Griswold v. Homer City Council
310 P.3d 938
| Alaska | 2013Background
- In 2008 Homer approved a bond proposition and issued a brochure; resident Frank Griswold complained the brochure unlawfully used municipal funds and obtained a $400 fine for the City from the Alaska Public Offices Commission.
- Griswold requested emails relating to the brochure; the city manager initially denied the April 2008 request as harassing, and the superior court remanded for proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
- Griswold renewed the request in 2010; the City produced over 600 emails, spent money on recovery software and staff time, but could not recover some deleted emails without costly additional forensics.
- The Homer City Council reviewed withheld emails in camera, ordered seven disclosed, and concluded the city manager made a “good faith and reasonable effort” to locate records under Homer City Code §1.80.060(a).
- Griswold appealed to superior court claiming inadequate search, unlawful destruction of records, denial of hearing, improper privilege withholding, judicial bias, and contested the attorney-fee award; the superior court affirmed the Council and awarded fees to the City.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the city manager made a "good faith and reasonable effort" to locate requested emails | Griswold: search was inadequate; lost/deleted emails show noncompliance | City: used recovery software, spent substantial staff time, produced available responsive emails; remaining recovery would be disproportionately costly | Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supports finding of good faith, reviewed for clear error |
| Whether the City unlawfully destroyed public records (retention/destruction claim) | Griswold: City failed to preserve emails and unlawfully destroyed records under the Public Records Act | City: deletion routine and governed by records management practices; claim not pleaded below and not litigated | Court: Claim not adequately explained or litigated here; beyond scope of administrative appeal |
| Whether Griswold was denied opportunity to be heard (due process) | Griswold: Council and court failed to permit witnesses/evidence; expected an evidentiary hearing | City: Court provided opportunities to supplement the record, took deposition of IT manager, and Griswold cross-examined the witness; he submitted no additional evidence | Court: No due process violation; Griswold had meaningful opportunity and waived objections by not supplementing record |
| Whether withheld emails were properly privileged (attorney-client) | Griswold: some emails improperly withheld as privileged | City: withheld communications fall within attorney-client/confidentiality exemptions; Council reviewed and ordered partial disclosure | Court: Reviewed withheld emails and upheld privilege for remaining withheld communications |
| Whether award of attorney’s fees to Council was excessive | Griswold: fee award should be limited (e.g., to Civil Rule 82 guideline) | City: prevailing party under Appellate Rule 508(e); court has discretion to set amount | Court: No abuse of discretion in awarding ~55% of fees incurred |
Key Cases Cited
- Catholic Bishop of N. Alaska v. City of Nome, 707 P.2d 870 (Alaska 1985) (standard for reviewing superior court fact findings)
- Shea v. State, Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Ret. & Benefits, 267 P.3d 624 (Alaska 2011) (standard of review when superior court is factfinder in administrative matters)
- McLeod v. Parnell, 286 P.3d 509 (Alaska 2012) (definition of public records and relation to Records Management Act)
- Stalnaker v. Williams, 960 P.2d 590 (Alaska 1998) (permissible range of attorney’s fees awards in administrative appeals)