Iowa ruling clarifies who must pay legal fees in FOI suits

The Iowa Supreme Court recently clarified the state’s open records statute by ruling that a government agency must prove it acted in “good faith” in withholding documents if it wants to not be liable for paying attorneys fees of people who successfully challenge freedom of information decisions.

The city of Riverdale had claimed that a state district court erred in requiring it to pay defendants’ attorneys fees because that court never explicitly said the municipality did not act in “good faith.”

But the high court held on Friday that the circumstances in the case show that the city acted without good faith and, therefore, must pay the defendants’ bill. The case involves three Iowa residents who wanted the city to release a video that shows two of them arguing with Riverdale Mayor Jeffrey Grindle about, ironically, the status of a number of open records requests that they previously filed.

The residents, Allen Diercks, Tammie Picton and Marie Randol, have a long history of requesting local government records. In a recent two year span, they submitted about 200 freedom of information requests -- 80 percent of such submissions in the 600-person city of Riverdale. They also have litigated seven other open-records suits.

In his opinion, Justice Thomas Waterman emphasized that a threat of large legal bills could deter people from challenging a city's decision to withhold records.

But, “statutory attorney-fee awards motivate lawyers to step up and fight city hall on behalf of residents whose elected officials refuse requests for disclosure,” Waterman wrote.

When Riverdale petitioned the district court to approve its denial of the defendants’ records request, the three residents filed a counterclaim to get the video.

In 2009, the district court held that the video is a public record and that the city must pay $64,732 in attorney fees to the defendants.

Riverdale appealed the fee ruling only, saying it need not pay because it acted in “good faith” in withholding the video. The city argued that it relied on the advice of its lawyer, who said that the video may qualify for an exemption because it contains information that could compromise the municipal building’s security.

The district court neither rejected the “good faith” defense outright nor did it explicitly say the city acted in bad faith, but the state supreme court upheld that ruling because there was “substantial evidence” that Riverdale did not act in good faith.

For instance, the lawyer who told the city about the confidentiality loophole was the second attorney Riverdale consulted. The first said security videos would not qualify for an open-records exemption. Moreover, the city had already given the video to a news reporter, so it voided the confidentiality claim that it tried to use with the three defendants, according to the opinion.

The supreme court also held that the district court’s finding that Riverdale violated the open records statute in withholding the video was an implicit rejection of the “good faith” defense. Under Iowa law, a government agency does not violate the open records statute if it delays releasing the document to determine if the record is confidential.

In the district court's ruling, Judge Nancy S. Tabor said that the video should have been considered public in the first place. Tabor also said the court had "no doubt" that Mayor Grindle considered the defendants' public records requests to be "frivolous and a nuisance." She also said the video of Grindle and two of the defendants arguing is "is clear and convincing evidence of the Mayor's lack of tolerance for public records requests of both Dr. Diercks and Mrs. Picton."

Riverdale’s attorney, Michael Motto, said city officials are disappointed because they believe they acted within the statute’s remit.

To Diercks, who said he files these requests to hold government accountable, the ruling gives hope to the “little guy” who can’t pay to sue over records decisions.

“It’s a damn shame that a private citizen that doesn’t have the resources I have cannot go after these people,” said Diercks, who is a chiropractor. “They have to sit there and take it.”