ILNews

Public-record email case focuses on scope of requests

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A dustup over access to public records reveals an uncertain standard exists for what is considered a reasonable request to disclose public officials’ emails under Indiana public record laws.

The Indiana Court of Appeals on Dec. 18 heard arguments in Seth Anderson v. Huntington County Board of Commissioners, 35A04-1207-MI-357. Judges Michael Barnes and Elaine Brown and Presiding Judge John Baker had tough questions about why Seth Anderson’s appeal proceeded after the county relented and provided him the emails he requested, which totaled more than 9,000.

anderson Anderson

“Right now, there’s a bigger issue,” Anderson’s attorney, Justin Wall of Huntington, argued after judges suggested the lawsuit boiled down to a complaint for attorney fees. “Mr. Anderson’s rights really have been infringed,” Wall said.

He said Anderson received the emails he requested from the Huntington County commissioners only after he filed a lawsuit because his request was initially denied by local officials – an opinion that was affirmed when it was appealed to the state Office of Public Access Counselor.

“He didn’t change one thing in his request, and he received the emails,” Wall said. “We believe the impetus to receiving them was litigation.”

Huntington County Deputy Attorney Matthew Grantham told the court, “I think we are just here about attorney fees. … We don’t believe (Anderson) prevails properly.”

Anderson, an engineer who also has been a blogger, occasional radio personality and candidate for Huntington County Council in the 2012 Republican primary, had asked for emails sent and received by four public officials within a certain timeframe. He was looking into why three local officials were dismissed.

In an interview, Anderson said that he pursued the appeal because he saw fundamental principals at stake.

“The citizenry has a right to inspect those documents,” Anderson said. “I think there should be more scrutiny on public officials, and the current public access counselor ruling makes it difficult for citizens to oversee them.”

hoage Hoage

Indeed, Huntington County officials provided Anderson with the emails he sought in spite of a public access counselor ruling that said they didn’t have to. The PAC ruled Anderson’s request wasn’t made with “reasonable particularity” as required under I.C. 5-14-3-3.

“There have been dozens and dozens of cases or appeals to the public access counselor that have been denied” for lack of reasonable particularity, Anderson said.

Public Access Counselor Joe Hoage said complaints about denial of access to email make up a relatively small portion of his office’s caseload. Nevertheless, he said Anderson’s case may further define “reasonable particularity.”

Current PAC opinions hold that to meet that standard, a request must name the sender and recipient as well as the period of time for which emails are sought.

“The public access counselor’s office has been pretty consistent on it,” Hoage said. But neither the courts nor the Legislature has affirmed the guidance of the PAC’s opinions, he explained.

“I can see both sides of this argument,” Hoage said in an interview. “Hopefully, we can have a definitive answer on what reasonable particularity means in the scope of email communication.”

Hoage said he advises public officials using government-funded email accounts that they should have no expectation of privacy. “Almost every single time you send or receive an email, it’s going to be considered a public record,” he said. “The general rule is the record is disclosable.”

But there are exceptions, among them: Judges’ emails are exempt; law enforcement emails that are investigatory or work product are protected from disclosure; any attorney-client communication would not be considered public; and “deliberative material” can be exempt. An example of the latter, Hoage said, could be officials’ discussions on the pros and cons of building a bridge.

Grantham, the Huntington County deputy attorney, said the county and other public agencies have both an obligation to provide public records and a duty to protect records that might be confidential. While Wall argued that technology has made fulfilling email requests a searchable function that can be done with relative ease and little time and expense, Grantham said that’s not quite the whole story.

To fulfill Anderson’s request, he said, the emails had to be identified and then a human resources employee had to screen the emails and redact potentially private information or that which would not be subject to a public records disclosure.

Attorneys in the Anderson case also disagreed over how much weight the court should give opinions of the public access counselor.

“We ought to give due deference to his opinion,” Grantham said. “I don’t believe there needs to be a precise test” for reasonable particularity. Wall said that standard should be “literally construed in favor of persons like Mr. Anderson.”

During Wall’s rebuttal, Baker had sharp words for him, suggesting that little could stop him from seeking transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court in an to attempt to rack up more attorney fees.

“You ask for too much, you get nothing,” Baker said. “…When Anderson gets everything he wanted … he’s not harmed.

“Bears make money, bulls make money, but pigs get slaughtered,” Baker said.

Wall replied that he was following advice from his elders to fight for what’s right.

Anderson said that’s why he decided to pursue the appeal, too; that attorney fees weren’t the issue.

“It’s a lot of money to me that I’ve funded this with because I know there are a lot of people out there who I don’t believe would have gotten to the point I’ve gotten to,” he said.

“When the records were provided to me, a letter came along that said, ‘here are the emails, even though we’re under no legal obligation’” to furnish them, Anderson said. “I want there to be a legal obligation to provide those records.”•
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT