Show-Me Inst. v. Office of Admin.
| Decision Date | 29 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | WD 84561 |
| Citation | 645 S.W.3d 602 |
| Parties | SHOW-ME INSTITUTE, et al., Appellants, v. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION, Brandi Caruthers, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees Council 61, and Danny Homan, Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
David Roland, Mexico, MO, for appellant.
Kelly Alexander Hopper, Jefferson City, MO and Michael Anthony Evans, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before Division Four: Cynthia L. Martin, Chief Judge, Presiding, Thomas N. Chapman, Judge and W. Douglas Thomson, Judge
The Show-Me Institute and Patrick Ishmael ("Ishmael"), an employee of the Show-Me Institute, (collectively "Appellants") appeal from the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Missouri Office of Administration ("Office of Administration") and Brandi Caruthers ("Caruthers") in her official capacity as the designated custodian of records for the Office of Administration's Division of Personnel (collectively "Government"). The Appellants assert that the trial court's judgment: (1) violated the policy underlying the Sunshine Law1 by allowing the Government to withhold unredacted copies of public records from the Appellants that the Government had previously treated as open by providing them to another private entity; and (2) misapplied section 610.023.2 of the Sunshine Law by allowing the Government to grant one private entity an exclusive right to access and disseminate certain public records. Finding no error, we affirm.
On August 28, 2019, the Appellants filed a petition against the Government in the Circuit Court of Cole County. The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 61 ("AFSCME") and Danny Homan ("Homan") (collectively "Intervenors") sought to intervene in the proceedings, and the trial court granted the request. After obtaining leave from the trial court, the Appellants filed an amended petition ("Amended Petition") on February 25, 2020.
The Amended Petition asserted that the Government knowingly violated the Sunshine Law by refusing to provide the Appellants unredacted copies of lists of active bargaining unit employees that the Government had already provided to AFSCME ("Unredacted Excel Files"). The Amended Petition alleged that AFSCME and the Government entered into a Master Labor Contract3 in which the Office of Administration agreed to provide AFSCME a "current list of active bargaining unit employees" once a quarter, and that the Government provided AFSCME such lists in the form of the Unredacted Excel Files, which included each employee's name, employment status, salary information, work address, home address, and mailing address. The Appellants alleged that when Ishmael requested electronic copies of the Unredacted Excel Files for 2016, 2017, and 2018, the Government sent Ishmael redacted versions ("Redacted Excel Files"), explaining that the redactions had been made pursuant to section 610.021(13) and Office of Administration policy B-36. The Amended Petition argued that even though section 610.021(13) authorized closing the redacted information, because the Government had already provided the redacted information to AFSCME, the Government was required by the Sunshine Law to treat that information as open for all purposes. The Amended Petition alleged that, because the Government refused to provide Ishmael with the Unredacted Excel Files, the Government knowingly violated section 610.023.2's prohibition against granting an exclusive right to access and disseminate public records.
After the Government and the Intervenors filed their respective answers, the Appellants filed a motion for summary judgment ("Appellants’ Motion for Summary Judgment"), claiming that uncontroverted material facts established that the Government refused to provide public records, specifically the Unredacted Excel Files, in violation of section 610.023.2's prohibition against granting any person or entity an exclusive right to access and disseminate public records. The Appellants’ Motion for Summary Judgment identified two legal issues: (1) whether "the Sunshine Law allow[s] a public governmental body to treat as ‘closed’ public information it has already made available to one or more private entities"; and (2) whether "a public governmental body violate[s] [section] 610.023.2 ... by granting one or more private entities access to public records, but then refusing to provide other private entities access to the same public records." The Appellants’ Motion for Summary Judgment asserted a right to judgment as a matter of law because "(1) the state policy in favor of transparency does not authorize selective closure of open public records, and (2) [section] 610.023.2 ... forbids public governmental bodies to grant any private person or entity the exclusive right to access and disseminate public records."
The Government filed a motion to strike the Appellants’ Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion to Strike"), and the Intervenors filed suggestions in opposition.4 The Government's Motion to Strike asked the trial court to strike either the Appellants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety or alternatively, various unauthenticated exhibits, noncompliant statements of uncontroverted fact, and legal assertions. The Motion to Strike also sought leave to file a substantive response to the Appellants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, if necessary, following a ruling on the Motion to Strike.
