Jacob Hackman v. Suellen Kolbet, as Custodian for the New Hampton Municipal Light Plant, 16-2063

Jacob Hackman submitted a broad public-records request to the New Hampton Municipal Light Plant (the Plant) requesting emails, meeting materials, insurance policies, and file indexes.
The Plant responded and produced records in December 2012, then invoiced Hackman $828.30, including $35/hour charges for 21.75 hours of "research" (reviewing, redacting, compiling, copying, and corresponding) and copying costs per the Plant's written fee policy.
Hackman sued for declaratory judgment claiming the charges were impermissible attorney fees not authorized by Iowa Code § 22.3; the Plant counterclaimed for the unpaid balance.
The Plant filed for summary judgment, supported by an affidavit from the city clerk stating the need to review over 400 emails and that some emails were forwarded to the Plant’s attorney for statutory interpretation and redaction.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Plant, ordering Hackman to pay the invoice; Hackman appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fees charged to fulfill the public-records request constituted unauthorized attorney fees	Hackman: charges were attorney fees and therefore not authorized by statute	Plant: Iowa Code § 22.3 authorizes a reasonable fee for custodial "research" and other expenses to retrieve and prepare records	The court held the fees were authorized expenses under § 22.3 and summary judgment for the Plant affirmed

Rathmann v. Bd. of Dirs. of Davenport Cmty. Sch. Dist., 580 N.W.2d 773 (Iowa 1998) (interpreting § 22.3 to allow custodians to charge fees covering costs of retrieving public records)
Cawthorn v. Catholic Health Initiatives Iowa Corp., 806 N.W.2d 282 (Iowa 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Frontier Leasing Corp. v. Links Eng’g, LLC, 781 N.W.2d 772 (Iowa 2010) (district court should not make credibility determinations on summary judgment)