CAMPAIGN FOR ACCOUNTABILITY v. CONSUMER CREDIT RESEARCH FOUNDATION (Two Cases)
303 Ga. 828
Ga.2018Background
- CCRF contracted with Kennesaw State University researcher Dr. Jennifer Lewis Priestly; Dr. Priestly separately signed a confidentiality agreement with CCRF and later published research.
- Campaign for Accountability (CFA) submitted an ORA request to KSU for Dr. Priestly’s correspondence with CCRF and related parties seeking disclosure of funding and communications.
- KSU notified CCRF of the intent to disclose; CCRF sued the Board of Regents seeking declaratory/injunctive relief that the records fall under OCGA § 50-18-72(a)(35) and (36) and therefore cannot be disclosed.
- Trial court held the Board could elect to disclose records even if not required by ORA and granted summary judgment to the Board and CFA; Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Bowers to hold that certain ORA exemptions mandate nondisclosure and remanded to determine applicability of exemptions.
- Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari, limited the legal question to whether ORA exemptions in OCGA § 50-18-72(a) automatically prohibit disclosure, and assumed for analysis the records fit the (35)/(36) research exemptions.
Issues
| Issue | CCRF's Argument | Board/CFA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether records falling under OCGA §50-18-72(a) exemptions are prohibited from disclosure | Exempt = prohibited; statutory language means agencies cannot disclose any record covered by the listed exemptions | Exemptions free agencies from a duty to disclose but do not bar discretionary disclosure unless the exemption expressly prohibits disclosure or another law forbids it | Exemptions do not automatically prohibit disclosure; agencies may disclose unless another statute or the exemption expressly forbids it |
| Whether Bowers v. Shelton requires nondisclosure for all excepted information | Bowers established that ORA mandates nondisclosure for excepted records generally | Bowers is properly read narrowly to apply only where a statute expressly mandates nondisclosure (e.g., tax statutes) | Court narrows Bowers: it applies only to provisions that themselves mandate nondisclosure; disapproves broader readings |
| Whether CCRF had a judicially cognizable right to sue to enjoin disclosure under the ORA | CCRF: ORA authorizes suit to prevent unlawful disclosure | Board/CFA: ORA differences from FOIA but allows suit only to enforce actual prohibitions | CCRF may sue under ORA to enforce nondisclosure where a prohibition exists, but entitlement to sue does not mean entitlement to win absent a legal prohibition |
| Whether allowing discretionary disclosure undermines research contracting/confidentiality | CCRF: permitting disclosure will chill university research and contracting; protections are needed | Board/CFA: agencies may contractually agree to confidentiality; ORA doesn’t create or negate contract rights; statutory protections for trade secrets and other categories remain | Court: policy concerns are for the Legislature; contracts can bind agencies if within authority, but ORA does not itself bar discretionary disclosures; CCRF lacked an enforceable contract against the Board in this record |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowers v. Shelton, 265 Ga. 247 (1995) (discusses ability to enjoin disclosure under Georgia ORA and nondisclosure where other statutes expressly prohibit disclosure)
- Harris v. Cox Enterprises, Inc., 256 Ga. 299 (1986) (interpreted earlier version of ORA that expressly referenced statutory prohibitions on disclosure)
- Howard v. Sumter Free Press, 272 Ga. 521 (2000) (cited Bowers for mandatory nature of ORA compliance)
- Griffin-Spalding County Hosp. Auth. v. Radio Station WKEU, 240 Ga. 444 (1977) (addresses limits on creating separate public and nonpublic records and redaction obligations)