is on the right track (no pun intended) however, other States can (and probably will) use this kind of thing as an excuse not to go through with an FOIA request.
Click to expand...


I can tell you that the agencies I represent are always very anxious to comply. It just looks terrible to be slow or to withhold documents unless an exemption clearly applies, and nobody wants to be labeled as uncooperative on such matters.

And it works both ways. There was a guy down here who would show up and find a random employee and demand to immediately see x, y, z document. For example, he might go up to a receptionist at a state prison and demand to see the contracts for lawn maintenance. When she could not answer him, he would sue.

He had the same lawyers handle this and it worked a few times. But then the courts caught on to the gimmick and the agencies stuck up for themselves and he lost a couple of them.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top