807 N.W.2d 655
Wis. Ct. App.2011Background
- Juneau County was insured under a public entity liability policy with Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corporation.
- The insurer hired Crivello Carlson to defend the County in a disciplinary matter involving a sheriff's department employee; the law firm issued itemized invoices to the insurer.
- Star-Times requested public records: bills submitted to the insurer by Michele Ford/Crivello Carlson for 2008–2010 services.
- Crivello Carlson provided redacted invoices stating redactions protected attorney-client privilege or work product; the County adopted that response.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for the County, ruling § 19.36(3) did not apply to the invoices and that redactions were privileged; Star-Times appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 19.36(3) applies to the invoices | Star-Times argues invoices were collected under the insurance contract. | County argues invoices were not collected under the contract; may rely on other arrangements. | Yes; § 19.36(3) applies to the invoices. |
| Whether the redacted information is attorney-client privileged | Star-Times contends redactions are not sufficiently justified as privileged. | County contends redactions reveal privileged communications. | Redactions were not sufficiently supported; privilege not established on record; must unredact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Building & Construction Trades Council v. Waunakee Community School District, 221 Wis. 2d 575 (Ct. App. 1998) (19.36(3) applicability contested in public records requests)
- Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. School District of the School District of Shorewood, 186 Wis. 2d 443 (Ct. App. 1994) (records created by a law firm may be public records under 19.36(3) when linked to representation)
- Newspapers, Inc. v. Breier, 89 Wis. 2d 417 (1979) (burden on custodian to justify redactions in public records cases)
- Lane v. Sharp Packaging Sys., Inc., 251 Wis. 2d 68, 640 N.W.2d 788 (2002) (billing records not per se privileged; must show disclosure would reveal confidential communications)
- Seifert v. School Dist. of Sheboygan Falls, 305 Wis. 2d 582, 740 N.W.2d 177 (2007) (attorney work-product and privilege standards in public records context)
- Brownelli v. McCaughtry, 182 Wis. 2d 367, 514 N.W.2d 48 (Ct. App. 1994) (de novo review standard in appellate review of summary judgments)