City of Byrnes Mill v. Limesand

• Decision Date: 04 February 2020
• Docket Number: No. ED 107847,ED 107847
• Citation: 599 S.W.3d 466
• Parties: CITY OF BYRNES MILL, Missouri, Respondent, v. Craig LIMESAND, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

599 S.W.3d 466

CITY OF BYRNES MILL, Missouri, Respondent,

v.Craig LIMESAND, Appellant.

No. ED 107847

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: February 4, 2020

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 9, 2020

Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 2, 2020

For Appellant: David E. Roland, 14779 Audrain Rd., 815, Mexico, MO 65265.

For Respondent: Allison M. Sweeney, P.O. Box 20, 503 Main St., Hillsboro, MO 63050.

KURT S. ODENWALD, Judge

Introduction

Craig Limesand ("Limesand") appeals the trial court's grant of declaratory judgment to the City of Byrnes Mill, Missouri ("the City") on its petition for in camera review and redaction of an internal affairs investigative report ("the Report") requested by Limesand under the Sunshine Law. On appeal, Limesand challenges the trial court's procedure in arriving at its judgment, the denial of his discovery motion to view the unredacted Report, and the denial of his request for attorneys’ fees and costs. Limesand also seeks to recover attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in pursuing this appeal. Because Section 610.027.6¹ allows a public governmental body to seek judicial guidance in determining the scope of appropriate exemptions and redactions when fulfilling a Sunshine Law request, the trial court did not err in conducting a hearing and then proceeding with in camera review and redaction of the Report. Further, because the contents of the Report comprised the focus of the petition for declaratory judgment filed by the City, the trial court did not err in denying Limesand's motion to compel production of the Report prior to an in camera review. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment with respect to Limesand's first two points. With regard to Limesand's challenge to the trial court's denial of his request for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, Section 610.027.6 authorizes such relief be granted on the City's declaratory-judgment action. We agree that the trial court erred in declining to consider the award of any expenses because Section 610.027.6 requires the City to bear the costs of its suit for judicial interpretation of its Sunshine Law disclosure obligations. Accordingly, we reverse with regard to Point Three and remand to the trial court with instructions to grant Limesand reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Factual and Procedural History

In August 2018, the City received a vote-of-no-confidence letter alleging criminal conduct by an officer in the City's police department. At the City's request, the Arnold police department investigated the allegations and produced the Report.

Limesand submitted an initial Sunshine Law request to the City seeking police call logs and reports for August 3, 2018, as well as any correspondence between the City and Arnold concerning the investigation of the City's police department. The City informed Limesand that no documents memorialized its oral communication with Arnold and provided Limesand a copy of the requested police log. Limesand submitted a second Sunshine Law request on December 30, 2018, in which he sought a list of the City's employed police officers and a copy of the Report. In January 2019, the City supplied Limesand with the roster of its employed police officers and a synopsis of the Report. The City also filed a declaratory-judgment action requesting the trial court conduct an in camera review of the Report and redact portions of the Report not subject to Limesand's Sunshine Law request. In his responsive pleading, Limesand raised affirmative defenses with respect to the Sunshine Law and challenged the City's failure to disclose the complete contents of the Report. Limesand also requested an award of attorneys’ fees as authorized under the Sunshine Law.

The City provided notice for a hearing on its petition to be held on February 19, 2019. At the hearing, the trial court heard arguments by the City and Limesand on the City's petition. Limesand also moved to dismiss City's petition and to compel the City to provide his attorney with an unredacted copy of the Report. Although Limesand did not notice his motions for hearing, the record indicates the trial court reviewed and acknowledged both motions on the docket. The trial court directed the parties to brief the issue of whether an unredacted version of the Report should be provided to Limesand's attorney. The trial court further ordered the City to provide it an unredacted copy of the Report for in camera review. After reviewing the unredacted Report and the parties’ briefing memoranda, the trial court issued an order and judgment in favor of the City, finding the Report was covered by the Sunshine Law but that some portions of the Report were subject to redaction. The trial court attached a copy of the Report with its redactions to its order and judgment. The City then filed a voluntary dismissal of its petition, after which Limesand moved the trial court to amend its judgment and order the City to pay Limesand's attorneys’ fees associated with Limesand's defense of the City's petition, which the trial court denied. Limesand now appeals.

