Farley v. Worley
599 S.E.2d 835, 215 W. Va. 412 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public body has an affirmative duty under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to redact or segregate exempt from non-exempt information in response to a request and disclose the non-exempt portions, unless such action would impose an unreasonably high burden or expense, which must be justified in writing; a FOIA requestor who successfully obtains disclosure of previously denied information through litigation, even if redacted, is entitled to attorney's fees.
Facts:
- On July 24, 2002, Jeff Farley sent a letter to the City of Mullens and Mayor Harold Worley, requesting lists of businesses and individuals who owed delinquent Business and Occupation (B&O) Taxes and delinquent garbage and sewage bills, along with the amounts owed by each.
- On July 25, 2002, the City replied, stating its policy to deal with tax delinquencies while protecting the privacy rights of individuals.
- On August 12, 2002, Mr. Farley sent another letter, referencing his initial request, specifically citing FOIA, and referencing Town of Burnsville v. Cline (regarding B&O taxpayer rolls) and Daily Gazette Co. v. West Virginia Development Office (regarding the Vaughn index).
- The City replied on the same day, August 12, 2002, denying the request, stating B&O Tax information is confidential and exempt from disclosure under FOIA, and that citizens have a legitimate expectation of privacy, while acknowledging awareness of the cited cases.
- During later proceedings, Mullens City Manager Kathy Lusk testified that the City had a new computer system installed in 2002 and could easily redact the names of taxpayers from the computerized lists of delinquent B&O, garbage, and sewage taxpayers.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeff Farley sued the City of Mullens and Mayor Harold Worley in circuit court, alleging FOIA violations for failing to disclose documents, provide redacted versions, or provide a Vaughn index.
- The City filed an answer and a motion to dismiss, asserting tax information was confidential and exempt.
- After some discovery, Mr. Farley filed a motion for summary judgment.
- On December 17, 2002, the circuit court heard arguments on both the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment.
- Following the hearing, Mr. Farley sought attorney's fees and costs under FOIA.
- On March 11, 2003, the circuit court construed the City’s motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, granted summary judgment to the City, and denied Mr. Farley attorney's fees.
- The circuit court found that Mr. Farley was entitled to a list showing delinquent B&O tax amounts without names and that he could review the B&O taxpayer roll in chambers without tax return information, pursuant to Town of Burnsville v. Cline.
- The circuit court also found garbage and sewer fee information exempt, but directed the City to provide Mr. Farley a list of amounts owed for garbage and sewer delinquencies without account numbers and names.
- The circuit court denied attorney’s fees, reasoning that Mr. Farley 'did not make a request that the Defendants could lawfully comply with until the hearing' when he offered a compromise, and thus he 'has not substantially prevailed.'
- Mr. Farley appealed the denial of attorney's fees to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public body have an affirmative duty to redact or segregate exempt from non-exempt information in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, even if the requestor does not specifically ask for redacted information, and is a requestor entitled to attorney's fees under FOIA if litigation results in the disclosure of such previously withheld information?
Opinions:
Majority - Davis, Justice
Yes, a public body has an affirmative duty to redact or segregate exempt from non-exempt information in response to a FOIA request, even without a specific request for redaction, and a requestor is entitled to attorney's fees if litigation leads to the disclosure of such information. The Court emphasized that FOIA's policy is to provide 'full and complete information,' requiring liberal construction of disclosure provisions and strict construction of exemptions. Drawing guidance from federal FOIA cases, the Court held that the focus of FOIA is information, not documents, and a request for information should be presumed to seek 'all or any, not for all or none' of the information described. Therefore, an entire document is not exempt just because a portion is, and non-exempt portions must be disclosed unless 'inextricably intertwined' with exempt portions. The public body must adequately demonstrate that all reasonably segregable, non-exempt information was disclosed. This duty to redact or segregate is not absolute; if it would impose an 'unreasonably high burden or expense,' the public body must provide a sufficiently detailed written justification, which the City in this case failed to do, and its own City Manager testified redaction was easy. The Court also clarified the Vaughn index requirement, modifying Syllabus point 3 of Daily Gazette Co. v. West Virginia Development Office, Inc. (1996) (Daily Gazette I). The Vaughn index is not required at the administrative stage but is implicated by FOIA litigation when a public body asserts an exemption to disclosure, requiring a detailed justification of the exemption and correlation with the withheld portions. Since the City initially denied all access and only disclosed redacted information after being directed by the circuit court during litigation, Mr. Farley was a successful FOIA litigant and is entitled to attorney's fees and costs. The circuit court's denial of fees is reversed and remanded for an award calculation.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Starcher, Justice
I concur in the result and reasoning of the majority opinion. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to establish detailed FOIA procedures through new syllabus points. I believe that defining such procedures is a task more appropriately handled by the Legislature through rule-making, rather than by the Court through judicial legislation.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the obligations of public bodies under the West Virginia FOIA and clarifies the rights of requestors. By establishing an affirmative duty to redact or segregate information even when not specifically requested, the Court places a greater burden on agencies to ensure maximum disclosure. It also reinforces the fee-shifting provision, incentivizing individuals to pursue FOIA requests through litigation when agencies are non-compliant, thus enhancing government transparency and accountability. The clarification of the Vaughn index's timing (litigation, not administrative stage) and scope (any exemption, not just internal memoranda) provides crucial guidance for both agencies and litigants, reducing ambiguity in future FOIA disputes.
