Buckel v. Chaney
47 So. 3d 148
| Miss. | 2010Background
- Buckel public-records request to MID concerning Katrina-related homeowner claims (Jan 4, 2009).
- MID responded (Jan 26, 2009) that it possessed no records and cited Act exemptions.
- Buckel filed chancery-court action seeking broader information including materials underlying prior MID examinations and press materials.
- Commissioner moved for summary judgment, asserting MID did not possess the requested records and that underlying documents were exempt (83-5-209(7)).
- Chancellor granted summary judgment, finding no possession by MID and applying the exemption under 83-5-209(7) and 83-1.6(b)(2).
- Buckel appeals, challenging admissibility of an interested-witness affidavit, sufficiency of Buckel’s rebuttal evidence, and the proper records-request methodology under the Public Records Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the chancellor properly valued the affidavit from an MID employee. | Buckel argues the affidavit was from an interested witness and should not be credited. | Commissioner argues Reeves not controlling; affidavit based on personal knowledge and admissible. | No reversible error; affidavit proper and sufficient to support summary judgment. |
| Whether Buckel’s rebuttal evidence created a genuine issue that MID possessed the records. | Buckel contends Market Conduct Report and press materials imply MID had the data. | Record evidence fails to show MID possessed the underlying documents; mere inferences are insufficient. | No genuine issue; Buckel failed to prove MID possessed the records. |
| Whether Buckel made a proper public-records request under the Mississippi Public Records Act. | Initial general request encompassed the Market Conduct Report information. | Buckel failed to describe the records with specificity per Regulation 83-1.4(b). | Buckel did not make a proper records request; the chancery court correct to deny. |
| Whether the examination documents are exempt from disclosure under statutes; harmonization with 25-61-11. | Exemption only for trade secrets; argues 83-5-209(7) creates discretionary exemption. | Exemptions coexist with 25-61-11 and 83-5-209(7) creates a statutory exemption; harmonized application. | Exemption valid; statute harmonized; records remain exempt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson Quality Ford, Inc. v. Casanova, 999 So.2d 830 (Miss. 2008) (burden on movant; summary judgment standard)
- Brown v. Credit Ctr., Inc., 444 So.2d 358 (Miss. 1983) (mere general allegations insufficient for SJ)
- Dalton v. Cellular S., Inc., 20 So.3d 1227 (Miss. 2009) (affidavits must have admissible facts; nonconclusory)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (disfavored; credibility of evidence from interested witnesses in some contexts)
- Stuckey v. The Provident Bank, 912 So.2d 859 (Miss. 2005) (affidavits; admissibility and personal knowledge)