Mississippi Department of Audit v. Gulf Publishing Company, Inc.
236 So. 3d 32
| Miss. | 2017Background
- Gulf Publishing (GP) requested records from the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (DMR) relating to alleged misappropriation; DMR produced electronic copies but some uncopied originals were in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Audit (State Auditor/Department of Audit).
- Grand-jury subpoenas, issued at the behest of the Department of Audit, required DMR records be retained in-place and released only to the Department of Audit; DMR informed GP it could not comply with the MPRA requests because of the subpoenas.
- GP sued in Harrison County Chancery Court under the Mississippi Public Records Act (MPRA). Circuit court entered a protective order allowing DMR to produce electronic copies but did not address originals held by the Department of Audit.
- The chancery court found the records were not exempt, held the Department of Audit in contempt for delivering originals to a federal grand jury, and awarded GP attorney’s fees and expenses; it also fined several individuals $100 each under Miss. Code § 25-61-15.
- The Court of Appeals reversed parts of the chancery court’s order, holding the records were exempt as investigative reports; the Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court majority held the investigative-report exemption claim was waived, found the Department of Audit violated the MPRA and is liable for attorney’s fees and expenses, affirmed a $100 fine against investigator Huggins, but reversed findings that DMR was jointly liable and vacated fines assessed against several other officials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the investigative-report exemption under the MPRA applies to originals held by the Department of Audit | GP: records are public business records not exempt and must be produced | Dept. of Audit: records are law-enforcement investigative reports (exempt) and/or protected by grand-jury secrecy | Court: Dept. of Audit waived the investigative-report exemption for these originals; Court of Appeals' exemption holding overruled |
| Whether grand-jury secrecy (Rule 6(e) / state grand-jury confidentiality) barred production | GP: subpoenas did not create a perpetual secrecy bar; federal court later held records were not grand-jury materials | Dept. of Audit/Appellants: subpoenas and grand-jury process prevented release | Court: grand-jury secrecy claim was waived and federal court later found records not subject to Rule 6(e); supports release |
| Whether the Department of Audit and/or DMR violated the MPRA and are liable for fees/penalties | GP: Dept. of Audit and DMR wrongfully denied access, entitling GP to MPRA penalties, attorney's fees, and expenses | Dept. of Audit: acted properly to protect grand-jury materials; DMR: acted in good faith and attempted compliance | Court: Department of Audit violated MPRA and is liable for $36,783.50 in fees and $1,249.95 expenses; DMR acted in good faith and is not jointly liable |
| Whether contempt and individual $100 statutory fines under §25-61-15 were properly imposed | GP: contempt and individual fines appropriate for willful wrongful denial | Defendants: contempt improper (purged), some individuals had no record evidence; §25-61-15 applies to individuals | Court: civil contempt finding as to Dept. of Audit upheld in part (liability for fees), $100 fine against Huggins affirmed; fines against Pickering, Hood, Lott, Patterson, Runnels, Chestnut, and Pizzetta vacated for lack of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1922) (comity principles between courts and rule that the court first taking possession of the res may exhaust its remedies)
- Covell v. Heyman, 111 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1884) (comity and limits on interference with another court's process)
- Farson, Son & Co. v. Bird, 248 U.S. 268 (U.S. 1919) (discussion of writs compelling officials to perform or refrain from acts)
- Mississippi Dep't of Corr. v. Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Ctr., 220 So.3d 929 (Miss. 2017) (interpretation of MPRA investigative-report exemption scope)
- Mississippi Dep't of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks v. Mississippi Wildlife Enforcement Officers' Ass'n, Inc., 740 So.2d 925 (Miss. 1999) (upholding assessment of MPRA penalties against public bodies)
- Harrison County Dev. Comm'n v. Kinney, 920 So.2d 497 (Miss. 2006) (same; penalties under MPRA against public body)