E. Are there sanctions for unapproved comment?

The Act does not set forth any sanction for unapproved comment.

K. On-line dissemination.

On request, agencies are required to make available where practicable by electronic means, including Internet access, records maintained by computer.  O.C.G.A. 50-18-70(g.

f. Tape recording requirements.

There are no tape recording requirements for closed meetings under the Act.

H. Post-trial records



Post-trial records are also presumptively open. See The Atlanta Journal-Constitution v. Long, 259 Ga. 23, 24 (1989) (vacating an order sealing from public access “all pleadings and discovery, either pre-trial or post-trial, for the duration of the records’ existence”).

a. Bodies receiving public funds or benefits.

Any entity, business or organization that serves a public function, including any non-profit entity, is subject to the Act's requirements. See, e.g., Northwest Ga. Health Sys. v. Times-Journal, 218 Ga. App. 336, 340, 461 S.E.2d 297 (1995) (nonprofit entities operating "as vehicles for public agencies" are subject to the Act regardless of the amount of funding they receive from the public); see also Hackworth v. Board of Ed., 214 Ga. App.

6. Material is not cumulative

The Georgia privilege cannot be overcome where a party seeks testimony or materials that would be cumulative of existing evidence. See, e.g., In re Paul, 270 Ga. 680, 682 (Ga. 1999) ("Not only does the state have at least two confessions on videotape, where the jury can observe the defendant, but the state also presented expert testimony of a forensic psychiatrist. Thus, the state does not need the reporter's testimony to prepare or present its case to the jury concerning Jill's mental state when he confessed to police.").

b. Fees for records.

The courts are authorized to examine whether fee requests violate the Act.

K. Gun permits.

The Act is not applicable to gun permit information.  O.C.G.A. 50-18-72(d).

IX. Interests often cited in opposing a presumption of access



While there is a presumption of access, that presumption may in theory be overcome “by evidence constituting ‘clear and convincing proof’ that no means available other than closure of the hearing will serve to protect the right of the movant.” R.W. Page Corp. v. Lumpkin, 249 Ga. 576, 580 (1982).