777 S.E.2d 835
S.C. Ct. App.2015Background
- Glassmeyer submitted a FOIA request for materials relating to the final three applicants for Columbia city manager; the City produced applications but redacted applicants’ home addresses, personal phone numbers, and personal email addresses (and other items later conceded or undisputed).
- The City initially refused to provide unredacted copies, citing FOIA exemptions and offering confidential in‑camera review; it later produced more information after litigation began but continued to withhold personal contact information.
- Glassmeyer sued for a declaratory judgment and injunction under the South Carolina FOIA and sought attorney’s fees; both parties moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court held the City violated FOIA by failing to state its reasons for redactions, found the exemptions inapplicable, ordered disclosure of the contested contact information, and awarded Glassmeyer attorney’s fees.
- On appeal the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed as to disclosure of home addresses, personal telephone numbers, and personal email addresses (holding those are exempt under the privacy exemption) but affirmed the award of attorney’s fees because Glassmeyer prevailed on significant issues and the City failed to justify redactions when producing records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applicants’ home addresses, personal phone numbers, and personal email addresses must be disclosed under FOIA §30‑4‑40(a)(13) | Glassmeyer: disclosure does not unreasonably invade privacy; information is publicly available and is needed to verify applicants’ representations | City: privacy exemption (§30‑4‑40(a)(2)) protects personal contact information; public interest in disclosure is minimal | Court: contact information is personal and disclosure would be an unreasonable invasion of privacy; exempt under §30‑4‑40(a)(2) — reversal of disclosure order |
| Whether the City violated FOIA by failing to state reasons for redactions when producing records | Glassmeyer: City failed to timely provide justification, violating FOIA | City: produced records with redactions and asserted exemptions (later provided additional material) | Court: City failed to provide basis for redactions when producing records; that unappealed trial‑court ruling stood and supported fee award |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees under FOIA §30‑4‑100(b) | Glassmeyer: prevailed in whole or in part and is thus entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees | City: challenges fee award except for a discrete amount | Court: plaintiff prevailed on significant issues and is entitled to attorney’s fees; award affirmed |
| Whether the Family Privacy Protection Act or other statutes preclude exemption for contact info | City: argued statutes recognizing need to protect personal info support exemption | Glassmeyer: Act not applicable to prevent disclosure here | Court: Family Privacy Protection Act not applicable to defeat exemption; legislative recognition of protecting personal identifying info supports privacy interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Perry v. Bullock, 409 S.C. 137 (discussing statutory interpretation and FOIA principles)
- Evening Post Publ’g Co. v. City of N. Charleston, 363 S.C. 452 (privacy exemptions are narrowly construed against the government)
- City of Columbia v. ACLU, 323 S.C. 384 (whether a record is exempt depends on case facts; FOIA purpose explained)
- Mich. Fed’n of Teachers & Sch. Related Pers. v. Univ. of Mich., 481 Mich. 657 (home addresses and telephone numbers found exempt under state FOIA)
- U.S. Dep’t of Def. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487 (Supreme Court: employees’ home addresses need not be disclosed under FOIA when privacy outweighs public interest)
- Campbell v. Manon Cty. Hosp. Dist., 354 S.C. 274 (prevailing FOIA plaintiffs may recover reasonable attorney’s fees)