Herbert S. Moncier v. Nina Harris
E2016-00209-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Mar 10, 2017Background
- Herbert Moncier requested TDOSHS civil forfeiture case files (notices of seizure, forfeiture warrants, case-management sheets) dating from Jan 1, 2015, to solicit clients.
- TDOSHS produced files in installments but redacted addresses and other personal data, citing the Tennessee UMVRDA and federal DPPA because officers often pull address data from motor-vehicle and vehicle-registration databases.
- Moncier filed a complaint under the Tennessee Public Disclosure Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-505) seeking non-redacted records; the trial court held the Department met its burden to withhold addresses under UMVRDA/DPPA and denied Moncier relief.
- Moncier subpoenaed a Department attorney; the trial court granted a motion to quash and denied Moncier leave to amend pleadings post-hearing.
- While the appeal was pending, the legislature enacted 2016 Tenn. Pub. Acts, Ch. 722, § 5, adding Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-504(a)(29), which bars public disclosure of specified "personally identifying information," including "addresses."
- The Court of Appeals concluded the statutory amendment rendered the appeal moot, vacated the trial court judgment, and dismissed the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2016 amendment renders the appeal moot | Moncier: civil forfeiture statutes (e.g., § 40-33-204(g)) make notices public; amendment doesn't authorize withholding paper notices | Officials: § 10-7-504(a)(29) now categorically bars disclosing addresses regardless of source | Mootness: Held moot—§ 10-7-504(a)(29) clearly protects addresses in the requested files |
| Whether UMVRDA/DPPA violate Tenn. Const. Art I §19 | Moncier: statutory limits on disclosure here infringe constitutional right to inspect records | Officials: No constitutional right to inspect; legislature may limit disclosure | Not reached on merits due to mootness (trial court had held no constitutional violation) |
| Whether TDOSHS met show-cause burden to withhold addresses under Public Records Act | Moncier: Department failed to show addresses were derived from motor-vehicle records so redaction not justified | Officials: Practically impossible to determine source; redactions required to comply with UMVRDA/DPPA | Not reached on merits because appeal was rendered moot by statute |
| Whether trial court abused discretion re: subpoena quash and denial to amend | Moncier: subpoena and amendment were proper to develop record | Officials: Show-cause procedure prohibits broad discovery; amendment introduced new matters | Not reviewed—issues pretermitted after mootness finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Memphis Publ’g Co. v. Cherokee Children & Family Servs., Inc., 87 S.W.3d 67 (Tenn. 2002) (Public Records Act should be construed to give fullest possible public access)
- Norma Faye Pyles Lynch Family Purpose LLC v. Putnam Cnty., 301 S.W.3d 196 (Tenn. 2009) (mootness analysis and public-interest exceptions)
- Abernathy v. Whitley, 838 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (legislature may create or limit statutory rights when none are constitutional)
- State v. Mangrum, 403 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for quash decisions)