Laut v. City of Arnold

Citation417 S.W.3d 315
Decision Date13 January 2014
Docket NumberNo. ED 99424.,ED 99424.
PartiesRachal LAUT, f/k/a Govro, and John M. Soellner, Appellants, v. CITY OF ARNOLD, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

417 S.W.3d 315

Rachal LAUT, f/k/a Govro, and John M. Soellner, Appellants,
v.
CITY OF ARNOLD, Respondent.

No. ED 99424.

Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division Four.

Dec. 3, 2013.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 2014.


[417 S.W.3d 317]


W. Bevis Shock, Hardy C. Menees, St. Louis, MO, for appellants.

Robert K. Sweeney, Hillsboro, MO, for respondent.


Introduction

GARY M. GAERTNER, Jr., Judge.

Rachel Laut (Laut) and John Soellner (Soellner) (collectively referred to as Appellants) appeal the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Arnold (City), on Appellants' petition seeking disclosure of documents under Missouri's Sunshine Law, Chapter 610, RSMo. (Supp.2012).1 We find that the trial court did not have a sufficient record from which to grant summary judgment regarding all of the documents Appellants requested. We also find a genuine factual dispute exists regarding whether an Internal Affairs report prepared by the City here is exempt from disclosure under the Sunshine Law. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Background

Laut and Soellner each had some form of a personal relationship with one or more employees of the City's Police Department. Appellants developed a good faith belief that one or more of these employees had improperly accessed Appellants' confidential records contained in an electronic law enforcement database called the Regional Justice Information System (REJIS). In September of 2010, Laut made a complaint to the City regarding two City Police Department employees, dispatcher Linda Darnell (Darnell) and Sergeant Darren Rodgers 2 (Rodgers), and their access to REJIS. The City's Chief of Police, Robert Shockey (Chief Shockey), subsequently ordered an Internal Affairs investigation for the purpose of determining the fitness of Darnell and Rodgers to perform their job duties.

On October 11, 2010, Appellants' counsel sent a letter to the City requesting disclosure of several documents pursuant to Section 610.100 of Missouri's Sunshine Law, including reports and records regarding investigations and communications about Darnell's and Rodgers' use of REJIS, background checks of Appellants, and any subsequent disciplinary action. The letter stated Appellants' request was for the purpose of investigating civil claims. On October 14, 2010, the City responded by letter, informing Appellants that there was no criminal investigation performed regarding Darnell and Rodgers. The letter also stated that the records responsive to Appellants' request were exempt from disclosure under Section 610.021.3 of the Sunshine Law.

[417 S.W.3d 318]

Appellants filed a petition requesting that the trial court order the City to produce the requested documents and find the City liable for civil penalties as well as costs and reasonable attorney's fees under Section 610.100.6, because the City purposely violated the Sunshine Law. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The City did not provide the responsive documents to the trial court for in camera review. The trial court denied Appellants' motion and granted the City's motion for summary judgment, finding that the information sought by Appellants was exempt from disclosure under Section 610.021, subsections 3 and 13. Accordingly, the trial court also denied Appellants' request for civil penalties, costs, and attorney's fees. This appeal follows.

Standard of Review

Our review of summary judgment is essentially de novo. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid–Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). We uphold the summary judgment if (1) there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and (2) the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. We view the facts and supporting affidavits in the light most favorable to the non-movant, and we accord the non-movant the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the record. Id. “As the trial court's judgment is founded on the record submitted and the law, an appellate court need not defer to the trial court's summary judgment.” Id.

Discussion

Appellants' sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred as a matter of law in granting summary judgment in favor of the City. Appellants argue the information they sought was not closed information because the underlying conduct was criminal in nature, and the Sunshine Law requires disclosure of records regarding criminal investigations. Appellants also argue the trial court therefore erred in denying their request for costs and attorney's fees based on the City's violation of the Sunshine Law. We address each of these arguments in turn.

Sunshine Law

The overarching purpose of the Sunshine Law is one of open government and transparency. Smith v. Sheriff, 982 S.W.2d 775, 778 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). Section 610.011.1 states: “Sections 610.010 to 610.200 shall be liberally construed and then-exceptions strictly construed to promote this public policy.”

Specifically, Appellants requested two types of documents, investigative reports and any other records,3 regarding any of the following:

1. Improper use of REJIS by Darnell or Rodgers, limited to improper use related to Appellants,

2. Communications of City employees with other law enforcement agencies regarding background checks of Appellants,

3. Reasons for employment termination of Darnell, specifically as it relates to Appellants, with any other reasons redacted, and

4. Reasons for employment disciplinary action of Rodgers, with any other reasons redacted.

[417 S.W.3d 319]

The City answered that the documents responsive to Appellants' request were exempt from disclosure under the Sunshine Law, Section 610.021.3, because they contained personal information about specific employees who were subject to discipline. The trial court agreed, specifically finding in its summary judgment that “[t]he information sought [was] exempt from disclosure” under Section 610.021.3 and 13 of the Sunshine Law.

