Brawley v. Richland Cnty.

• Docket Number: 6090,Appellate Case 2020-001135
• Decision Date: 25 September 2024
• Citation: Brawley v. Richland Cnty., 6090, Appellate Case 2020-001135 (S.C. App. Sep 25, 2024)
• Parties: Wendy Brawley, Respondent/Appellant, v. Richland County, South Carolina, Appellant/Respondent.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

1

Wendy Brawley, Respondent/Appellant, v. Richland County, South Carolina, Appellant/Respondent.

No. 6090

Appellate Case No. 2020-001135

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

September 25, 2024

Heard May 7, 2024

Appeal From Richland County DeAndrea G. Benjamin, Circuit Court Judge

Jenkins M. Mann and Shaun C. Blake, both of Mann Blake &Jackson, of Columbia, for Respondent/Appellant.

Andrew F. Lindemann, of Lindemann Law Firm, P.A., of Columbia, for Appellant/Respondent.

HEWITT, J.

This cross-appeal concerns the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In 2014, Wendy Brawley sent four FOIA requests to Richland County (the County) regarding the "Lower Richland Sewer Project."^[1] The County had recently applied for a federal grant and loan to fund the project. In one of her requests, Brawley sought the loan application for the project and any supporting documentation. After the County provided Brawley with a response she deemed inadequate Brawley filed suit.

The County produced the loan application and a trove of additional documents related to the sewer project prior to any significant adversarial proceedings. Years later, a one-day bench trial resulted in a finding that the County violated FOIA and an award to Brawley of roughly $81,000 in attorney's fees and costs.

There is sufficient evidence in the record to affirm the circuit court's finding that the County violated FOIA. Though we agree with the circuit court that Brawley partially prevailed and is entitled to an award of reasonable fees, there are material errors affecting Brawley's award. We regret prolonging this already lengthy litigation, but these errors necessitate reversal and a remand.

BACKGROUND

Sometime between the years 2010 and 2013, the County applied for a loan and grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development office (the USDA) to fund the Lower Richland Sewer Project. The project involved expanding the County's sewer service.

In September 2014, Brawley submitted four separate FOIA requests to the County related to this project. In one of those requests-the one at issue here-Brawley sought "a copy of the application and supporting documentation" that the County submitted to the USDA. The County responded by letter stating that it was researching Brawley's request and that it would release the information.

About one week later, the County produced six pages of documents. This production included a one-page, signed but undated application for federal assistance. Brawley understandably did not believe this was a full response; the loan request was for several million dollars. Brawley filed suit in March 2015.

The first cause of action in Brawley's lawsuit sought declaratory relief. As relevant here, Brawley sought declarations that the County failed to fully respond to her FOIA requests; that she was entitled to full and complete responses; and that she was entitled to costs and reasonable attorney's fees. Brawley's second cause of action was for temporary and permanent injunctive relief. There, Brawley asked the court to enjoin the County from taking several actions related to the project.

The lawsuit resulted in Brawley receiving a significant number of additional documents in relatively short order. In June 2015, about three months after Brawley filed suit, the County produced fifty-five pages of supplemental materials beyond the six-page FOIA response. These documents included a 2012 application requesting federal assistance for the sewer project. The application was signed by Andy Metts, the then-director of the County's utilities department.

The County also offered Brawley the opportunity to review its entire project file, and she accepted the offer about eight months later in February 2016. The file was apparently quite large and filled several feet of bankers' boxes. Brawley identified roughly 120 pages of additional documents during this inspection that she claimed were relevant to her FOIA request.

There was little court involvement in this case until long after the County's supplemental productions. In due time, however, the circuit court dismissed Brawley's injunctive claims because the requested relief-things like enjoining the County from contacting residents about the project or enjoining the County from going forward with the project-was not authorized under FOIA. The circuit court also dismissed a co-plaintiff from the case and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the County on three of Brawley's four FOIA requests because there was no dispute that those requests were fully resolved. The co-plaintiff and the reasons for its dismissal are not relevant to this appeal. As this paragraph's opening advertised, the point of this description is that the scope of the case significantly narrowed not long after the case was filed and that the bulk of the court activity in the case occurred well after the County's supplemental document productions.

