ILNews

Private parties liable for attorney fees in open records disputes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed a trial court’s ruling that held a private party liable for attorney fees in an Access to Public Records Act claim.

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades filed a complaint against the Metropolitan School District of Warren Township after the township and the Public Access Counselor the denied a request to inspect and copy payroll records. The records had been submitted by ShepCo Commercial Finishes, a subcontractor on a public-works project.

Although the trial court denied the township’s motion to add ShepCo as a necessary party, it did grant ShepCo’s motion to intervene.

After a hearing, the trial court entered summary judgment for the union and ordered the township to disclose the records. The trial court also awarded the union $20,234 in attorney fees against the township and ShepCo, jointly and severally.

The union then filed a motion to amend the final judgment seeking additional attorney fees expended by its counsel in litigating the original request for attorney fees. The trial court entered an amended judgment awarding the union an additional $2,425.

ShepCo appealed; the Court of Appeals concluded that the company was not liable for attorney fees because it was not a public agency that denied access to public records.

The Supreme Court reversed that decision, finding that private parties may be liable for attorney fees under the APRA.  

Writing for the court, Justice Steven David argued, “To shield private entities from liability for attorney’s fees would thwart, rather than further, the public policy underlying APRA. Here, the legislature has made is clear that the APRA must be ‘liberally construed to implement’ the policy of full access to public records and transparency of government affairs. And the legislature clearly contemplated the involvement of private parties in APRA litigation. Removing from private entities any fear of liability for attorney’s fees would deter persons seeking to inspect public records from filing APRA actions, as the private entities could assert non-meritorious defenses to avoid disclosure and drive up litigation costs.”

The Supreme Court affirmed the award of attorney fees to the union and remanded to the trial court to determine what additional attorney fees the union incurred as a result of ShepCo’s appeal.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT