963 N.W.2d 816
Wis. Ct. App.2021Background
- Susan Meinecke, a Village of Grafton trustee, filed multiple public records requests for emails from village officials; she received some but not all responsive records.
- Meinecke sued in mandamus under Wis. Stat. ch. 19 to compel release of five categories of withheld emails; the circuit court ordered release of 145 of 329 requested pages.
- Meinecke sought attorney fees, statutory costs, and damages under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2)(a).
- The circuit court denied fees, reasoning Meinecke had not "prevailed in substantial part," questioned her motives, and noted not all requested documents were released.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that obtaining court-ordered access to improperly withheld records satisfies "prevailed in whole or in substantial part," leaving fee amount for discretionary determination on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a requester "prevails in substantial part" under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(2)(a) when a court orders release of some but not all requested records | Meinecke: a judicial order granting access to improperly withheld records means she prevailed in substantial part and is entitled to mandatory fees | Village: partial success should not automatically trigger mandatory fees; Wisconsin should follow FOIA discretionary approach | Court: A judicial order granting access to improperly withheld records establishes that the requester prevailed in substantial part; entitlement to fees is mandatory; extent of success affects amount, not eligibility |
| Whether the circuit court could deny fees based on motives, partial release, or perceived waste of time | Meinecke: such considerations are relevant only to amount of fees, not to eligibility | Village: court may consider lack of complete success and motives to deny fees | Court: Court erred in denying fees; discretionary factors (including partial success) bear on reasonable fee calculation on remand, not on threshold eligibility |
| Whether FOIA's discretionary standard should control Wisconsin fee eligibility analysis | Meinecke: Wisconsin statute is mandatory and distinct from FOIA; eligibility should follow judicial-order rule | Village: FOIA practice should guide analysis and permit discretion on awarding fees | Court: Rejected adoption of FOIA discretionary rule for entitlement; FOIA persuasive on definition of "substantially prevailed" but Wisconsin statute is mandatory |
| Standard for calculating fees on remand | Meinecke: reasonable fees under lodestar approach tied to success on ordered disclosures | Village: court may reduce award for unsuccessful claims and other considerations | Court: Remand to apply lodestar (reasonable hours × reasonable rate) and consider totality of success and factors under SCR 20:1.5 in exercising discretion over amount |
Key Cases Cited
- ECO, Inc. v. City of Elkhorn, 259 Wis. 2d 276, 655 N.W.2d 510 (Ct. App. 2002) (public records requester entitled to fees where city failed to comply with statute)
- WTMJ, Inc. v. Sullivan, 204 Wis. 2d 452, 555 N.W.2d 140 (Ct. App. 1996) (court cannot deny mandatory fees to substantially prevailing requester)
- Friends of Frame Park, U.A. v. City of Waukesha, 394 Wis. 2d 387, 950 N.W.2d 831 (Ct. App. 2020) (fees available for partial productions; success-related reductions appropriate in amount calculation)
- Davy v. Central Intelligence Agency, 456 F.3d 162 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (judicially ordered relief changes legal relationship and supports fee award under FOIA)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) ("judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship" test for prevailing party)
- Kolupar v. Wilde Pontiac Cadillac, Inc., 275 Wis. 2d 1, 683 N.W.2d 58 (2004) (lodestar framework: reasonable hours × reasonable rate; factors for adjusting fee)