Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. City of Milwaukee
815 N.W.2d 367
Wis.2012Background
- Public Records Law case in Wisconsin about whether an authority can charge for redacting nondisclosable information from responsive records.
- Newspaper reporters sought Milwaukee Police Department records; City advanced charges for staff time to delete confidential data.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment allowing City to charge for redaction costs; Newspaper sought appellate bypass.
- Wis. Stat. § 19.35(3) lists four fee-eligible tasks and does not expressly authorize redaction costs.
- Court emphasizes presumption of complete public access and policy favoring disclosure; redaction costs implicate access and should be borne by the authority under current law.
- Court clarifies Osborn and WIREdata interpretations do not authorize broader redaction fees and remands for judgment in Newspaper’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether redaction costs may be charged under § 19.35(3). | Newspaper: redaction costs are not within enumerated fee tasks. | City: redaction falls under locating/reproduction costs. | No; redaction costs are not within the four enumerated fee tasks. |
| Whether the terms 'locating' or 'reproduction' encompass redaction. | Redaction is a post-locating alteration, not included. | Redaction should be considered under existing categories. | Redaction does not fit § 19.35(3) categories. |
| Impact of Declaration of Policy and presumption of public access on fees. | Fees hinder maximum public access. | Any interpretation must still respect the four enumerated tasks. | Presumption favors access; cannot expand fees to redaction. |
| How Osborn, WIREdata, and AG opinions affect the interpretation. | These authorities support broader cost recovery. | These opinions do not authorize redaction fees; law unchanged. | Osborn/WIREdata not to extend fee authority; Agency may not charge for redaction. |
| What is the court’s ultimate remedy? | Remand for judgment in Newspaper’s favor on redaction fees. | Maintain circuit court ruling allowing redaction costs. | Reverse circuit court; judgment in Newspaper’s favor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schill v. Wis. Rapids Sch. Dist., 327 Wis. 2d 572 (Wis. 2010) (preserves public access emphasis and statutory interpretation context)
- Osborn v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys., 254 Wis. 2d 266 (Wis. 2002) (limits fees to enumerated § 19.35(3) tasks; redaction not authorized)
- WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 310 Wis. 2d 397 (Wis. 2008) (restricts fee recovery to the statutory tasks; no broad 비용 recovery)