RACINE — The city has prevailed in a lawsuit filed over public documents by activists who claim their request for documents was not fully complied with.
Racine County Circuit Court Judge Faye Flancher issued a written decision, filed Monday, in which she denied the plaintiffs’ motions, which included a request to bring in an expert to examine city cellphones and computers to ensure the relevant documents had been turned over.
The plaintiffs also were asking the court to order the city to pay costs and attorney fees associated with case, but that was also denied.
Attorney Erick Kaardal of Minnesota represents the plaintiffs, who include the local organization Honest, Open, Transparent (H.O.T.) Government and the Wisconsin Voter Alliance.
Kaardal argued the city has not fully complied with a records request made in 2020 in connection to a grant from the Center for Tech and Civil Life. In all, there were about five requests for documents — that collectively returned more than 2,000 documents — which were separate from records requests made to the city by the Wisconsin Legislature.
People are also reading…
CTCL is the nonprofit to which Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg provided hundreds of millions of dollars, which were then distributed to communities nationwide to assist in the safe administration of elections amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the group said.
Issues
In the written decision, the court outlined the issues, which included: the complaint by the plaintiffs that they waited many months for the records requests to be fulfilled by the city; and that the nature of the requests by the plaintiffs was overly broad.
As was determined in Journal Times vs. City of Racine Board of Police and Fire Commissioners, the Wisconsin Open Records Law does not outline a timeframe in which a request has to be fulfilled.
As Flancher noted, what is reasonable may depend on multiple factors, including the nature of the request, availability of staff and other resources to process a request and the extent of the request and related considerations.
The city responded immediately to those requesting information, Flancher noted, and followed up with a note informing them the city was experiencing a number of “requests and would respond as soon as practicable and without delay.”
The court sided with the city on the nature of the public-documents requests by the plaintiffs, which were determined to be overly broad.
In one example, there was a request that all of the city’s cellphones — attached to more than 900 employees — be examined to determine if anyone had posted on social media concerning topics that covered 27 keywords.
Flancher noted that process could take weeks, if not months.
Expert
Flancher denied the plaintiffs’ request for an expert and noted the state Open Records Law does not appear to support the plaintiffs’ argument that one should be appointed.
While such an expert has been hired on other cases, those cases were not connected to a public-records request.
The plaintiffs also claimed there was evidence the city did not turn over certain documents, as shown by the fact Michael Gableman received more documents than did the plaintiffs. Gableman is a special counsel appointed by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, who is leading a taxpayer-funded probe of the 2020 election.
Kaardal noted that Gableman received more than 2,000 documents from Racine, which was far fewer than the plaintiffs received for a similar investigation.
In fact, the plaintiffs claimed at least 170 documents were missing.
The city argued, and the judge agreed, the information handed over to the state as a result of a legislative subpoena and the plaintiffs’ request for public information are not the same thing.
“It is only logical that unless requests are identical, results will vary,” Flancher noted.
Because the plaintiffs did not prevail in their suit, they were denied reimbursement for attorneys fees and costs.
