Colorado Republican Party v. Benefield
337 P.3d 1199
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- CRP sought attorney fees and costs under CORA after challenging disclosure of constituent surveys.
- Trial court ordered production of some surveys but withheld 659 surveys as confidential constituent communications.
- Appeal involved remand guidance from Division on whether surveys were public records and which should be produced.
- After remand, Representatives produced several surveys and continued to withhold 659; CRP moved for fees.
- Trial court denied CRP’s motion for costs and fees; this court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
- This appeal addresses whether CRP is a prevailing applicant and whether safe-harbor provisions apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of inspection was proper | CRP contends many surveys were public records and improperly withheld. | Representatives argue most surveys were confidential or properly withheld. | Denial improper for the majority of surveys; some must be disclosed. |
| Whether CRP was the prevailing applicant | CRP prevailed by obtaining production of records. | Representatives claim CRP did not prevail for all requested records. | CRP prevailed; obtaining any properly ordered production merits fees. |
| Whether CORA 24-72-204(6) safe harbor applies | Representatives did not meet safe-harbor requirements to avoid fees. | Representatives relied on 6(a)/(6)(b) to avoid fees. | Safe harbor not satisfied; fees may be awarded. |
| Appropriate amount of costs and attorney fees | CRP seeks the full amount due as prevailing applicant. | Amount should be determined after remand and factual findings. | Remanded for trial‑court determination of costs and fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Denver Publishing Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 121 P.3d 190 (Colo. 2005) (redaction allowed to exclude non-public information under CORA)
- Wick Communications Co. v. Montrose County Bd. of County Commissioners, 81 P.3d 360 (Colo. 2003) (three-element test for applicability of CORA)
- Sierra Club v. Billingsley, 166 P.3d 309 (Colo. App. 2007) (withholding records not subject to exception may entitle prevailing party to fees)
- Marks v. Koch, 284 P.3d 118 (Colo. App. 2011) (partial production can confer prevailing-party status under CORA)
- E-470 Public Highway Authority v. 455 Colorado, 3 P.3d 18 (Colo. 2000) (mixed questions of law and fact de novo review approach)