248 P.3d 1236
Idaho2011Background
- Ward requested records from Portneuf Medical Center (PMC) and Bannock County Board of County Commissioners on July 17, 2008 for physician contracts from 2007 to present; PMC responded as custodian and denied disclosure under multiple exemptions.
- PMC denied the records citing I.C. §§ 9-340A(1), 9-340C(8), 9-340D(1), (2), and (6).
- PMC was dissolved and its assets/records sold to a private joint venture (Legacy) on January 20, 2009 while Ward’s petition was pending.
- The district court dismissed, holding privatization removed the records from the Public Records Act and citing Memorial Hospital v. News-Journal as controlling.
- Ward contends records remained public because the request was made while PMC was public, and that the sale did not eliminate public duty or remove records from the Act; he also argues Hermanson’s comment may render records public.
- The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding records remained subject to disclosure and remanded for status and exemptions determination; it also addressed retention duties and potential attorney fee effects on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does PMC’s sale to Legacy remove records from the Act when requested while public? | Ward—records remained public at time of request; sale cannot retroactively shield records. | Board/PMC—sale privatizes records, removing them from Act. | No; records remain subject to Act despite privatization; remand to determine status and exemptions. |
| Does Hermanson's statement that relationships are done in the sunshine render records public as a matter of law? | Ward—statement makes records public under the Act. | No automatic public status from statements; must be public record by content and custody. | Not decided on the record; remand needed to determine status and exemptions. |
| Is PMC entitled to attorney fees on appeal? | Ward—PMCs wins not; fee request inappropriate. | PMC prevailed on appeal; fee may be warranted. | PMC not entitled to fees on appeal; district court may address fees on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cowles Publishing Co. v. Kootenai County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 144 Idaho 259, 159 P.3d 896 (Idaho 2007) (defining public record scope and content-based disclosure)
- Idaho Conservation League, Inc. v. Idaho State Dep't of Agric., 143 Idaho 366, 146 P.3d 632 (Idaho 2006) (records remain public when content of public business; custodian irrelevance)
- Memorial Hosp.-West Volusia, Inc. v. News-Journal Corp., 927 So.2d 961 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2006) (privatization not controlling factor for public records applicability)
- Magic Valley Newspapers, Inc. v. Magic Valley Reg'l Med. Ctr., 138 Idaho 143, 59 P.3d 314 (Idaho 2002) (narrow exemption interpretation; public records presumed open)