City of Atlanta v. Corey Entertainment

• Decision Date: 12 October 2004
• Docket Number: No. S04A0932, No. S04A0934.
• Citation: 604 S.E.2d 140,278 Ga. 474
• Parties: CITY OF ATLANTA v. COREY ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al. Fouch v. Corey Entertainment, Inc., et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

604 S.E.2d 140

278 Ga. 474

CITY OF ATLANTA v. COREY ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al.

Fouch v. Corey Entertainment, Inc., et al.

Nos. S04A0932, S04A0934.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

October 12, 2004.

Linda K. DiSantis, Jerolyn W. Ferrari, Stacy Y. Cole, for City of Atlanta.

Smith, Gambrell & Russell, Judson H. Simmons, William Van Hearnburg, Jr., for Fouch.

Balch & Bingham, Michael J. Bowers, J. Matthew Maguire, Jr., Alexandra E. Chopin, for Corey Entertainment, Inc. et al.

FLETCHER, Chief Justice.

The City of Atlanta and Barbara Fouch, d/b/a Creative Media Displays of Georgia, appeal the Fulton County Superior Court's order directing them to disclose Fouch's tax returns to Corey Entertainment, Inc. Corey Entertainment sought the documents as part of its challenge to the City's decision to award an airport advertising contract to Creative Media Displays and Clear Channel, Inc. Fouch and the City of Atlanta argue that the tax returns are exempted from disclosure under the Georgia Open Records Act¹ because federal regulations prohibit their disclosure without Fouch's consent. Because federal regulations do not prohibit the disclosure of the documents, which fall within the purview of the Georgia Open Records Act, we affirm.

Corey Entertainment filed a formal protest after the City announced its decision to award an advertising concession contract for the Atlanta airport to Clear Channel, Inc. As part of its winning bid, Clear Channel promised to subcontract 30% of the work to Creative Media Displays, which was certified as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE). Corey Entertainment challenged the City's decision on the basis that Creative Media Displays did not qualify as a DBE, and that but for its DBE status, Corey Entertainment would have won the contract. Corey Entertainment submitted an Open Records Act request to the City, but the City offered to produce only some of the relevant documents, and refused to produce Fouch's tax returns.

Creative Media Displays was certified by the City as a DBE pursuant to a program administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Under that program, in order for the City to be eligible for certain federal funds, the DOT requires the City to ensure "that at least 10% of all businesses at the airport ... are concerns owned and controlled by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual."² A qualifying concern owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals is referred to in the DOT regulations as a "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise."³ The DOT regulations set forth the standards and procedures for the City to use to determine whether an enterprise qualifies as a DBE. In May, 2002, Fouch applied for DBE certification, and the City granted that application in July, 2002.

Corey Entertainment brought suit in Fulton County Superior Court seeking to compel the City to produce Fouch's tax returns. Fouch intervened as a defendant. The City and Fouch argued that federal regulations prohibited the disclosure of the tax returns, and that they were therefore exempted from disclosure under OCGA § 50-18-72(a)(1). The trial court disagreed, granted Corey Entertainment's motion for summary judgment, and ordered the City to produce Fouch's tax returns. The trial court also ordered Corey Entertainment to refrain from disclosing the documents to uninvolved parties.

1. The purpose of Georgia's Open Records Act is to allow the public to evaluate the expenditure of public funds and "to foster confidence in government through openness to the public."⁴ To that end, the Georgia Open Records Act treats all public records as subject to disclosure, "except those which by order of a court of this state or by law are prohibited or specifically exempted from being open to inspection."⁵ Fouch's tax returns, which were submitted to the City in her attempt to receive certification as a DBE, qualify as public records because they were "received in the course of the operation of a public office or agency."⁶ Therefore, unless federal or state law specifically prohibits the disclosure of the tax returns, they are subject to disclosure under the Act. Because public policy strongly favors open government, "any purported statutory exemption from disclosure under the Open Records Act must be narrowly construed."⁷

Fouch and the City claim that the tax returns are exempt from disclosure because the documents are "specifically required by the federal government to be kept confidential."⁸ Fouch and the City cite several federal regulations to support their argument, but contrary to their assertions, these regulations do not specifically prohibit the disclosure of the documents. First, 49 C.F.R. § 26.67(a)(2)(iv) prohibits the release of "an individual's personal net worth statement [and] any documentation supporting it ..." But Fouch did not submit a "personal net worth statement," as that document is defined by 49 C.F.R. § 26.67(a)(2)(ii). Thus, as the trial court properly noted, 49 C.F.R. § 26.67(a)(2)(iv) does not specifically prohibit the disclosure of the tax returns.

Next, Fouch and the City argue that 49 C.F.R. § 26.109(a)(2) prohibits the release of the tax documents, because that regulation requires the City to "safeguard from disclosure to unauthorized persons information that may reasonably be considered as confidential business information consistent with Federal, state, and local law."⁹ But to be consistent with State law, the City should maintain the confidentiality of these documents until properly ordered by a court to release them for a legitimate purpose. Allowing the City to prevent any disclosure of the documents under all circumstances would be inconsistent with state law. Georgia law does generally treat tax returns as confidential information, at least when they are in possession of the taxing authorities, but provides that they may be disclosed "in accordance with a proper judicial order."¹⁰ Further, to the extent that the Atlanta Code prohibits disclosure,¹¹ that regulation is trumped by the Open Records Act, a state statute of general application.¹² Fouch and the City have cited no federal law that prevents the disclosure of the tax returns in accordance with a proper judicial order.

The case of Bowers v. Shelton¹³ does not change the analysis. In that case, this Court ruled that the trial court properly enjoined the State from disclosing Shelton's tax returns to parties that sought disclosure through the Open Records Act.¹⁴ The information was sought as a result of a high-profile tax delinquency prosecution, but the requesters failed to show how their desire for the documents related to a "legitimate public inquiry."¹⁵ The requests in that case amounted to no more than an unauthorized invasion of Shelton's privacy.¹⁶ This Court did note, however, that "the confidentiality of tax returns or return information is not absolute."¹⁷ And unlike the requesters in Shelton, Corey Entertainment has shown that its desire for the documents does relate to a "legitimate public inquiry," rather than merely to invade Fouch's privacy.

2. Next, Fouch and the City argue that the records are exempt under the Open Records Act because to disclose them would constitute an invasion of Fouch's privacy.¹⁸ But the right of privacy in these circumstances "extends only to unnecessary public scrutiny," and does not protect...