Griswold v. Homer City Council
428 P.3d 180
Alaska2018Background
- Frank Griswold requested (1) all communications and records relating to the Homer Board of Adjustment’s June 6, 2014 decision (including communications with attorney Holly Wells) and (2) all attorney invoices for legal services to the City between May 16 and Nov 11, 2014.
- City Manager Wrede withheld or redacted communications and some invoice entries, invoking attorney-client, work-product, and deliberative process privileges; some invoices were produced in part.
- Griswold appealed to the City Council, which affirmed; he then appealed to superior court. The superior court reviewed some invoices in camera, ordered limited disclosure of two redacted invoice items, upheld other redactions/withholdings, and denied contempt.
- The superior court awarded the City 20% of its attorney’s fees as the prevailing party; Griswold sought reconsideration and argued public-interest litigant status.
- On further appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court, the Court affirmed protection for the Board‑related communications, vacated the superior court’s rulings about attorney invoices and the fee award, and remanded the invoice review for compliance with in camera/redaction procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether communications between Board members, City staff, and attorney Wells are disclosable | Griswold: communications not privileged because Wells was a neutral/quasi‑judicial advisor | City: communications protected by deliberative process (and other privileges) | Court: communications are predecisional/deliberative and nondisclosable; affirmed superior court |
| Whether attorney invoices/time entries must be disclosed | Griswold: invoices contain no privileged matter and must be produced unredacted | City: invoices/time entries contain attorney-client and work-product material exempt from disclosure | Court: attorney-client and work-product are state‑law exceptions; superior court’s invoice rulings vacated and remanded for in camera review per In re Mendel procedure (redact mental impressions, allow attorney objections, then disclose unprivileged material) |
| Whether Homer City Code requires broader disclosure than state Public Records Act | Griswold: City Code mandates disclosure beyond state law | City: Code exceptions mirror/permit the same privileges (attorney-client, work-product, deliberative) | Court: Code’s exceptions encompass the withheld categories; Code does not require additional disclosure |
| Prevailing‑party fees and contempt | Griswold: he prevailed/was a public‑interest litigant; court erred awarding fees and denying contempt | City: was prevailing party; complied with order; fees appropriate | Court: vacated prevailing‑party and fee award because part of merits was remanded; denial of contempt affirmed (no willful disobedience) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gwich’in Steering Comm. v. State, Office of the Governor, 10 P.3d 572 (Alaska 2000) (deliberative‑process privilege framework and balancing test)
- Capital Info. Grp. v. State, Office of the Governor, 923 P.2d 29 (Alaska 1996) (deliberative process and exceptions to Public Records Act)
- In re Mendel, 897 P.2d 68 (Alaska 1995) (in camera review procedure for attorney billing records; redact mental impressions then allow counsel to object)
- City of Kenai v. Kenai Peninsula Newspapers, Inc., 642 P.2d 1316 (Alaska 1982) (scope of public records right)
- Cool Homes, Inc. v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 860 P.2d 1248 (Alaska 1993) (limitations on applying attorney‑client/work‑product privileges to open‑meetings context)
- Langdon v. Champion, 752 P.2d 999 (Alaska 1988) (work‑product doctrine in Alaska)
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) (recognition of attorney‑client privilege)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) (origin of work‑product protection)