Harris v. City of Fort Smith, 366 Ark. 277

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial of attorneys’ fees to David Harris after he prevailed in an earlier appeal establishing that serial one-on-one contacts among Fort Smith city officials constituted an informal meeting subject to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. The court held that Harris substantially prevailed but that the defendants’ position was substantially justified under Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-107(d). The court overruled contrary language from Depoyster v. Cole to the extent it applied an arbitrary-or-bad-faith standard inconsistent with the statute’s substantially-justified standard.

Holdings

1. Under Arkansas Code Annotated section 25-19-107(d), a substantially prevailing FOIA plaintiff is presumptively entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, subject to the statutory exceptions where the defendant's position was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award unjust. The statutory substantially-justified standard, rather than the arbitrary-or-bad-faith test previously stated in Depoyster, controls.
2. The defendants' position was substantially justified under section 25-19-107(d), even though Harris substantially prevailed on the underlying FOIA claim; therefore, the circuit court properly denied attorneys' fees.
3. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Harris's request for attorneys' fees.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Arkansas Code Annotated section 25-19-107(d) makes an award of attorneys' fees mandatory when a plaintiff substantially prevails in a FOIA action.
2. Whether the defendants' position was substantially justified, or whether other circumstances made an award of attorneys' fees unjust.
3. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Harris attorneys' fees.

Disposition

affirmed