11 results for 'cat:"Public Record" AND cat:"Privilege"'.
J. Segal partially affirms the district court in a case surrounding information gathered by journalists covering protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act protects newsgathering information from disclosure whether or not they were obtained through unlawful or tortious conduct. The district court erred in ordering the media organization to produce a privilege log and submit information it was claiming as privileged for in camera review. Affirmed in part.
Court: Minnesota Court Of Appeals, Judge: Segal, Filed On: May 6, 2024, Case #: A23-1284, Categories: public Record, privilege, First Amendment
J. Bendix finds that the trial court properly ordered the production of entries in the calendar of the governor's former senior energy advisor showing meetings with utilities, unions and the Public Utilities Commission. The deliberative process privilege does not apply because the public records request asked simply whether the meetings took place, not for information about the substance of the meetings. Also, the public has a substantial interest in knowing the level of interaction between the former advisor, Alice Reynolds, and the commission she now presides over as president.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Bendix, Filed On: April 5, 2024, Case #: B330847, Categories: public Record, privilege
J. Seeley finds the lower court properly determined the log created by the town employee regarding allegations of misconduct against the former chief of police was a public document subject to disclosure following a Freedom of Information Act request. The conduct of the chief, which led to administrative leave and his eventual retirement, is undoubtedly a matter of public concern and was received by a public agency when the employee transferred it to the city manager. Additionally, even though the log was given to the town attorney to formulate a plan regarding the chief of police, it was created as a series of personal observations and not for seeking legal advice. Therefore, the lower court properly determined it was not protected by attorney-client privilege. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Seeley, Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: AC45885, Categories: Government, public Record, privilege
J. Rivera finds that the appellate division properly held that training materials prepared by counsel for state parole board commissioners were exempt from disclosure under New York's Freedom of Information Law because the documents requested by a nonprofit public defender group constituted attorney-client legal analysis. Affirmed.
Court: New York Court Of Appeals, Judge: Rivera, Filed On: December 19, 2023, Case #: 91, Categories: public Record, privilege
J. Furman finds the newspaper is entitled to an audio copy of the Aurora city council's executive session because the public received insufficient notice about the meeting, which also included an official action in the form of a roll call vote to censure a member for comments made on a public radio station. Although the city discussed legal advice with its attorneys during the session, it waived attorney-client privilege when it attempted to correct the open meetings violations at the next council meeting and produced an agenda from the executive session. Reversed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Furman, Filed On: December 7, 2023, Case #: 2023COA118, Categories: Government, public Record, privilege
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Lanza partly grants a Latino-based community non-for-profit organization's motion to compel the Republican Party of Arizona to produce documents it has withheld. The organization sufficiently showed in court that it is entitled to view the party's First Amendment privilege log, but not emailed documents concerning donations related auto-generated emails.
Court: USDC Arizona, Judge: Lanza, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv1423, NOS: Voting - Civil Rights, Categories: Elections, public Record, privilege
J. Bright finds that the lower court improperly upheld the Freedom of Information Commission’s finding that a city violated the Freedom of Information Act by declining to make available any and all unredacted records of an individual’s criminal murder case. The city failed to explain why exemptions applied to the request. Reversed.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bright, Filed On: October 20, 2023, Case #: AC45287, Categories: public Record, privilege
J. Ecker finds the lower court properly upheld the Freedom of Information Commission's order requiring the department of mental health services to provide certain investigative documents to the media outlet. Although the documents were related to a patient, they did not deal with the diagnosis or treatment of any disorder and, therefore, were not exempt from disclosure. The police report requested by the media after the patient's death was not part of the patient's clinical file, and while certain sensitive personal information and names of other patients are required to be redacted, the report is not a privileged communication and was properly disclosed. Affirmed in part.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court, Judge: Ecker, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: SC20686, Categories: Government, public Record, privilege
Per curiam, the Supreme Court of Ohio finds that the lower court properly dismissed the petitioner's request for the production of unredacted documents from the law firm because the invoices sent to the township board of trustees were protected from disclosure under attorney-client privilege. The lower court conducted an in-camera inspection of the documents to ensure they were protected from disclosure, and because the petitioner cannot rebut the results of that inspection, he is not entitled to a writ of mandamus.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: August 3, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-2668, Categories: Government, public Record, privilege
J. Lehrmann finds that the court of appeals improperly ruled in favor of the University of Texas in a public information case filed by a media organization seeking documents related to a relationship between the university and a law firm that was hired by the institution to handle an external investigation. After the court of appeals ruled that the documents must be released, the university appealed, arguing that they were protected under attorney-client privilege. The university hired the law firm for legal services, thus the documents detailing the investigation and relationship are protected from disclosure. Reversed.
Court: Texas Supreme Court, Judge: Lerhmann, Filed On: June 30, 2023, Case #: 21-0534, Categories: Government, public Record, privilege