Wyrick v. Henry
| Decision Date | 12 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | WD 82557 |
| Citation | 592 S.W.3d 47 |
| Parties | Paula WYRICK, Respondent, v. Teresa HENRY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Stephen M. Gorny, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.
Wesley J. Carrillo, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
Before Division One: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge and Cynthia L. Martin, Judge
Teresa Henry ("Henry"), in her official capacity as the city clerk for the City of Raytown, Missouri, appeals from several trial court orders and judgments addressing her failure to disclose records pursuant to the Sunshine Law, section 610.010 et seq.1 ("Sunshine Law"), and imposing a civil penalty and awarding attorneys' fees to Paula Wyrick ("Wyrick"). Finding no error, we affirm, and remand for consideration of Wyrick's motion for an additional award of attorneys' fees.
Wyrick's mother, Cecile Leggio ("Leggio"), died shortly after sustaining injuries in a motor vehicle accident on December 31, 2016. The accident occurred at the intersection of Ralston Avenue and 67th Street in Raytown, Missouri. On January 13, 2017, The Gorny Law Firm sent a notice of claim to the City of Raytown on behalf of the Leggio family pursuant to section 82.210.2
On July 14, 2017, The Gorny Law Firm sent a request for records under the Sunshine Law to the City of Raytown's city clerk's office. The request was for the following records:
On July 19, 2017, Henry sent a letter stating that the request for records under the Sunshine Law was denied pursuant to section 610.021.1. Henry's letter quoted from the referenced statute as follows:
On August 11, 2017, The Gorny Law Firm sent a second request for records under the Sunshine Law to the City of Raytown, directed to the public works department. The request was for the following records:
On August 21, 2017, Henry sent an email stating that, as had been the case in her July 19, 2017 letter, the request for records under the Sunshine Law was denied pursuant to section 610.021.1. Henry's email quoted the same language from the statute set forth in Henry's July 19, 2017 letter.
On August 28, 2017, The Gorny Law Firm emailed the attorney representing the City of Raytown and urged that the requested records were not exempt from disclosure merely because a client of the law firm might file a lawsuit. The email notified the City of Raytown that if it became necessary to file a Sunshine Law lawsuit, attorneys' fees would be sought.
No records were disclosed by the City of Raytown. On October 9, 2017, Wyrick filed a petition against Henry in her official capacity. The petition sought a declaration that Henry purposefully violated the Sunshine Law; an injunction requiring disclosure of the requested records; the assessment of a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000; and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
Following discovery, Wyrick filed a motion for summary judgment ("Motion") which argued that she was entitled to all of the relief sought in her petition as a matter of law. Henry opposed the Motion. In her response to the Motion, Henry admitted certain of Wyrick's statements of uncontroverted facts including:
Henry also admitted in response to Requests for Admissions propounded by Wyrick that at the time of Wyrick's Sunshine Law requests, the City of Raytown had records pertaining to the design of the intersection of Ralston Avenue and 67th Street, and pertaining to traffic or other diagnostic studies conducted at the intersection of Ralston Avenue and 68th Street. Henry also admitted that in response to Wyrick's Sunshine Law requests, she had not searched for records pertaining to complaints about the safety of, or accidents occurring at or around, Ralston Avenue and 67th Street; the design of the intersection of Ralston Avenue and 67th Street; or traffic or other diagnostic studies conducted at the intersection of Ralston Avenue and 67th Street.
Following full briefing on the Motion, the trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Wyrick on July 10, 2018 ("Partial Summary Judgment"). The Partial Summary Judgment found that Wyrick's Sunshine Law requests fell into three categories:
1) records pertaining to the design of the intersection at Ralston and 67th Street; 2) records pertaining to the traffic or other diagnostic studies conducted at the intersection of Ralston and 67th Street; and 3) records pertaining to complaints about the safety of, or accidents occurring at or around, Ralston and 67th Street.
The trial court found that "[i]t is undisputed that these records fall within the definition of ‘public record’ as set forth in R.S.Mo. [section] 610.010(6)." The trial court further found that Henry had refused to search for or provide any of the requested records because she alleged they fell within the exception for litigation found at section 610.021(1). The trial court found that whether a requested record is closed under the litigation exception depends on the nature of the record itself. Based on that determination, the trial court concluded that the only records which might fall within the limited litigation exception were records in the third request category (pertaining to complaints about the safety of, or accidents occurring at or around, Ralston and 67th Street).
As such, the Partial Summary Judgment granted summary judgment in favor of Wyrick with respect to records in the first and second request categories (pertaining to design, and to traffic or other diagnostic studies), and ordered Henry to disclose those records. The Partial Summary Judgment denied summary judgment with respect to records in the third request category (pertaining to complaints about safety or other accidents), but ordered Henry to produce those records for in camera inspection, subject to further order of the court regarding disclosure. Finally, the Partial Summary Judgment declined to enter summary judgment for Wyrick for civil penalties "at this time," and indicated that the trial court would address Wyrick's request for an assessment and award of civil penalties, costs, and attorneys' fees at the conclusion of the action.
On July 16, 2018, following in camera inspection of records within the third request category (pertaining to complaints about safety or other accidents), the trial court entered an order enumerating documents that were not subject to the litigation exception. The trial court ordered Henry to disclose the enumerated documents. The order found that other documents and photographs that had been produced for in camera inspection were directly "related to the accident involving [Leggio] and are subject to the [litigation] exception." The order directed the parties to schedule a final hearing on all unresolved matters.
After a hearing on November 19, 2018, the trial court entered a judgment/order finding that Henry's failure to disclose records in response to Wyrick's Sunshine Law requests rose to the level of knowing and purposeful violations of the Sunshine Law because, during her hearing testimony, "[Henry] indicated she has implemented a policy to refuse the production of any requested documents to any citizen if that citizen has filed a notice of claim against the City of Raytown, regardless of the nature of the document requested." The trial court gave the parties until November 30, 2018, to brief the amount of attorneys' fees and penalties that should be assessed.
On February 7, 2019, the trial court entered a judgment imposing a $4,000 penalty on the City of Raytown for Henry's knowing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Byrnes Mill v. Limesand
...any ambiguity as to their disclosure obligations and to avoid noncompliance with the Sunshine Law. Wyrick v. Henry, WD 82557, 592 S.W.3d 47, 63-64, (Mo. App. W.D. Nov. 12, 2019) (transfer denied (Dec. 12, 2019)). Indeed, courts have held that pursuing one of the options under Section 610.02......
-
Integra Healthcare, Inc. v. Mo. State Bd. of Mediation
...granting Integra's motion for attorney's fees noted, "this case is not a run-of-the-mill open records case."5 See Wyrick v. Henry , 592 S.W.3d 47, 65 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees because the matter before it "was anyt......
-
Integra Healthcare, Inc. v. Mo. State Bd. of Mediation
...records request"). "Trial courts are 'considered an expert on attorney's fees, and the court has discretion to determine the fee award.'" Id. (quoting Chasnoff v. 466 S.W.3d 571, 584 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015)). Based on our review of the record, the trial court's award of attorney's fees was not......
-
Sanders v. City of Columbia
...... our review is limited to determining whether any evidence in the record supports the trial court's finding[s]." Wyrick v. Henry , 592 S.W.3d 47, 58 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (citing Laut , 491 S.W.3d at 197 ).Here, the trial court made numerous de novo factual findings about Sanders's conduc......