Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court considered an appeal from summary judgment concerning disclosure of a former police officer’s personnel and disciplinary investigation records to a newspaper. The court held that the newspaper could not obtain the records through summary judgment against the officer because the Access to Public Records Act provides a cause of action against the public body that possesses the records, not against a noncustodian individual. The court vacated the judgment in favor of the newspaper and remanded for proceedings on the officer’s complaint and the newspaper’s cross-claim against the City of Newport and its city manager.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court could grant Sherman summary judgment against Robinson on the basis of the Access to Public Records Act when Sherman had not moved for summary judgment on its cross-claim against the City, the custodian of the records.
- Whether the Superior Court properly determined that Robinson's personnel and disciplinary records were not exempt from disclosure under the Access to Public Records Act without addressing the specific personnel-records exemption.
- Whether the summary judgment entered in favor of Sherman should be vacated and the matter remanded for trial.
Holdings
- No. The Access to Public Records Act provides a cause of action against the public body that maintains or controls the records, and Sherman could not obtain disclosure through an action against Robinson, who was neither a public body nor the records' custodian.
- No. The Superior Court erred by accepting Sherman's general assertion that the records were public without addressing Robinson's contention that the personnel records fell within the statutory exemption for records concerning an identifiable individual when disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, the trial justice exceeded her authority when she granted summary judgment against Robinson and in favor of Sherman and ordered the pertinent documents released on the basis of Sherman’s motion that did not request summary judgment on its cross-claim against the city in whose possession the records were maintained.” (at 877)
“Accordingly, the plaintiff Robinson’s appeal is sustained, the summary judgment entered in favor of Sherman is vacated, and the papers in this case are remanded to the Superior Court for trial on Robinson’s complaint and Sherman’s cross-claim against the City of Newport and its city manager.” (at 877)
Factual background
Ernest Robinson was a Newport police officer who became the subject of disciplinary complaints in December 1997. Before a disciplinary hearing, Newport officials agreed that the subject matter and facts of the complaints would remain confidential if Robinson resigned, and he resigned the next day. The Newport Daily News sought investigation reports concerning Robinson, prompting Robinson to seek injunctive relief under the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights, promissory estoppel, a Newport ordinance, and related theories.
Procedural history
Robinson sued the City of Newport and its city manager seeking injunctive and other relief to prevent disclosure of his personnel and internal police investigation records. Sherman intervened for the limited purpose of litigating the preliminary-injunction request and later moved for summary judgment against Robinson, but did not move for summary judgment on its cross-claim against the City, the records' custodian. The Superior Court granted summary judgment on counts 1 and 2 and ordered disclosure; Robinson timely appealed.
Remand instructions
The summary judgment in favor of Sherman was vacated, and the papers were remanded to the Superior Court for trial on Robinson's complaint and Sherman's cross-claim against the City of Newport and its city manager.