Troy K. Scheffler v. City of Anoka, City of Coon Rapids, Hicken, Scott, Howard & Anderson, P. A.
890 N.W.2d 437
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Scheffler was the subject of a police incident report and a two-page supplement prepared by Anoka police; the supplement was withheld when he initially requested it at the Anoka Police Department (APD).
- Scheffler made multiple informal and written requests (to APD records staff and to Attorney Michael Scott, the contracted Anoka city attorney) before finally submitting MGDPA requests to the city’s named responsible authority (Timothy Cruikshank) and designee (Amy Oehlers) on June 20, 2015.
- After Scheffler’s proper MGDPA request to the responsible authority/designee, the city produced the supplement; metadata showed the produced file was a later revision and the city’s affidavit stated no earlier drafts remained.
- Scheffler sued the City of Anoka, Scott, and his firm (HSHA), alleging violations of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) for denial of access, failure to give reasons for denial, failure to provide earlier drafts, and failure to have a written contract with the city attorney.
- The district court dismissed claims against Scott/HSHA and granted summary judgment to the city; Scheffler appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MGDPA access/duty is triggered when request made to persons other than the named responsible authority/designee | Scheffler: requests to APD records staff or city attorney should trigger MGDPA duties (apparent authority or effective delegation) | City: statute requires request to the designated responsible authority or designee; APD staff were not so designated | Court: MGDPA requires request to named responsible authority or designee; apparent authority does not create designees; summary judgment for city affirmed |
| Whether Scheffler could amend to add claim that city failed to explain denial (MGDPA §13.03(3)(f)) | Scheffler: records staff denied access without reason; amendment should be allowed | City: disclosure duties attach only after a request to responsible authority/designee; APD staff not authorized | Court: amendment would fail as a matter of law for same reasons as Count I; denial of amendment affirmed |
| Whether Scott/HSHA liable under MGDPA for failing to produce supplement | Scheffler: Scott/HSHA acted as the city’s agents/designees and are liable | Scott/HSHA: attorneys acting in professional capacity are governed by professional rules/statutes (Minn. Stat. §13.393), not MGDPA; no contract making them designees | Court: attorneys acting in professional capacity are governed by discovery/ethics rules, not MGDPA; claims against Scott/HSHA dismissed |
| Whether city violated MGDPA by failing to produce earlier revisions and whether Scheffler has standing to challenge absence of a written contract | Scheffler: metadata indicates earlier version existed; city must produce earlier drafts and is required to have written contract with HSHA | City: it produced the only extant version; cannot produce non-existent drafts; Scheffler lacks injury from absence of written contract | Court: no genuine dispute that no earlier version existed when proper request was made; claim fails; Scheffler lacks standing to challenge absence of written contract |
Key Cases Cited
- Mattson Ridge, LLC v. Clear Rock Title, LLP, 824 N.W.2d 622 (Minn. 2012) (standard and de novo review for summary judgment)
- Harlow v. State Dep’t of Human Servs., 883 N.W.2d 561 (Minn. 2016) (MGDPA statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Hoff v. Surman, 883 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. App. 2016) (summary-judgment evidence viewed in favor of nonmoving party)
- DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60 (Minn. 1997) (summary-judgment standard—metaphysical doubt insufficient)
- Finn v. Alliance Bank, 860 N.W.2d 638 (Minn. 2015) (pleading facts taken as true on motion to dismiss)
- Day Masonry v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 347, 781 N.W.2d 321 (Minn. 2010) (respondent may assert any sound reason for affirmance)
- Walsh v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 851 N.W.2d 598 (Minn. 2014) (standard for Rule 12.02 dismissal)
- Wiegel v. City of St. Paul, 639 N.W.2d 378 (Minn. 2002) (definition of an "aggrieved person" under MGDPA)