Alex Friedmann v. Marshall County, TN
2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 508
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Alex Friedmann, managing editor of Prison Legal News, requested Marshall County Jail records (including medical policies) by letter on Feb 3, 2014 and asked for electronic or mailed copies.
- The Marshall County Sheriff’s Office repeatedly required Friedmann to appear in person to obtain records; Friedmann and counsel cited authority saying in-person appearance is not required and offered to pay copying fees.
- The Office of Open Records Counsel (OORC) and Friedmann’s counsel informed the County that Tennessee law does not require personal appearance to request copies if records are sufficiently identified.
- The Sheriff’s Office failed to provide a § 10-7-503-compliant response within seven business days to Friedmann’s renewed March 24 request; later asserted residency concerns only at trial.
- Trial court ordered production of the records (at no cost) but denied attorneys’ fees, finding the Sheriff relied on counsel and was not willful; Friedmann appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether initial responses constituted a denial under TPRA | Friedmann: initial communications that conditioned access on in-person appearance were de facto denials because they failed to comply with § 10-7-503 | Sheriff: initial responses were invitations for in-person inspection, not denials | Court: initial responses were denials because they did not meet § 10-7-503(a)(2)(B) requirements; personal appearance cannot be mandated (affirmed for plaintiff) |
| Whether a requester must appear in person to obtain copies | Friedmann: no; Waller and OORC guidance allow non‑appearance if records are sufficiently identified | Sheriff: personal appearance required by their practice | Held: requester need not appear if records are sufficiently identified (Waller controlling) |
| Whether the refusal was "willful" under § 10-7-505(g) | Friedmann: refusal was willful because law was clear and OORC guidance was provided to County and counsel | Sheriff/County: acted on advice of counsel and investigated residency, so not willful | Held: County acted willfully — reliance on counsel and insistence on in-person appearance were not reasonable given clear law and OORC guidance; trial court abused discretion in denying fees |
| Whether attorneys’ fees should be awarded | Friedmann: seeks reasonable fees and costs under § 10-7-505(g) | County: trial court found no willfulness so no fees | Held: reverse; remand for calculation and award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under TPRA (trial court abused discretion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Bryan, 16 S.W.3d 770 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (a requester need not appear in person if records are sufficiently identified)
- Schneider v. City of Jackson, 226 S.W.3d 332 (Tenn. 2007) (discusses willfulness standard and that fees are inappropriate when withholding entity acts with a good‑faith belief that records are excepted)
- Memphis Publ’g Co. v. City of Memphis, 871 S.W.2d 681 (Tenn. 1994) (caution against imputing duty to foresee uncertain judicial outcomes when assessing willfulness)
- Patterson v. Convention Ctr. Auth., 421 S.W.3d 597 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (describing TPRA’s broad purpose and presumption of openness)
- Gautreaux v. Internal Med. Educ. Found., Inc., 336 S.W.3d 526 (Tenn. 2011) (TPRA’s purpose to promote public oversight and permit disclosure despite countervailing concerns)
- Arnold v. City of Chattanooga, 19 S.W.3d 779 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (prior discussion of "bad faith" language in TPRA jurisprudence)
- Greer v. City of Memphis, 356 S.W.3d 917 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (addresses willfulness phrasing; court clarifies bad‑faith language should not be rigidly applied)