McLeod v. Parnell
286 P.3d 509
| Alaska | 2012Background
- Alaska Records Management Act and Public Records Act questions; whether private emails about state business are public records.
- State employees used private and government email accounts; private emails touching state business can bypass normal archiving.
- Public Records Act defines public records as records preserved or appropriate for preservation under the Records Management Act.
- Superior court issued orders to preserve emails and recover deleted emails related to official business; litigation followed.
- Court held use of private emails for state business is not per se obstruction; public records include records appropriate for preservation, not every private email.
- On appeal, McLeod was granted partial summary judgment; issues regarding prevailing party and attorney’s fees remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are private emails touching state business public records? | McLeod argues such emails are public records if appropriate for preservation. | State contends only preserved or preservable records become public records, not all private emails. | Public records include those preserved or appropriate for preservation. |
| Is private-email use to conduct state business a per se obstruction of public records? | McLeod claims private-email use obstructs public access to records. | State argues private-use alone does not per se obstruct access. | Not per se obstruction. |
| Does preservation duty apply to records appropriate for preservation under the Records Management Act? | Records appropriate for preservation are public records. | Agency discretion exists in determining preservation. | Records appropriate for preservation are public records. |
| Did McLeod deserve partial summary judgment on the scope of public records and preservation? | McLeod sought broad declarations about all emails as public records and private-use as obstruction. | State urged narrower interpretation granting full summary judgment to State. | McLeod entitled to partial summary judgment; State not entitled to full summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hageland Aviation Servs., Inc. v. Harms, 210 P.3d 444 (Alaska 2009) (public records/records preservation context)
- Olivit v. City & Borough of Juneau, 171 P.3d 1137 (Alaska 2007) (public records and obstruction standards)
- Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896 (Alaska 1987) (statutory interpretation and records concepts)
- Brooks Range Exploration Co. v. Gordon, 46 P.3d 942 (Alaska 2002) (interpretation of statutes and public records concepts)
- Bowman v. Blair, 889 P.2d 1069 (Alaska 1995) (prevailing party/attorney's fees framework)
- Tobeluk v. Lind, 589 P.2d 873 (Alaska 1979) (prevailing party considerations and fee shifting)
- Alliance of Concerned Taxpayers, Inc. v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 273 P.3d 1123 (Alaska 2012) (partial summary judgment and prevailing party guidance)
- Cragle v. Gray, 206 P.3d 446 (Alaska 2009) (Public Records Act/summary judgment context)
- Day v. Moore, 771 P.2d 436 (Alaska 1989) (general principles on prevailing party analysis)