Bradley Jetmore v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Tennessee
M2016-01792-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Petitioner Bradley Jetmore claimed Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD) stopped providing prompt public inspection of traffic accident reports in late 2015 and adopted a policy limiting immediate copies to three reports; he sought injunctive relief under the Tennessee Public Records Act (TPRA).
- Metro stored reports in the TITAN electronic system, required supervisors to finalize reports, and had Central Records manually redact sensitive data before release; Metro's practice generally made reports available for inspection within ~72 hours after submission to TITAN.
- Metro’s Form 720 (adopted as part of an SOP) informed requestors MNPD had seven business days to process copy requests and required Form 720 for requests over three reports; staff would provide three or fewer copies on demand and process larger requests later.
- The trial court held a show-cause hearing based on declarations (no live testimony), found Metro’s historic practice made reports available within ~72 hours and that Metro’s three-report rule and seven-day copy policy conflicted with TPRA’s promptness requirement, granted injunctive relief and awarded attorneys’ fees for willful violation.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to seek prospective relief for a category of records, (2) copies are subject to the TPRA’s “promptly” standard, (3) Metro acted willfully in denying prompt access/copies, and (4) the injunction was modified to start the 72-hour clock when the supervising officer submits the report to TITAN.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction to seek injunctive relief for a category of records | Jetmore sought prospective, categorical relief to require prompt production of accident reports | Metro argued Jetmore had to identify particular denied records to invoke § 10-7-505 | Court: Jurisdiction exists for injunctive relief over a category of public records; specific-document identification not required (Schneider persuasive) |
| Scope of “promptly” under TPRA for inspection | "Promptly" requires timely production (Jetmore: ~72 hours shown practicable) | Metro: statute allows up to seven business days when not practicable; TITAN/administrative processes justify delay | Court:Promptness judged case-by-case; Metro’s historic practice and evidence showed production well before seven days, so 72-hour standard appropriate; injunction ordered |
| Whether copies are governed by the TPRA’s promptness requirement | Jetmore: right to inspect includes right to obtain copies promptly (§ 10-7-506 read with § 10-7-503) | Metro: Promptness applies only to inspection; § 10-7-506 allows reasonable rules for copies (Form 720’s 7-day rule valid) | Court: Copies are subject to promptness; custodian rules must not conflict with TPRA; Metro’s three-report rule and Form 720 violated the Act |
| Whether Metro acted “willfully” warranting attorneys’ fees under § 10-7-505(g) | Jetmore: Metro willfully refused prompt access and copies contrary to law and its demonstrated capability | Metro: Policies were reasonable, adopted in good faith, relying on legal advice and balancing demands | Court: Metro’s systematic three-report rule and seven-day copy practice conflicted with TPRA and were willful; attorneys’ fees affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Kelly, 445 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2014) (appellate standard where trial findings based on documentary evidence)
- Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393 (Tenn. 2013) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- Schneider v. City of Jackson, 226 S.W.3d 332 (Tenn. 2007) (upholding injunctive relief for categorical TPRA violations)
- The Tennessean v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 485 S.W.3d 857 (Tenn. 2016) (TPRA’s purpose: public oversight and broad construction)
- Clarke v. City of Memphis, 473 S.W.3d 285 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (discussing willfulness under TPRA attorneys’ fee provision)
- Friedmann v. Marshall Cnty., 471 S.W.3d 427 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (willfulness standard and no need to show ill will or dishonest purpose)
- The Tennessean v. Elec. Power Bd. of Nashville, 979 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1998) (custodian may adopt reasonable rules but not rules that substantially inhibit disclosure)