Memphis Publishing Company d/b/a The Commercial Appeal v. City of Memphis, W2016-01680-COA-R3-CV

Background

The City of Memphis contracted with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) to conduct an executive search for the city’s Director of Police; IACP solicited, screened, and recommended candidates but its list was non‑binding on the City.
The Commercial Appeal requested copies of applications (resumes and cover letters) submitted to IACP; the City said it did not possess them and IACP did not respond, so the newspaper sued under the Tennessee Public Records Act (TPRA).
The trial court ordered IACP’s applicant materials released, finding (1) IACP was the “functional equivalent” of the City and (2) § 10‑7‑503(f) (covering applications for a “director of schools or any chief public administrative officer”) compelled disclosure; the court denied attorneys’ fees.
IACP and the City appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed whether (a) IACP’s records were public under the functional‑equivalence test from Cherokee and (b) whether § 10‑7‑503(f) covers the Director of Police position.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court: it held IACP was not the functional equivalent of the City and § 10‑7‑503(f) does not encompass the police director; it affirmed the denial of attorneys’ fees.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IACP is the "functional equivalent" of the City, making its applicant records public	Petitioners: IACP performed public functions in recruiting and narrowing candidates, so its records are public under Cherokee	IACP/City: IACP merely provided a nonbinding search service and was not delegated governmental authority	Held: No — IACP did not perform a governmental function, received negligible government funding, was not controlled by the City, and wasn’t created by the legislature; not the functional equivalent
Whether § 10‑7‑503(f) (records for director of schools or any chief public administrative officer) applies to Director of Police	Petitioners: statute and precedent support disclosure for high‑level executive searches, including police director	IACP/City: statute’s phrase ‘‘chief public administrative officer’’ was not meant to include police director; legislature separately protects "chief law enforcement officer" elsewhere	Held: No — statutory text and legislative history indicate § 503(f) does not encompass the police director position
Whether the request for "applications" includes resumes and cover letters held by IACP	Petitioners: Agreement and IACP affidavits treat resumes and cover letters as "application materials"	City: attempted narrow reading to avoid jurisdiction	Held: Yes — resumes and cover letters are application materials covered by the request
Whether Petitioners are entitled to attorneys’ fees under § 10‑7‑505(g)	Petitioners: Respondents willfully withheld public records	Respondents: withholding not willful; records not public	Held: Denied — because records were not subject to disclosure, no fee award; trial court’s denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Memphis Publ’g Co. v. Cherokee Children & Family Servs., Inc., 87 S.W.3d 67 (Tenn. 2002) (adopts functional‑equivalence test for applying TPRA to private entities)
Gautreaux v. Internal Med. Educ. Found., Inc., 336 S.W.3d 526 (Tenn. 2011) (examines TPRA application to nonprofits and limits on functional‑equivalence findings)
Allen v. Day, 213 S.W.3d 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (interprets what constitutes a governmental function under Cherokee)
Patterson v. Convention Ctr. Auth. of Metro. Gov’t, 421 S.W.3d 597 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (government bears burden to justify nondisclosure under TPRA)
Memphis Publ’g Co. v. City of Memphis, 871 S.W.2d 681 (Tenn. 1994) (recognizes broad legislative purpose of TPRA to maximize public access)