While the Appellants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and the Government's Motion to Strike were pending, the Appellants filed correspondence ("Appellants’ Letter") on January 19, 2021. Appellants’ Letter addressed the trial court's entry of judgment in United for Missouri, et al. v. Office of Administration, et al. , Case No. 19AC-CC00398, which concerned a substantially identical request for the records at issue in the instant case. In the United for Missouri judgment, the trial court concluded that the terms of the Master Labor Contract that required the Office of Administration to provide a current list of all active bargaining unit employees to AFSCME did not constitute an "exclusive" right to access such records in violation of section 610.023.2. The Appellants’ Letter conceded that the trial court "would be virtually certain to reach the same result in the [instant] case" so that "it seems advisable for the [trial court] to swiftly resolve the [instant] case so that the [Appellants could] move on to argue their position before the Court of Appeals."5
On February 25, 2021, the Government filed a motion for summary judgment, ("Government's Motion for Summary Judgment"), arguing that the uncontroverted facts established as a matter of law that the Government complied with the requirements of the Sunshine Law. The Government's Motion for Summary Judgment asserted that the Government's compliance with the terms of the Master Labor Contract did not grant AFSCME the exclusive right to access and disseminate the Unredacted Excel Files. The Government's Motion for Summary Judgment also sought partial summary judgment on the basis that the Amended Petition sought remedies that were outside the scope of those authorized by section 610.027.5. The Appellants’ response to the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment admitted most of the Government's uncontroverted facts, but disputed the materiality of those facts given the legal issues framed by the Appellants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
The trial court entered its judgment and order ("Judgment") on May 26, 2021. The Judgment sustained the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment, denied the Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and denied all other pending motions as moot. The Judgment concluded that "the terms of the Master Labor Contract that provide for the provision of information to AFSCME do not constitute an ‘exclusive’ right to access the closed records." The Judgment further concluded that the Government's "provision of unredacted records to AFSCME and subsequent refusal to provide [the Appellants] unredacted copies of the same" did not establish that the Government, in contravention of section 610.023.2, granted AFSCME an exclusive right to access and disseminate the Unredacted Excel Files. The Judgment concluded that "to hold otherwise would radically alter public governmental bodies’ duties under the Sunshine Law--creating out of whole cloth an eternal and binding waiver out of the discretionary decision governmental bodies are statutorily[ ]authorized to make in response to each Sunshine Law request for records." The Judgment noted that, to the extent the Appellants "believe that the Sunshine Law should prohibit the conduct complained of in this matter, they must seek relief from the legislative branch." Finally, the Judgment noted that the Appellants’ position that the Government knowingly violated the Sunshine Law was in direct conflict with the Appellants’ acknowledgment that the case presented an issue of first impression. No post-judgment motions were filed.
The Appellants appeal.6
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Estes as Next Friend for Doe v. Bd. of Trs. of Mo. Pub. Entity Risk Mgmt. Fund , 623 S.W.3d 678, 686 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021). Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rule 74.04(c)(6). In determining whether the entry of summary judgment was appropriate, we "review[ ] the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered, and give[ ] the non-movant the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the record." Estes as Next Friend for Doe , 623 S.W.3d at 686 (quoting Truman Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. , 597 S.W.3d 362, 365-66 (Mo. App. W.D. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Albu Farms, LLC v. Pride
... ... 663 S.W.3d 842, 847 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) (quoting Show-Me ... Inst. v. Off. of Admin ., 645 S.W.3d 602, 607 (Mo. App ... Boone County Recorder of Deeds Office. See Medical Plaza ... One , 552 S.W.3d 165 n. 19. Moreover, to ... ...
-
Stevenson v. State
... ... alia , that "[he] currently ha[d] over 200 pending cases in [his] office," he had conducted a jury trial the previous week, and his time was "very ... ...
-
Malin v. Mo. Ass'n of Cmty. Task Forces
...the Sunshine Law. Malin appeals. Standard of Review We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Show-Me Inst. v. Office of Admin., 645 S.W.3d 602, 607 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . ......