Consumer Credit Research Foundation v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
800 S.E.2d 24
Ga. Ct. App.2017Background
- The Consumer Credit Research Foundation contracted with Kennesaw State University (KSU) for a professor to perform payday-loan research, producing a 2014 paper and related correspondence.
- Campaign for Accountability (CFA) requested KSU emails and communications between the professor and the Foundation under the Georgia Open Records Act (OCGA § 50-18-70 et seq.).
- KSU planned to release redacted research correspondence; the Foundation sued the Board of Regents for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent disclosure. CFA intervened as a defendant.
- Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed: Foundation argued the research correspondence was exempt under OCGA § 50-18-72(a)(35) and (36) and nondisclosure was mandatory; University Defendants argued (1) the records did not fall within the exceptions, and (2) the exceptions were permissive, not mandatory.
- The trial court ruled the research exceptions were discretionary and granted summary judgment to the University Defendants without deciding whether the records actually fit the exceptions.
- The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, holding the trial court erred by treating statutory exceptions as discretionary and directing the trial court to decide in the first instance whether the correspondence falls within the research exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory Open Records exceptions for academic research create mandatory nondisclosure | Foundation: exceptions (OCGA §50-18-72(a)(35),(36)) bar disclosure; private party may enjoin release | University: exceptions merely permit withholding; agency has discretion to release | Held: Exceptions are mandatory; agency compliance is not discretionary; private party may seek injunctive relief (per Bowers) |
| Whether Foundation could obtain injunction to prevent disclosure while suit pending | Foundation: Bowers allows private suits to enjoin disclosure of exempt records | University: agency may release even if exception arguably applies, so injunction not warranted | Held: Foundation is entitled to seek injunction if it shows records fall within statutory exceptions |
| Whether trial court needed to determine if records actually fit the exceptions | Foundation: trial court should decide applicability | University: argued applicability not proven; discretionary release made issue moot | Held: Trial court erred to skip applicability inquiry; remand to decide whether records meet exemptions |
| Whether Bowers governs interpretation of Georgia Open Records Act vs. FOIA | Foundation: Georgia law differs from FOIA; Bowers mandates nondisclosure for excepted records | University: relied on FOIA permissive precedent to argue discretion | Held: Bowers controls; Georgia Act requires nondisclosure of statutorily excepted information, unlike FOIA |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowers v. Shelton, 265 Ga. 247 (establishes that Georgia Open Records Act exceptions mandate nondisclosure and private parties may enjoin release)
- Harris v. Cox Enterprises, 256 Ga. 299 (state custodian must preserve confidentiality of information statutorily exempt from disclosure)
- Howard v. Sumter Free Press, 272 Ga. 521 (reiterates that agency compliance with Open Records Act is mandatory)
- Doe v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. System of Ga., 215 Ga. App. 684 (Board of Regents must preserve confidentiality of information the public has no right to see)