Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the denial of attorney's fees to the Burlington Free Press in a Public Records Act action against the University of Vermont concerning documents related to hockey-team hazing incidents. The court held that although the newspaper likely substantially prevailed and was eligible to seek fees, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying them because the university had a reasonable basis for withholding records protected by FERPA and an award was not necessary to overcome an improper disclosure barrier.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether BFP substantially prevailed in its Public Records Act action and therefore satisfied the threshold eligibility requirement for attorney's fees.
- Whether Vermont's Public Records Act requires courts to apply the federal FOIA factors when deciding whether to award attorney's fees.
- Whether the superior court abused its discretion by denying BFP attorney's fees and litigation expenses after considering the circumstances of UVM's withholding of the records.
Holdings
- A party seeking attorney's fees under 1 V.S.A. § 319(d) must first show that it substantially prevailed in the action seeking public records. The Supreme Court accepted BFP's position that it met this threshold because the superior court indicated that litigation was necessary to obtain the documents.
- Vermont courts are not required to apply expressly the four federal FOIA factors when determining entitlement to attorney's fees under Vermont's Public Records Act, although those factors may be considered along with any other relevant factors.
- The superior court's discretionary denial of attorney's fees must be affirmed unless BFP showed that the court failed to exercise discretion or exercised it for clearly untenable reasons or to a clearly unreasonable extent.
- The superior court did not abuse its discretion by denying BFP attorney's fees and litigation expenses.
Key quotations
“We decline to expressly adopt the federal factors, but rather acknowledge that they may be considered along with any other relevant factors.” (64)
“Considering the particular facts of this case, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to award attorney's fees to BFP.” (67)
Factual background
University of Vermont officials investigated hazing allegations involving its hockey team after receiving a written complaint. The Burlington Free Press requested documents concerning the allegations and UVM's response, but UVM declined to release many of them because of concerns about student privacy under FERPA. Following BFP's lawsuit, the superior court ordered disclosure of some records, with redactions, while withholding investigative interview transcripts and notes; some information also became public through a separate federal lawsuit filed by the complaining hockey player.
Procedural history
BFP sued UVM for an injunction requiring disclosure of requested records. After an in camera review, the superior court ordered disclosure of some documents, required redactions, and withheld other records as protected student records. UVM complied with the disclosure order, but the superior court later denied BFP's request for attorney's fees and expenses. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.