Glassmeyer v. City of Columbia
| Decision Date | 02 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 5347.,Appellate Case No. 2013–001880.,5347. |
| Citation | 777 S.E.2d 835,414 S.C. 213 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | George S. GLASSMEYER, Respondent, v. CITY OF COLUMBIA, Appellant. |
W. Allen Nickles, III, of Nickles Law Firm, of Columbia, for appellant.
Lyndey Ritz Zwingelberg and Kirby Darr Shealy, III, both of Adams and Reese, LLP, of Columbia, for respondent.
The City of Columbia appeals the trial court's declaration it violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)1 by failing to disclose to George S. Glassmeyer the home addresses, personal telephone numbers, and personal email addresses for applicants to the position of city manager. It also appeals the trial court's award of attorney's fees to Glassmeyer. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On January 14, 2013, Glassmeyer sent the City a FOIA request for “all materials relating to not fewer than the final three applicants for the most recent vacancy announcement for the position of city manager.” The City provided these documents but redacted certain information including the home addresses of applicants; some, but not all, of the telephone numbers belonging to applicants and their respective references; applicants' driver's license numbers and restrictions to their respective driver's licenses; and some, but not all, of their reasons for leaving or wanting to leave previous employment positions. In a letter dated January 24, 2013, Glassmeyer requested the City provide him the redacted information. In his response dated January 28, 2013, the City attorney, Kenneth Gaines, explained section 30–4–40 of the South Carolina Code (2007 and Supp.2014) enumerates matters exempt from disclosure and provides for the redaction of exempt materials from public records. He declared, “Therefore, the City of Columbia has complied with the provisions of the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act and will not release unredacted material to you as you requested.”
Glassmeyer filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment the City was in violation of the FOIA and an injunction prohibiting the City from further withholding the information Glassmeyer sought. In addition, Glassmeyer sought attorney's fees and costs. Before formally answering, counsel for the City wrote Glassmeyer's counsel stating he did not agree the public interest outweighed privacy concerns with matters like home addresses,personal telephone numbers, and email addresses of applicants and references, and salaries other than public employees making more than $50,000. In addition, he believed the reasons for leaving employment were personal and this information was available through independent inquiry. The City's counsel assured Glassmeyer's counsel there was no “smoking gun” in any of the redacted information and offered to make the unredacted response available to him for review in a confidential manner.
The City subsequently answered the complaint and both parties moved for summary judgment. Prior to the trial court issuing its order, Glassmeyer conceded state law required the City to withhold the applicants' driver's license information. In its order, the trial court held the City was in violation of the FOIA for failing to timely provide its reason for the redactions. The court further found none of the exemptions to disclosure applied. It held the South Carolina Family Privacy Protection Act,2 was not applicable. Accordingly, it granted Glassmeyer's motion for summary judgment and denied the City's motion. In addition, the court struck the City's motion for attorney's fees. It held the record open for Glassmeyer to submit an affidavit for attorney's fees. The City subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend, which the trial court denied. In an order filed August 27, 2013, the trial court awarded Glassmeyer $11,185.01 in attorney's fees.
On September 4, 2013, the City served its notice of appeal. The same day it also filed a modified response to plaintiff's FOIA request, noting it was in keeping with the notice of appeal. The response contained all information previously redacted except for personal addresses, personal telephone numbers, and personal email addresses of the applicants.
The determination of the proper interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which the appellate court reviews de novo. Perry v. Bullock, 409 S.C. 137, 140, 761 S.E.2d 251, 252–53 (2014) (). The appellate court is free to decide the question with no particular deference to the lower court. New York Times Co. v. Spartanburg Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 7, 374 S.C. 307, 310, 649 S.E.2d 28, 29 (2007).
The City argues the trial court erred in finding the FOIA compelled disclosure of home addresses, personal telephone numbers, and personal email addresses for applicants to the position of city manager. We agree.
The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the General Assembly's intent. Perry, 409 S.C. at 140, 761 S.E.2d at 253. The plain language of a statute is considered the best evidence of legislative intent. Id. “When interpreting an undefined statutory term, the Court must look to its usual and customary meaning.”
Id. at 140–41, 761 S.E.2d at 253. “[S]tatutes dealing with the same subject matter are in pari materia and must be construed together, if possible, to produce a single, harmonious result.” Amisub of S.C., Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 407 S.C. 583, 598, 757 S.E.2d 408, 416 (2014). “ Because we must presume that the General Assembly is familiar with existing legislation, statutes dealing with the same subject matter must be reconciled, if possible, so as to render both operative.” Id.
In enacting the FOIA, the General Assembly stated its findings and purpose as follows:
The General Assembly finds that it is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that citizens shall be advised of the performance of public officials and of the decisions that are reached in public activity and in the formulation of public policy. Toward this end, provisions of this chapter 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).
The essential purpose of the FOIA is to protect the public from secret government activity. Perry, 409 S.C. at 141, 761 S.E.2d at 253. The FOIA is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed to carry out the purpose mandated by the General Assembly. Quality Towing, Inc. v. City of Myrtle Beach, 345 S.C. 156, 161, 547 S.E.2d 862, 864–65 (2001). Whether a record is exempt from disclosure depends on the particular facts of the case. City of Columbia v. ACLU, 323 S.C. 384, 387, 475 S.E.2d 747, 749 (1996). Underlying each case, however, is the principle the exemptions in section 30–4–40 of the South Carolina Code (2007) are to be narrowly construed so as to fulfill the purpose of the FOIA. Evening Post Publ'g. Co. v. City of N. Charleston, 363 S.C. 452, 457, 611 S.E.2d 496, 499 (2005). To further advance this purpose, the government has the burden of proving an exemption applies. Id.
The FOIA requires disclosure of materials gathered by a public body during a search to fill an employment position relating to not fewer than the final three applicants under consideration for a position. S.C.Code Ann. § 30–4–40(a)(13) (2007). This section further provides, “For the purpose of this item ‘materials relating to not fewer than the final three applicants' do not include an applicant's income tax returns, medical records, social security number, or information otherwise exempt from disclosure by this section.” Id.
South Carolina Code section 30–4–40(a)(2) (2007), known as the “privacy exemption,” exempts from disclosure “[i]nformation of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute unreasonable invasion of personal privacy.” As this court noted, “Section 30–4–40(a)(2) does not specifically list or define the types of records, reports, or other information that should be classified as personal or private information exempt from disclosure.” Burton v. York Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 358 S.C. 339, 352, 594 S.E.2d 888, 895 (Ct.App.2004). Thus, we must “resort to general privacy principles, which examination involves a balancing of conflicting interests—the interest of the individual in privacy on the one hand against the interest of the public's need to know on the other.” Id. The right to privacy is defined as the right of an individual to be let alone and to live a life free from unwarranted publicity. Id. “However, ‘one of the primary limitations placed on the right of privacy is that it does not prohibit the publication of matter which is of legitimate public or general interest.’ ” Id. (quoting Soc'y of Prof'l Journalists v. Sexton, 283 S.C. 563, 566, 324 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1984) ).
Interpreting the privacy exemption contained in the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, the Supreme Court of Michigan found employees' home addresses and telephone numbers were exempt from disclosure. Mich. Fed'n of Teachers & Sch. Related Pers. v. Univ. of Mich., 481 Mich. 657, 753 N.W.2d 28, 43 (2008). It explained, Id. at 40. In addition, the court no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Samuel
- S.C. Lottery Comm'n v. Glassmeyer
- Glassmeyer v. City of Columbia
- Glassmeyer v. City of Columbia