d. Patterns for future access (declaratory judgment)

A judicial action for access to public records may include a demand for declaratory judgment, asking the trial court to declare that a particular category of requested records is public under the Public Records Law. Ala. Code § 6-6-220, et seq., and Rule 57 of the Alabama Rules for Civil Procedure provide for an action for declaratory judgment.

No cases specifically relating to this issue are addressed here.

(This section is blank. See the point above.)

A declaratory judgment may be appropriate in an action brought under the FOIA. Depoyster v. Cole, 298 Ark. 203, 766 S.W.2d 606 (1989), overruled on other grounds by Harris v. City of Ft. Smith, 366 Ark. 277, 234 S.W.3d 875 (2006); Ark. Gazette Co. v. Pickens, 258 Ark. 69, 522 S.W.2d 350 (1975). However, a party seeking declaratory relief must exhaust administrative remedies. Rehab Hosp. Servs. Corp. v. Delta-Hills Health Sys. Agency Inc., 285 Ark. 397, 687 S.W.2d 840 (1985). A court has discretion in deciding whether to entertain an action for declaratory judgment, Jessup v. Carmichael, 224 Ark. 230, 232, 272 S.W.2d 438, 440 (1954), and the presence of factual issues may make the case unsuitable for declaratory relief. See Jones v. Am. Home Assur. Co., No. CA04-1345, 2005 WL 1463406, at *3 (Ark. Ct. App. June 22, 2005); Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co. v. Kildow, 9 Ark. App. 86, 654 S.W.2d 600 (1983).

Upon the filing of a complaint for declaratory relief, the court may enter a prospective order governing future rights of access to the records or a class of records; otherwise the court shall not issue any order applying to future denials of disclosure of records by the agency.

No decided cases on this point.

(This section is blank. See the point above.)

A declaratory judgment action is a permissible means of bringing an alleged violation of the Act to the attention of the court in an attempt to gain future access to the information. Likewise, declaratory actions can be brought for a finding that no such violation occurred. See, e.g., Bd. of Managers of the Delaware Crim. Just. Info. Sys. v. Gannett Co., 808 A.2d 453 (Del. Super. 2002) (where a declaratory action was brought by the State after a media company sought information).

Florida trial courts have jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment determining the rights and obligations of parties under Chapter 119. See Fla. Stat. § 86.011 (1991). Cf. Roberts v. News-Press Publ’g Co., 409 So. 2d 1089, 1092 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982); State ex. rel. Haft v. Adams, 238 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1970). However, a public agency may not file a declaratory action. See Fla. Stat. § 119.07(9) (2021).

The courts are authorized to enjoin future violations.

Yes. It is likely that the court will defer to the OIP, which has been given the mandate to provide advisory opinions at the request of the agencies and individuals and which has been given the power to enforce compliance and to investigate violations. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-42.

None specified.

The Access to Public Records Act does not contemplate declaratory judgment actions unless there has been a denial.  However, the Indiana Convention and Visitors Association brought a declaratory judgment action to determine if it must respond to a request for disclosure from Indianapolis Newspapers Inc. Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Ass’n Inc. v. Indianapolis Newspapers Inc., 577 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. 1991). The answer was yes because the association was a “public agency.” Id.

The Court has the authority to grant appropriate relief, including a declaratory judgment. Iowa Code § 22.10; see also Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1101.

Kentucky’s Open Records Act does not include any express provisions regarding declaratory judgments.

Yes. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44:35(A).

A declaratory judgment may be sought, but in practice a court's decision with respect to one record will be treated as if it were a declaratory judgment pertaining to all similar records.

If an agency has frustrated judicial review by presenting testimony or affidavit in conclusory form, the trial court may, depending upon all of the circumstances, appropriately exercise its discretion by ordering more detailed affidavits or by conducting an in-camera inspection, or simply by ordering disclosure because of the agency's failure to meet its burden of satisfying the court that an exemption applies. See § 4-362(c)(2); Epps v. Simms, 89 Md. App. 271, 598 A.2d 756 (1991); Cranford v. Montgomery County, 300 Md. 759, 481 A.2d 221 (1984).

The ultimate standard for determining whether an in-camera inspection is to be made is whether the trial judge believes that it is needed in order to make a responsible determination on claims of exemptions. Epps, 89 Md. App. 271, 598 A.2d 756. Factors that may be involved in determining whether an in-camera inspection is necessary include: (1) judicial economy; (2) conclusory nature of the agency affidavits; (3) bad faith on the part of the agency; (4) disputes concerning the contents of the document; (5) whether the agency has proposed in-camera inspection; and (6) the strength of public interest in disclosure. Id. The court has the power to issue injunctions or institute disciplinary actions. See § 4-362(c)(3) and (e); Equitable Trust Co. v. State, Comm'n on Human Relations, 42 Md. App. 53, 399 A.2d 908 (1979), rev'd on other grounds 287 Md. 80, 411 A.2d 86 (1980).

Authority to make declaratory judgments exists but is always discretionary with the court. See G.L. c. 231 A.

Not addressed.

This is not addressed under the Act.

Declaratory judgment on procedural issues is available in Mississippi. Miss. R. Civ. P. 57.

The Sunshine Law authorizes a public governmental body which is in doubt about the legality of closing a particular meeting, record, or vote to bring a suit at its own expense in the circuit court of the county of its principal place of business to ascertain the propriety of any such action. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.027(5). However, a court will not provide declaratory relief unless there is an actual meeting, record or vote at issue. See Fulson v. Kansas City Star Company, 816 S.W.2d 297, 299 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991) (denied declaratory relief sought by board of directors of school district and newspaper because questions were abstract, and did not relate to particular meetings, records, or votes of the school district).

It is not necessary to file a declaratory judgment action in order to obtain continuing relief.

No law.

There is no statutory or case law addressing the issue

Yes, see RSA 91-A:8,V. “The court may also enjoin future violations of this chapter, and may require any officer, employee, or other official of a public body or public agency found to have violated the provisions of this chapter to undergo appropriate remedial training, at such person or person's expense.”

See New Jersey’s Declaratory Judgment Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:16-59, et. seq.  See also Matter of New Jersey Firemen’s Association Obligation to Provide Relief Applications Under Open Public Records Act, 230 N.J. 258 (2017), involving a government record request made to the New Jersey Firemen’s Association. The Association denied access to the requested records and filed a declaratory judgment action to obtain a judicial determination of its responsibilities under the Open Public Records Act. The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that once the Association denied access to the requested records, the Open Public Records Act authorized only the requestor to seek judicial review of that decision.

Courts can order any appropriate remedy to enforce the provision of Public Records Act, including provisions for future compliance, damages and attorneys' fees.  NMSA 1978 §§ 14-2-12(D).

Courts generally will not issue advisory opinions or declaratory judgments on future access questions. See, e.g., Town of Woodstock v. Goodson-Todman Enter., 133 Misc.2d 12, 505 N.Y.S.2d 540 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (holding that town’s declaratory judgment action on propriety of its denial was improper; court will not issue what would essentially be an advisory opinion); see Paul Smith’s Coll. of Arts and Sciences v. Cuomo, 186 A.D.2d 888, 589 N.Y.S.2d 106 (3d Dep’t 1992); cf Seeling v. Sielaff, 201 A.D.2d 298, 607 N.Y.S.2d 300 (1st Dep’t 1994) (converting Article 78 into a declaratory judgment and declaring that the release of Social Security numbers constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy).

Statutory construction. The FOIL is to be liberally construed. Statutory language is generally given its natural and most obvious meaning. Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v. Whalen, 69 N.Y.2d 246, 505 N.E.2d 932, 513 N.Y.S.2d 367 (1987).  Although FOIL exemptions exemptions are to be narrowly construed, “they must, nonetheless, be given their natural and obvious meaning where such interpretation is consistent with the legislative intent and with the general purpose and manifest policy underlying FOIL.” Matter of Federation of N.Y.S. Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. New York City Police Dep’t, 73 N.Y.2d 92, 96 538 N.Y.S.2d 226, 228, 535 N.E.2d 279, 281 (1989) (citation omitted).

Most complaints for violation of the public records law contain parallel requests for declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment act. G.S. §§ 1-253 et seq.

If a court finds a violation, the court may award declaratory relief, an injunction, a writ of prohibition or mandamus, costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney’s fees against the entity. N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.2(1).

Suits seeking access to public records may be commenced in the first instance in any appellate level court or in the trial level court. An appellate level court will write opinions. Those opinions have the effect of declaratory judgments making law that guides public offices and requesters in future situations.

However, the Ohio Supreme Court has refused to issue a writ of mandamus to require an agency to prospectively make certain records available. State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 120 Ohio St. 3d 372, 384, 899 N.E.2d 961, 974, 2008-Ohio-6253, ¶ 47 (denying writ of mandamus to compel the board, in the future, to promptly make public records available for inspection upon request).

Declaratory judgments may be sought. 51 O.S. § 24A.17(B).

Declaratory relief may be sought.

Yes.

Declaratory judgments may be sought. R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-8(b).

The act allows declaratory judgments as well as injunctive relief.

Presumably.

Court is “empowered to exercise full injunctive relief and remedies.” T.C.A. § 10-7-505(d).

A governmental body may file a declaratory judgment action against the Attorney General to determine its rights and liabilities under the Act. City of Garland, 22 S.W.3d 351. A requestor may also file a declaratory judgment action. Dominguez v. Gilbert, 48 S.W.3d 789, 796 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, no pet.).  However, the Austin Court of Appeals stated that while under earlier versions of the Act, requestors could sue for declaratory judgment in addition to mandamus, the Court declined to express an opinion as to whether the 1999 amendments to the Act changed the law in that regard.  Id.

 

The court can order the disclosure of a record with restrictions on future access. See Utah Code § 63G-2-404(7)(b).

Declaratory judgment is a possibility, although not specifically mentioned, to set up future guidelines.  No published cases in Vermont have analyzed a declaratory judgment claim under the Public Records Act.

(This section is blank. See the point above.)

There is no specific provision in the Open Records Law for declaratory relief.