June 24, 2004

State Supreme Court clarifies FOIA requirements

The state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that government must provide citizens with information contained in public records, even if other information in those same documents is exempt from West Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act.

The justices’ 4-1 decision clarified the law and puts the onus of providing information to citizens squarely on the government rather than the public, said Jason Huber, a lawyer for Mullens resident Jeff Farley, the plaintiff in the case.

Farley wrote the town of Mullens and asked for a list of all business and occupation tax scofflaws, as well as a list of everyone who owed overdue garbage and sewer bills. The town denied his request because tax returns are private.

Later, when Farley sued, the town agreed to Huber’s compromise to give Farley a list of the amounts each person owed, without revealing their identities.

The case reached the Supreme Court because Circuit Judge Michael Thornsbury refused to order the town to pay Huber’s legal fees. Farley did not prevail in the case because he did not get the information requested in his original letter, Thornsbury ruled.

The court said Wednesday that Thornsbury was wrong and ordered the town to pay Huber.

While doing so the court also set two new legal precedents:

• It is the duty of a public agency to provide information contained in a document, even if that record contains other information that must be blanked out because it does not fall under the FOIA law.

In Farley’s case, the court said it wasn’t his responsibility to know the law allows him to request the amount of the delinquent tax payments without the names of those who failed to pay.

“[T]he circuit court erred by giving Mr. Farley’s initial FOIA request far too narrow a construction and implicitly holding that unless a FOIA requestor specifically asks for redacted information, that redacted information need not be provided,” said the court’s opinion, written by Justice Robin Davis.

“Consequently, [o]ne should normally presume that a request for information under the FOIA is a request for all or any, not for all or none, of the information described,” Davis wrote, quoting the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

Huber said this part of the ruling is good for the average citizen, who might not be familiar with the intricacies of FOIA.

“In Jeff’s case they just sent him a denial,” Huber said. “The common thought is, ‘I’ll write a letter and get whatever I need.’ When you get a letter back ... it deters people from filing litigation. This opinion could reduce litigation because it will automatically result in citizens getting information.”

• The court also cleared up confusion regarding when the government has to provide a list of documents it is withholding under exemptions in the FOIA law, known as a “Vaughn index.”

Unless a lawsuit is filed, public agencies do not have to provide a list of documents they withheld and the reasons why the documents fall under an exemption, the court ruled. Huber had argued the list was required when a citizen first files a FOIA request.

Huber conceded that this aspect of the ruling could be a setback. The confusion over when a Vaughn index is required had many agencies providing it without a lawsuit first being filed. Nevertheless, Davis urged agencies to provide the lists anyway, in order to avoid litigation.

The court also ruled that an explanation is required no matter which exemption a government agency is claiming. The city of Mullens had argued that list requirement only applied under one specific exemption the court mentioned in a previous ruling — an assertion commonly held by some agencies.

Justice Larry Starcher dissented from part of the ruling.

To contact staff writer Chris Wetterich, use e-mail or call 348-3023.