George S. Glassmeyer v. South Carolina Lottery Commission, 6155

Glassmeyer and the Lottery Commission previously settled litigation over FOIA requests for the names and identifying information of million-dollar lottery winners. 1
The settlement said Glassmeyer could resume FOIA requests after May 31, 2023, and the Lottery Commission would then provide winners' full names, cities, and states if no legislation intervened. 2
Before the appropriations bill took effect, Glassmeyer sent new FOIA requests for winners' names, check copies, vendor records, and employee emails, believing the Commission was concealing embezzlement. 3
The Lottery Commission partially denied request 1, redacted check signatures under FPPA, and denied the broad document requests as unduly burdensome and overly broad. 4
The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Lottery Commission and denied Glassmeyer's Rule 59(e) motion. 5
The court affirmed after cross-motions for summary judgment and a stipulated showing that the documents requests would require millions of dollars and thousands of hours to process. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether proviso 3.5 barred disclosure of lottery winners' names 7	Glassmeyer said the settlement and FOIA required disclosure when request 1 was received.	Lottery Commission said proviso 3.5 controlled when it ruled on the request.	The Commission properly withheld the names because proviso 3.5 was effective when it issued its determination. 8
Whether redacting check signatures violated FOIA 9	Glassmeyer said FPPA did not require redaction of officials' signatures.	Lottery Commission said signatures were protected personal information under FPPA.	The signatures were properly redacted because privacy outweighed the public interest. 10
Whether the documents requests were overly broad and unduly burdensome 11	Glassmeyer said FOIA favors access and the court should not borrow discovery concepts.	Lottery Commission said the requests would require massive review, redaction, and cost.	The requests were properly rejected as overly broad and unduly burdensome. 12

Kitchen Planners, LLC v. Friedman, 440 S.C. 456 (S.C. 2023) (summary judgment reviewed under the genuine-issue-of-material-fact standard 13)
Wiegand v. U.S. Auto. Ass'n, 391 S.C. 159 (S.C. 2011) (cross-motions for summary judgment concede the issue is decided as a matter of law 14)
Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79 (S.C. 2000) (statutory interpretation aims to effectuate legislative intent 15)
Edwards v. State, 383 S.C. 82 (S.C. 2009) (agencies must comply with enacted law until invalidated 16)
Pee Dee Stores, Inc. v. Doyle, 381 S.C. 234 (Ct. App. 2009) (settlement agreements are contracts 17)
McGill v. Moore, 381 S.C. 179 (S.C. 2009) (contract interpretation turns on the parties' intent as expressed in the language 18)
Morin v. Innegrity, LLC, 424 S.C. 559 (Ct. App. 2018) (impossibility excuses performance when the act cannot be accomplished 19)
White v. J.M. Brown Amusement Co., 360 S.C. 366 (S.C. 2004) (courts will not enforce contracts requiring unlawful performance 20)
Glassmeyer v. City of Columbia, 414 S.C. 213 (Ct. App. 2015) (FOIA/FPPA disputes require balancing privacy interests against the public's need to know 21)
Sloan v. Greenville County, 380 S.C. 528 (Ct. App. 2009) (a case is moot only if judgment would have no practical legal effect 22)