Wiredata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 2005AP1473.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Writing for the Court | N. Patrick Crooks |
| Citation | 751 N.W.2d 736,2008 WI 69 |
| Parties | WIREDATA, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF SUSSEX and Village of Sussex Custodian, Defendants-Co-Appellants-Cross-Petitioners, Grota Appraisals, L.L.C., Michael L. Grota and Assessment Technologies of WI, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners. WIREdata, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Village of Thiensville, Defendant-Respondent, Grota Appraisals, L.L.C. and Michael L. Grota, and Assessment Technologies of WI, L.L.C., Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners. WIREdata, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of Port Washington, Defendant-Respondent-Cross-Petitioner, Matthies Assessments, Inc., Defendant-Respondent, American Family Insurance Company, Intervenor. |
| Docket Number | No. 2006AP174.,No. 2005AP1473.,No. 2006AP175.,2005AP1473.,2006AP174.,2006AP175. |
| Decision Date | 25 June 2008 |
For the defendants-co-appellants-cross-petitioners and the defendant-respondent-cross-petitioner there were briefs by Raymond J. Pollen, Remzy D. Bitar, and Crivello Carlson & Mentkowski, S.C., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Remzy D. Bitar.
For the defendants-appellants-petitioners there were briefs by Joseph A. Kromholz, Daniel R. Johnson, and Ryan Kromholz & Manion, S.C., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Daniel R. Johnson.
For the defendant-respondent there were briefs by Maile E. Beres, Barbara O'Brien, and Borgelt, Powell, Peterson & Frauen, S.C., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Barbara O'Brien.
For the respondent there were briefs by Alan H. Deutch, Deutch Law Offices, S.C., and A Division of Deutch & Weiss, L.L.C, Fox Point, and oral argument by Alan H. Deutch.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Andrew T. Phillips, Kristen D. DeCato, and Stadler, Centofanti & Phillips, S.C., Mequon, on behalf of the Wisconsin Counties Association.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Daniel M. Olson, Madison, on behalf of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Joseph P. Guidote, Jr., Outagamie county corporation counsel, on behalf of the Wisconsin Association of County Corporation Counsel.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by David A. Strifling and Quarles & Brady L.L.P., Milwaukee; E. King Poor and Quarles & Brady L.L.P., Chicago, Ill.; and Michael R. Klipper, Christopher A. Mohr, David Ludwig, and Meyer, Klipper & Mohr, P.L.L.C, Washington, D.C, on behalf of First American CoreLogic, Inc., LexisNexis, the Real Estate Information Professionals Association, and the Software and Information Industry Association.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Mary E. Burke, assistant attorney general with whom on the brief was J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general, on behalf of the Wisconsin Department of Justice.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Paul W. Schwarzenbart and Lee, Kilkelly, Paulson & Younger, S.C., Madison, on behalf of Wisconsin Land Title Association, Inc.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Robert J. Dreps, Rebecca Kathryn Mason, and Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., Madison, on behalf of the Wisconsin REALTORS® Association, Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, Wisconsin Broadcasters Association and Wisconsin Newspaper Association.
¶ 1
This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals.1
¶ 2 Petitioners, Grota Appraisals, LLC, and Michael L. Grota (Grota); Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC; and the Village of Thiensville (Thiensville); and cross-petitioners, the Village of Sussex and the Village of Sussex Custodian (collectively, Sussex); and the City of Port Washington (Port Washington)2 seek review of a published decision of the court of appeals. The court of appeals' decision affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the Circuit Court for Waukesha County (the Sussex action), Judge Mark S. Gempeler, presiding. The court of appeals' decision also affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the decision of the Circuit Court for Ozaukee County (the Thiensville and Port Washington actions), Judge Thomas R. Wolfgram, presiding. The defendant-respondent is Matthies Assessments, Inc. (Matthies Assessments). The plaintiff in the circuit court cases was WIREdata, Inc. (WIREdata). These cases deal with the interpretation and application of Wisconsin's open records law, Wis. Stat. § 19.31 et seq. (2005-06).3 These cases were considered together by the court of appeals, and they are considered together by this court as well.
¶ 3 There are six principal issues upon appeal. The first issue is whether WIREdata properly commenced the mandamus actions against the municipalities under the open records law, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1), when the municipalities had not denied WIREdata's requests for the records before WIREdata filed the mandamus actions.4 The second issue is whether WIREdata's initial written requests were insufficient as a matter of law as to time and subject matter. The third issue is whether a municipality's independent contractor assessor is an authority under the open records law, so that the independent contractor assessor is a proper recipient of an open records request.5 The fourth issue is whether a municipality may avoid liability under the open records law by contracting with an independent contractor assessor for the collection, maintenance, and custody of its property assessment records, and by then directing any requester of those records to the independent contractor assessor who has custody of the sought-after records. The fifth issue is whether the court of appeals was mistaken in concluding that the petitioners and the cross-petitioners had not fulfilled WIREdata's initial open records requests, once they produced portable document files (hereafter, PDF or PDFs) with the requested information and gave those files to WIREdata. The sixth issue is whether the fees charged to WIREdata were fees that complied with the law for that requested output.
¶ 4 We hold as follows on the issues: based on the facts of the present case, WIREdata did not properly commence the mandamus actions against the municipalities under the open records law, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1), because the municipalities had not denied WIREdata's requests for the records before WIREdata filed the mandamus actions; WIREdata's initial written requests were not insufficient as a matter of law as to time and subject matter; a municipality's independent contractor assessor is not an authority under the open records law, so that the independent contractor assessor is not a proper recipient of an open records request; a municipality may not avoid liability under the open records law by contracting with an independent contractor assessor for the collection, maintenance, and custody of its property assessment records and by then directing any requester of those records to the independent contractor assessor who has custody of the sought-after records; the court of appeals was mistaken in concluding that the petitioners and the cross-petitioners had not fulfilled WIREdata's initial open records requests, once they produced PDFs with the requested information and gave those files to WIREdata; and, because no fees were actually charged for the information the municipalities provided to WIREdata in the PDF format, the municipalities did not violate the open records law. Accordingly, the municipalities are not liable for any damages in the present action.
¶ 5 We reverse in part and affirm in part the decision of the court of appeals. WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 2007 WI App 22, ¶¶ 2, 3, 67-70, 298 Wis.2d 743, 729 N.W.2d 757. In order to assist the reader in understanding our determinations, in relation to that decision, we disagree with the court of appeals' specific holdings as follows: that the three municipalities denied the open records requests of WIREdata and, thus, violated the open records law; that the PDFs were insufficient to comply with such open records requests; that the open records law requires access to the computerized database; that the "enhanced" demands did not require the creation of new records; and that WIREdata is entitled to fees and costs from each of the municipalities. However, we agree with the court of appeals' specific holdings as follows: that the municipalities are the responsible authorities under the open records law; that such responsibility cannot be shifted to independent contractor assessors; and that the initial written requests of WIREdata were valid and, thus, were not insufficient as to subject matter and length of time.
¶ 6 This litigation arose when WIREdata, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Multiple Listing Service, Inc., made a series of open records requests. The relevant requests asked Sussex, Thiensville, and Port Washington to provide WIREdata with information about their property assessments. WIREdata conceded that it intended to market and resell the requested information to assist real estate agents and brokers.
¶ 7 The three municipalities had contracted with private, independent contractor assessors to complete their property assessments. WIREdata initially made a request to all three municipalities directly that they provide the company with the requested data. WIREdata's "initial" request to Sussex and also its "initial" request to Thiensville asked the municipalities to provide the data to the company in an "electronic/digital" format. However, WIREdata's "initial" request to Port Washington did not specify a requested format for the data's provision. We note at the outset that WIREdata has admitted that all three municipalities offered the company copies of the relevant property information in written form.
¶ 8 Later, WIREdata made requests directly to the independent contractor assessors for those records to be provided to the company in the format that was created and maintained by those independent contractor assessors in a computerized database (the "enhanced" requests).6 We note at the outset that WIREdata's attorney admitted at oral argument...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schill v. Wis. Rapids Sch. Dist., 2008AP967-AC.
...circumvent the Public Records Law by putting public records in the possession of a private entity, see WIREdata Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 2008 WI 69, ¶ 82, 310 Wis.2d 397, 751 N.W.2d 736, private transmissions do not become records under the Public Records Law by virtue of their storage on......
-
Juneau Cnty. Star–Times v. Juneau Cnty.
...with the principles set forth in the prior cases. ¶ 68 We recently discussed Wis. Stat. § 19.36(3) in WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 2008 WI 69, 310 Wis.2d 397, ¶¶ 79–89, 751 N.W.2d 736, in deciding whether an authority may direct a requester to seek records about property assessments......
-
Am. Bank v. City of Menasha, 10-1963
......Co. v. Bull Data Systems, Inc., 32 F.3d 1175, 1177 (7th Cir.1994); Goodman v. Harris ...Stat. § 19.35(3)(a), and both a recent case, WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 310 Wis.2d 397, 751 N.W.2d 736, ......
-
Xerox Corp. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue, 2007AP2884.
...... Cf. Neu's Supply Line, Inc. v. DOR, 52 Wis.2d 386, 395, 190 N.W.2d 213 (1971) ("In ... WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 2008 WI 69, ¶ 45, 310 Wis.2d ......