Donoval v. City of Sun Valley, Idaho an Idaho Mun. Corp.

• Decision Date: 22 July 2014
• Docket Number: Docket No. 40853,2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 637
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Parties: JAMES R. DONOVAL, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Respondent, v. THE CITY OF SUN VALLEY, IDAHO an Idaho municipal corporation, Defendant-Respondent-Cross Appellant.

JAMES R. DONOVAL, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Respondent, v. THE CITY OF SUN VALLEY,IDAHO an Idaho municipal corporation, Defendant-Respondent-Cross Appellant.

Docket No. 40853

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 637

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Filed: July 22, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Blaine County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody, District Judge.

Judgment denying Idaho Public Records Act relief and attorney fees, affirmed.

James R. Donoval, Caldwell, pro se appellant-cross respondent.

Naylor and Hales, PC; Kirtlan G. Naylor, Boise, for respondent-cross appellant. Kirtlan G. Naylor argued.

PERRY, Judge Pro Tem

James R. Donoval appeals from the judgment of the district court denying his amended complaint seeking to compel the City of Sun Valley to make public records available for his inspection and copying. Sun Valley cross-appeals and challenges the district court's denial of attorney fees. Both parties seek attorney fees on appeal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court's judgment.

I.FACTS AND PROCEDURE

At issue in this appeal are Donoval's three public records requests submitted to Sun Valley under the Idaho Public Records Act, Idaho Code §§ 9-337 through 9-350. The public records requests sought copies of records pertaining to the usage of Sun Valley's city credit cards--credit card invoices and authorization sheets (referred to as the yellow sheets), collectively referred to as the records. Over the course of two weeks, Donoval and the SunValley city attorney corresponded with one another, and Donoval was provided with copies of some of the records he requested. At one point, Donoval sought to view the original records. Donoval was then informed that Sun Valley no longer had the original records, as the records had been turned over to the Idaho attorney general. Unbeknownst to Donoval, the original records had been in the attorney general's possession before Donoval submitted his public records requests to Sun Valley, and Sun Valley had provided Donoval with duplicates of the copies Sun Valley had retained.

In accord with Idaho Code § 9-343, Donoval filed a complaint to compel Sun Valley to produce the records that had not been provided to him, naming Sun Valley and the Idaho attorney general as defendants. After the complaint had been filed, the Sun Valley city attorney contacted Donoval and informed him that Sun Valley found more records covered under the public records requests and provided copies of those to Donoval. Donoval was also informed by the attorney general that the attorney general's office had transferred the original records to the Blaine County prosecutor. Donoval moved to voluntarily dismiss the attorney general from the complaint and moved to amend the complaint to add the Blaine County prosecutor. The district court ordered that the attorney general was dismissed and granted Donoval leave to amend the complaint to add the Blaine County prosecutor as a defendant. Donoval subsequently filed an amended complaint.

After filing the amended complaint, Donoval was permitted to inspect the original requested records at the Blaine County prosecutor's office, and Donoval moved to voluntarily dismiss the Blaine County prosecutor from the amended complaint. The district court dismissed the Blaine County prosecutor from the amended complaint and then conducted a hearing on Donoval's action to compel. At the hearing, Donoval acknowledged that the copies of records he had received from Sun Valley were the same as the original documents he inspected that were in the prosecutor's possession. However, Donoval contended that some of the yellow sheets, including the originals and copies, were forgeries and also contended that some of the yellow sheets were missing from his copies and from the originals at the prosecutor's office. In light of Donoval's argument at the hearing, the court generally construed Donoval's amended complaint as a request for the district court to enter an order compelling Sun Valley "to make any public records it has refused to make available for public inspection now available for public inspection." The court subsequently issued a memorandum decision and judgment denying therelief sought by Donoval and denying Sun Valley's request for attorney fees. Donoval appeals, and Sun Valley cross-appeals the denial of its request for fees. Both parties also seek attorney fees on appeal.

II.ANALYSIS

A. Donoval's Appeal

On appeal, Donoval's opening brief raises the following issues:

I) Did the District Court err as a matter of law by failing to recognize the District Court's inherent authority pursuant to Idaho Public Writings Laws, Idaho Code 3-303 et. seq., and in particular Idaho Code Sections 9-337 through 9-348 (the Idaho Public Writings statutes), to mandate Sun Valley to respond to allegations of loss and destruction of public records demanded to be produced by Mr. Donoval and to allegations of falsification and forgery of documents that were produced in response to the public record requests submitted by Mr. Donoval to Sun Valley?

II) Did the District Court err as a matter of law in failing to require Sun Valley to respond, under oath, pursuant to Idaho Public Writings statutes, Idaho Code 9-303 et. seq., and in particular Idaho Code Sections 9-337 through 9-348, as to the whereabouts of public records that were not produced pursuant to a public records request or were alleged to have been forged or falsified, in response to a public records request?

III) Did the District Court err as a matter of law or abuse its discretion in failing to enter penalties of $1,000 per document pursuant to Idaho Statute 9-345 that were failed to be produced or falsified and forged by Sun Valley against either Sun Valley Mayor DeWayne Briscoe or the individual designated as the "custodian" of such records pursuant to Idaho Statute 9-337(3)?

(Emphasis removed.) Donoval also raises several issues in his reply brief that we will not address because this Court "will not consider an issue not 'supported by argument and authority in the opening brief.'" Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784, 790, 229 P.3d 1146, 1152 (2010) (quoting Jorgensen v. Coppedge, 145 Idaho 524, 528, 181 P.3d 450, 454 (2008)).

Under the Idaho Public Records Act, "A public agency or independent public body corporate and politic shall either grant or deny a person's request to examine or copy public records . . . ." I.C. § 9-339(1). "[A] person aggrieved by the denial of a request for disclosure" may institute proceedings in the district court "to compel the public agency or independent public body corporate and politic to make the information available for public inspection . . . ." I.C. § 9-343(1). When considering an appeal from a public records request, this Court will notset aside the district court's findings of fact unless they are "clearly erroneous, which is to say that findings that are based upon substantial and competent, although conflicting, evidence will not be disturbed on appeal." Bolger v. Lance, 137 Idaho 792, 794, 53 P.3d 1211, 1213 (2002). "This Court exercises free review over questions of law, including the interpretation of a statute." Ward v. Portneuf Med. Ctr., Inc., 150 Idaho 501, 504, 248 P.3d 1236, 1239 (2011).

1. Donoval's amended complaint, the hearing, and the memorandum decision

The relevant starting point for this appeal is the amended complaint that Donoval filed. Donoval stated that he was bringing the amended complaint before the court under the authority of the Idaho Public Records Act--that is, under the authority granted in section 9-343. In accord with Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1), Donoval demanded that the court enter an order (1) mandating Sun Valley to produce a subpoena; (2) mandating that the prosecutor's office verify whether or not the prosecutor's office had the original documents; (3) mandating that the prosecutor's office allow Donoval to inspect the original documents in its possession; (4) mandating "that the Court issue instanter a referral to [the prosecutor's office] for a felony criminal investigation of Sun Valley . . . pursuant to Idaho Statute 18-3201, for the destruction, alteration, falsification and/or theft of public records in their possession and control"; (5) for costs and attorney fees; and (6) for other relief found proper by the district court.

In the amended complaint, Donoval did not demand that the court enter an order "to compel the public agency or independent public body corporate and politic to make the information available for public inspection." I.C. § 9-343. After filing the amended complaint, Donoval was permitted by the prosecutor's office to inspect the original records held by the prosecutor's office. Then, Donoval moved to dismiss the prosecutor's office from the complaint. In addition, Donoval filed a memorandum in support of his amended complaint that requested the court to enter an order and listed ten forms of relief. The case then proceeded to a hearing.¹At the hearing, Donoval summarized his argument, in light of inspecting the original records held by the prosecutor. For the credit card invoices, Donoval argued that the court should fine a Sun Valley city official in accord with Idaho Code § 9-345. For the yellow sheets, Donoval requested the court to either compel Sun Valley to produce the yellow sheets "or otherwise put something in the record explaining what happened to them or denying that they ever existed."

The district court's memorandum decision began by addressing the four substantive demands for relief in the amended complaint (items (1)-(4) above). The court determined that it could not mandate Sun Valley to produce a subpoena because there was no public recordsrequest for a subpoena. For the following two items of relief requested, the court found that any relief related to the...