The only FOIA request that was not resolved on summary judgment was the request at issue here-the request for the loan application and supporting documentation. The one-day bench trial on that request occurred roughly three years after the summary judgment order. Three witnesses testified: Brawley; Sara Salley, who worked in the County's administration office at the time of the FOIA request; and Metts.

The trial focused on whether the County had conducted a diligent search for responsive documents before sending Brawley the six pages of materials as its FOIA response. Salley testified that she did not take part in completing the loan application for the sewer project and that she did not maintain a file on the project. Metts testified, however, that the six pages of documents the County initially provided to Brawley came from Salley's office. Metts explained that when he was unable to locate a copy of any applications in the utilities department, he or his staff contacted Salley for assistance.

The circuit court issued an order finding the County had violated FOIA by not conducting a reasonable investigation for all relevant documents before responding to Brawley. The order also included an injunction requiring the County to conduct an additional search and to produce any responsive documents within fifteen days.

The County filed a post-trial motion that, among other things, argued the circuit court could not order the production of additional documents because a prior circuit court order dismissed Brawley's cause of action seeking injunctive relief. The circuit court agreed with this argument in an amended order.

Both the original order and the amended order addressed attorney's fees by ruling that Brawley was entitled to fees but leaving the amount of fees open. Brawley filed an "affidavit as to attorney's fees and costs." The circuit court initially awarded Brawley roughly $81,000 in fees and costs, which was the exact amount Brawley requested. After the County asked the circuit court to reconsider, the court reduced the award by about $400.

ISSUES

The County asserts that the circuit court erred in finding a FOIA violation. The County also argues that the court erred in awarding Brawley attorney's fees and costs because the court lacked jurisdiction to determine fees, or, in the alternative, because Brawley prevailed only in part.

Brawley contends the circuit court erred in removing the injunction requiring the County to search for and produce additional documents.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"A declaratory judgment action under . . . FOIA to determine whether certain information should be disclosed is an action at law." Miramonti v. Richland Cnty. Sch. Dist. One, 438 S.C. 612, 616, 885 S.E.2d 406, 408 (Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Campbell v. Marion Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 354 S.C. 274, 280, 580 S.E.2d 163, 165 (Ct. App. 2003)). "As to questions of law, this court's standard of review is de novo." Id. (Citizens for Quality Rural Living, Inc. v. Greenville Cnty. Plan. Comm'n, 426 S.C. 97, 102, 825 S.E.2d 721, 724 (Ct. App. 2019)). "Our standard of review extends to correct errors of law, but we will not disturb the trial court's factual findings as long as they have reasonable support in the record." Id.

"The decision on whether to award attorney's fees [under FOIA] is discretionary in nature." Campbell, 354 S.C. at 289, 580 S.E.2d at 170. We will not disturb this decision unless the circuit court abused its discretion. Sloan v. Friends of Hunley, Inc. (Friends II), 393 S.C. 152, 156, 711 S.E.2d 895, 897 (2011). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court are either controlled by an error of law or are based on unsupported factual conclusions." Id. (quoting Kiriakides v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 383 S.C. 8, 20, 675 S.E.2d 439, 445 (2009)).

FOIA VIOLATION

For the reasons described below, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the circuit court's finding that the County violated FOIA. See Campbell, 354 S.C. at 280 580 S.E.2d at 166 ("[T]he trial court's factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal [of a declaratory judgment action under FOIA] unless a review of the record discloses that there is no evidence which reasonably supports the judge's findings.").

"The purpose of FOIA is to protect the public by providing a mechanism for the disclosure of information by public bodies." Sloan v. Friends of Hunley, Inc. (Friends I), 369 S.C. 20, 26, 630 S.E.2d 474, 478 (2006). "[FOIA] must be construed so as to make it possible for citizens, or their representatives, to learn and report fully the activities of their public officials at a minimum cost or delay to the persons seeking access to public documents or meetings." S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-15 (2007). There have been significant amendments to FOIA in the...