Points on Appeal

Limesand raises three points on appeal. Point One argues that the trial court erred in entering judgment sua sponte for the City on its petition because no evidentiary hearing was conducted to resolve disputed material facts and no substantial evidence supported the judgment. Point Two contends that the trial court erred in overruling Limesand's motion to compel production of the unredacted report because the City did not assert any legitimate privilege to preclude discovery of the relevant information in the Report. Finally, Point Three challenges the trial court's denial of Limesand's request for the award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Discussion

I. Point One—Procedural Posture of a Declaratory-Judgment Action Seeking Interpretation of Sunshine Law Disclosure Obligations²

A. Standard of Review

In reviewing a declaratory-judgment action, we will "affirm the judgment unless it incorrectly declares or applies the law, is not supported by substantial evidence, or is against the weight of the evidence." Farber v. Metro. Police Dep't of the City of St. Louis, 558 S.W.3d 70, 73 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (internal citations omitted); Great Rivers Envtl. Law Ctr. v. City of St. Peters, 290 S.W.3d 732, 733 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (citing Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976) ). "A trial court's judgment is not supported by substantial evidence when there is no evidence in the record tending to prove a fact that is necessary to sustain the circuit court's judgment as a matter of law." Laut v. City of Arnold, 491 S.W.3d 191, 197 (Mo. banc 2016) ( Laut II ) (internal quotation omitted). We defer to the trial court's factual determinations and disregard all contrary evidence. See Great Rivers, 290 S.W.3d at 733. However, we review de novo issues of statutory interpretation, which present questions of law. Laut II, 491 S.W.3d at 196 (internal citation omitted); Farber, 558 S.W.3d at 73 (internal citation omitted); Great Rivers, 290 S.W.3d at 733.

B. Analysis

Missouri's Sunshine Law is meant to foster openness and transparency in government. Chasnoff v. Mokwa, 466 S.W.3d 571, 577 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (citing Laut v. City of Arnold, 417 S.W.3d 315, 318 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) ( Laut I )). The Sunshine Law presumes that public records are open to inspection unless such records contain information that clearly fits one of the exemptions in Section 610.021. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Mo. Found. v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 504 S.W.3d 150, 155 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (citing State ex rel. Mo. Local Gov't Ret. Sys. v. Bill, 935 S.W.2d 659, 664 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) ); see Section 610.021, RSMo (Cum. Supp. 2018). Further, the Sunshine Law requires us to construe such exemptions strictly, while liberally construing the provisions mandating the openness of public records. Section 610.011. When a public record contains both exempt and nonexempt material, the Sunshine Law provides that "the public governmental body shall separate the exempt and nonexempt material and make the nonexempt material available for examination and copying." Section 610.024.1; Malin v. Cole Cty. Prosecuting Att'y, 565 S.W.3d 748, 750 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (citing Section 610.024.1); Laut I, 417 S.W.3d at 320 (citing Section 610.024.1) (noting a public governmental body is obligated to separate exempt from nonexempt information and to disclose the portions of the materials that are open to the public under the Sunshine Law).

At issue in this case is Limesand's Sunshine Law request for the City to disclose the Report, which the record characterizes as an internal affairs investigative report into alleged police misconduct. The Sunshine Law defines an investigative report as "a record, other than an arrest or incident report, prepared by personnel of a law enforcement agency, inquiring into a crime or suspected crime, either in response to an incident report or in response to evidence developed by law enforcement officers in the course of their duties." Section 610.100.1(5). Investigative reports are subject to disclosure under the Sunshine Law once the investigation is inactive, subject to redaction of exempt portions. Laut I, 417 S.W.3d at 321-23 (citing Sections 610.024.1, 610.100.1-3). In particular, Section 610.100.3 expressly allows for the closure or redaction of otherwise open investigative records where disclosure creates a safety risk, jeopardizes an investigation, or reveals information on law enforcement techniques and procedures. Id. (citing Section 610.100.3); see also Guyer v. Kirkwood, 38 S.W.3d 412, 414-15 (Mo. banc 2001). Missouri courts have clarified that while investigative reports containing both exempt and nonexempt materials are open records that must be disclosed under the Sunshine Law, such reports are nonetheless subject to redaction prior to disclosure. Section 610.024.1; C...