Section 610.021 contains a list of records that a governmental body may choose not to disclose. The relevant portions are as follows:

Except to the extent disclosure is otherwise required by law, a public governmental body is authorized to close ... records, to the extent they relate to the following:

(3) Hiring, firing, disciplining or promoting of particular employees by a public governmental body when personal information about the employee is discussed or recorded.... As used in this subdivision, the term “personal information” means information relating to the performance or merit of individual employees.

(13) Individually identifiable personnel records, performance ratings or records pertaining to employees or applicants for employment....

However, this section's exemptions must be read together with the rest of the Sunshine Law. The Missouri Supreme Court has noted the permissive language of Section 610.021, that the section is qualified by its own terms, and that it applies only where disclosure is not otherwise required by law. Guyer v. City of Kirkwood, 38 S.W.3d 412, 414 (Mo. banc 2001) (finding exemptions not applicable where a particular type of document fits equally under exemption and other section requiring disclosure). Thus, the threshold question for determining whether a document may be exempt from disclosure is first, whether disclosure of that document is otherwise required by law. For this, a court cannot look only at the information requested, but must also identity the types of documents at issue in order to determine first whether disclosure is mandated by law.


The trial court did not see the documents responsive to Appellants' request, nor did the court in its summary judgment analyze any sections of the Sunshine Law requiring disclosure as a threshold determination prior to considering the exemptions to disclosure under Section 610.021. Based on the record here, the relevant sections of the Sunshine Law, and their interpretation by the Missouri Supreme Court, we conclude the trial court did not have sufficient evidence to make the determination that the above exemptions in Section 610.021 apply as a matter of law to all of Appellants' requests. Because Appellants requested both public records in general and investigative reports in specific, we examine the Sunshine Law as it relates to each type of document.

1. Public Records Generally

Section 610.010 defines a “public record” as “any record, ... retained by or of any public governmental body,” and then includes a non-exhaustive list of examples. See Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305, 130 S.Ct. 2278, 2287, 176 L.Ed.2d 1047 (2010) (use of word “including” generally indicates non-exhaustive list). Section 610.023.2 requires a public governmental body to make public records available to the public “for inspection and copying.” However, these records are subject to the permissive exemptions listed in Section 610.021.4 The Sunshine

[417 S.W.3d 320]

Law also acknowledges in Section 610.024 that a particular “public record” may contain both public information and some information exempt from disclosure under Section 610.021. In such a case, the government agency receiving the request is obligated to separate exempt and non-exempt information, and to disclose the portions of the documents that are open to the public under the statute. Section 610.024.1. See also Tuft v. City of St. Louis, 936 S.W.2d 113, 119 (Mo.App. E.D.1996) (stating once record is found to fall under exemption, issue of whether record should be redacted and released is governed by Section 610.024.1). Finally, Section 610.027.2 states, “[o]nce a party seeking judicial enforcement of Sections 610.010 to 610.026 demonstrates to the court that the body in question is subject to the requirements of [those sections] and has held a closed ... record ..., the burden of persuasion shall be on the body and its members to demonstrate compliance....”

In applying these provisions to Appellants' general request for records, the first two types of information Appellants requested...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Baker v. Hayden
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • 20 Marzo 2020
    ...2019 Supp. 45-222(b) (district court may require production of "records in controversy" for in camera inspection); Laut v. City of Arnold , 417 S.W.3d 315, 326 (Mo. App. 2013) (trial court reversed for entering summary judgment keeping internal affairs reports confidential under similar pro......
  • Laut v. City of Arnold, SC 95307
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 28 Junio 2016
    ...to the two requests relating to employees improperly accessing REJIS and communicating about background checks. Laut v. City of Arnold, 417 S.W.3d 315, 320–21 (Mo.App.2013). The court of appeals, however, affirmed the trial court grant of summary judgment “as it relates to any public record......
  • City of Byrnes Mill v. Limesand
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 4 Febrero 2020
    ...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......
  • State v. Shepherd
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 9 Marzo 2021
    ...(both similarly finding with respect to comparable language in former versions of section 577.023); see also Laut v. City of Arnold, 417 S.W.3d 315, 319 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (citing Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305, 317 (2010) for the proposition that the "use of word 'including' generally ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT