Juneau County Star-Times v. Juneau County
824 N.W.2d 457
Wis.2013Background
- This case interprets Wisconsin Public Records Law § 19.36(3) as it applies to invoices for legal services in a tripartite relationship between the County, its insurer, and the law firm.
- Juneau County Star-Times sought access to itemized invoices the Crivello Carlson law firm sent to County Mutual for Haske-related defense work.
- The circuit court held the invoices were not contractors' records under § 19.36(3) and could be redacted for attorney-client privilege.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the invoices were contractors' records governed by § 19.36(3) because of the tripartite relationship arising from the liability policy.
- The majority affirming the court of appeals reasoned that the liability policy creates a contractual framework connecting County, insurer, and law firm, making the invoices subject to public disclosure.
- The Court declined to decide the propriety of redactions or the attorney-client privilege, noting these issues were not properly before the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the invoices contractors' records under § 19.36(3)? | Star-Times: invoices are produced/collected under a contract between County and insurer. | County: no direct contract between County and law firm; invoices not produced/collected under a contract. | Yes; invoices are contractors' records under § 19.36(3). |
| Does the tripartite relationship (County, insurer, law firm) bring the invoices under § 19.36(3)? | The liability policy creates direct County-law firm interaction and an attorney-client relationship, making records produced under that policy public. | The County did not contract with the law firm; records are private between insurer and law firm. | Yes; the tripartite relationship makes the invoices subject to § 19.36(3). |
| Should the public policy favoring access override attorney-client privilege in redacted portions? | Public policy supports disclosure to inform about government affairs and use of taxpayer funds. | Disclosures should respect attorney-client privilege and work product; privilege limits disclosure. | Public policy supports access consistent with § 19.36(3) to the extent records are produced or collected under the contract; redaction issues not decided. |
| Did the majority resolve whether redactions preserved attorney-client privilege? | Not asserted as controlling; redaction issue not before the court as argued by the County. | Redactions were to protect privileged information; the issue was not fully briefed. | Redaction propriety not decided; remanded to circuit court for unredacted disclosure only, if appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. School Board of Shorewood, 186 Wis. 2d 443 (Ct. App. 1994) (public records may not be avoided by delegating record creation/custody to an agent)
- Machotka v. Village of West Salem, 233 Wis.2d 106 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000) (records produced under a contract with a contractor may be subject to disclosure)
- Building & Construction Trades Council v. Waunakee Community School District, 585 N.W.2d 726 (Ct. App. 1998) (prevailing wage and subcontractor records considerations in contractor records context)
- WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 310 Wis. 2d 397 (2008 WI) (contractor records application to independent contractor assessors)
- Lane v. Sharp Packaging Systems, Inc., 251 Wis.2d 68 (2002 WI) (attorney-client privilege remains, but may be limited by disclosure demands)