Listen to this article- The Missouri Supreme Court reversed a summary judgment ruling in favor of St. Louis County and Webster Groves in a Sunshine Law case.
- A man sought vehicle stop data; the county partially complied, and the city refused, citing non-responsiveness and exemptions.
- The court found the summary judgment record did not support the conclusion that the requested Department Serial Number was a “public record.”
Summary judgment in favor of two public governmental bodies was inappropriate in a Sunshine Law case, the Missouri Supreme Court held on Sept. 3, reversing an order in favor of St. Louis County and Webster Groves.
In November 2018, Phillip Weeks requested the annual “raw” data files from the Vehicle Stop Forms including the Department Serial Number (DSN) for a four-year period from the City of Webster Groves. He made a similar request from St. Louis County in July 2019.
Each time a peace officer stops a driver of a motor vehicle, the officer must report certain information to the law enforcement agency employing the officer. The agencies must then compile the information into an annual report to the attorney general, who must analyze the reports.
The DSN is unique to each officer and if an officer changes departments, he or she is assigned a new DSN.
Webster Groves refused to produce the reports. St. Louis County at first provided the records, including the DSN, but after Weeks sued under the Sunshine Law, moved for a protective order and redacted the DSN.
The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment.
Webster Groves argued the DSN was not responsive to Weeks’ request and no “public record” was requested because it would have to create a new record to comply with his request. St. Louis County also told the court the DSN was not responsive to Weeks’ request and further asserted the DSN is exempt from disclosure under certain provisions of the Sunshine Law.
The circuit court sided with the governmental bodies, granting summary judgment for Webster Groves and St. Louis County.
Weeks appealed.
In a split decision, Judge Ginger K. Gooch — joined by Judges Zel M. Fischer, Robin Ransom and Kelly C. Broniec — reversed.
The Sunshine Law explicitly encourages public governmental bodies to provide access in an electronic format to those public records kept in an electronic format and “to make information available in usable electronic formats to the greatest extent feasible,” the court noted.
By the same token, “raw data” or other electronically stored records do not automatically qualify as a “public record” required to be produced under the Sunshine Law; nor does the law require a public governmental body to create a new record.
“Analyzing Weeks’ requests given these legal principles and while adhering to the Sunshine Law framework shows why no party has the right to summary judgment, as this stage of the proceedings, based on this record,” the court wrote.
The court emphasized the importance of examining the requests Weeks actually made, noting that while he explicitly referenced the DSN in his requests, each DSN request was in relation to “data files from the Vehicle Stop Forms” and “data generated from vehicle stop forms.”
“There is nothing in the summary judgment record to establish the DSN is ‘data files from the Vehicle Stop Forms’ or ‘data generated from vehicle stop forms,’” the court said. “It is conceivable, in response to a proper request, Webster Groves and St. Louis County may have to produce the DSN as a ‘public record’ and may have to separately produce the vehicle stop forms as a ‘public record.’ It is also conceivable the parties did not plead the necessary uncontroverted material facts and the DSN is ‘data files from the Vehicle Stop Forms’ or ‘data generated from vehicle stop forms.’ But the present summary judgment record does not support the conclusion the DSN is a ‘public record’ responsive to Weeks’ request.”
Further, nothing in the record suggested that both the DSN and the vehicle stop form information exist currently together in any record, and a public governmental body does not have to create a new record, the court noted.
“Whether the DSN is a ‘public record’ is an issue of law this Court need not and does not reach because no party has established as an uncontroverted material fact that the DSN is ‘data generated from vehicle stop forms’ or ‘data files from the Vehicle Stop Forms,’ as requested by Weeks, and that any party has the right to judgment as a matter of law,” the court wrote.
As for St. Louis County’s alternative position that the DSN was exempt from disclosure under subsections (3) and (13) of section 610.021, the summary judgment record was “devoid of evidence” that the DSN has a clear nexus to the personal information of employees, making summary judgment inappropriate.
The court vacated judgment for Webster Groves and St. Louis County and remanded to the circuit court.
Chief Judge Mary R. Russell filed a separate opinion, joined by Judges W. Brent Powell and Paul C. Wilson, concurring in part and dissenting in part. While she agreed with holding that summary judgment should be vacated — and that St. Louis County had not established the applicability of an exemption to the DSN — she found that the record did establish that the DSN is “data generated from vehicle stop forms” or “data files from Vehicle Stop Forms.”
Weeks’ attorney, Laurence D. Mass of St. Louis, said the decision is important because it helps to clarify that simply because a document created by a public official has his or her name included — like the DSN — it doesn’t automatically qualify for an exemption under the Sunshine Law.
“While the agency has some discretion to interpret the law, my hope is that this decision will help citizens make sure they get their requests answered,” he said.
Dana Redwing, the St. Louis County Counselor, said the county is in the process of strategizing about the path forward in the case.
“People’s opinions on what is and what is not Sunshine-able varies,” she said. “Ideally, we would like for it to be clear cut but it’s not and this was one of those situations where it was not. We are constantly learning about this law.”
Clayton attorney Neal J. Bruntrager of Bruntrager & Billings, who represented the City of Webster Groves, did not respond to a request for comment.
The case is Weeks v. St. Louis County, No. SC100427.