Missoula Co. Public Schools v. Ad , 378 Mont. 451 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                              March 31 2015
    DA 14-0473
    Case Number: DA 14-0473
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    
    2015 MT 95
    IN RE PETITION OF MISSOULA COUNTY
    PUBLIC SCHOOLS, MISSOULA, COUNTY,
    Petitioner and Appellee,
    v.
    BITTERROOT STAR, MISSOULA INDEPENDENT, KECI,
    Respondents and Appellees,
    and
    VALARIE ADDIS,
    Respondent and Appellant.
    APPEAL FROM:            District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DV-14-151
    Honorable Karen S. Townsend, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Robert C. Myers, Montana Resources and Asset Protection PC,
    Hamilton, Montana
    For Appellee Missoula County Public Schools:
    Elizabeth A. Kaleva, Megan D. Morris, Kaleva Law Office,
    Missoula, Montana
    For Media Appellees:
    Peter Michael Meloy, Meloy Law Firm, Helena, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: February 25, 2015
    Decided: March 31, 2015
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    ¶1     Valerie Addis appeals from the District Court’s Order and Memorandum filed July
    18, 2014. We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    ¶2     Addis was formerly employed as supervisor of food services by the Missoula
    County Public Schools (Schools), a public school district and a political subdivision of
    the State of Montana.     During her employment in 2010 the Schools conducted an
    investigation of Addis and whether she had engaged in fraudulent or illegal financial
    transactions. Following that investigation the Schools instituted disciplinary action.
    Addis left the Schools position and filed a wrongful discharge suit.
    ¶3     The Ravalli County Commission appointed her to serve as Ravalli County
    Treasurer. Subsequently, the Ravalli County Commission investigated irregularities in
    Addis’ performance as Treasurer and imposed sanctions against her.
    ¶4     In January 2014 the respondent media organizations, the Bitterroot Star and
    Missoula Independent (weekly newspapers) and KECI (a television station) requested
    that the Schools release documents related to Addis’ termination as food services
    director, and particularly records concerning the investigation of fraudulent or illegal
    activity. The Schools notified Addis; she asserted that she had a right to privacy in the
    documents and that they should not be released. The Schools released Addis’ resignation
    letter and separation agreement and, in February 2014, commenced the present action in
    District Court. The Schools sought an in camera review of the Addis documents and a
    2
    determination as to whether they should be released. The Schools took no position on the
    release of the documents and stated that they had filed the petition to avoid being sued by
    either the media outlets or Addis. The media outlets counterclaimed that the Schools
    violated their rights by not immediately releasing all of the documents.
    ¶5     The media outlets moved for summary judgment, seeking an order that the
    Schools release the documents. Addis appeared by brief, contesting the release of the
    records. The District Court conducted an in camera examination of the Schools’ records
    and concluded that Addis had a right of privacy in some of them and that those
    documents should not be released. However, the District Court determined that six
    documents that related to “misuse of public money, misuse of public facilities, and
    careless management practices” should be released. The District Court found that the
    Schools had acted prudently in filing the action, and granted summary judgment to the
    Schools on the media outlets’ counterclaim. Addis appeals.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    ¶6     This Court reviews a district court’s decision on summary judgment to determine
    whether it is correct, using the same criteria under Rule 56, M. R. Civ. P. Pilgeram v.
    GreenPoint Mortgage, 
    2013 MT 354
    , ¶ 9, 
    373 Mont. 1
    , 
    313 P.3d 839
    .
    DISCUSSION
    ¶7     Addis contends that the District Court erred by either not determining or failing to
    give sufficient consideration to whether the documents in question are documents of a
    public body subject to public inspection. She contends that any documents found in her
    personnel file are not public records and are not subject to disclosure.
    3
    ¶8    The Montana Constitution, Article II, Section 9, provides that “[n]o person shall
    be deprived of the right to examine documents . . . of all public bodies or agencies of
    state government and its subdivisions except in cases in which the demand of individual
    privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure.” “Public writings” are defined in
    § 2-6-101(2), MCA, but the range of documents that are held by public bodies and that
    are subject to disclosure under the Constitution is broader. Bryan v. Yellowstone County
    Elem. School Dist., 
    2002 MT 264
    , ¶¶ 34-35, 
    312 Mont. 257
    , 
    60 P.3d 381
    . The Schools
    are clearly a public body for purposes of the constitutional right to know. Becky v.
    Butte-Silver Bow School District No. 1, 
    274 Mont. 131
    , 136-37, 
    906 P.2d 193
    , 197
    (1996). There is no blanket exemption from the right to know for documents simply
    because they are contained in a personnel file. Billings Gazette v. Billings, 
    2011 MT 293
    ,
    ¶¶ 23-24, 
    362 Mont. 522
    , 
    267 P.3d 11
    . We find no merit in Addis’ argument.
    ¶9    We concur with the District Court’s determination that the Schools followed a
    prudent course in this matter. The Schools initiated a proceeding asking the District
    Court to conduct an in camera review of the documents sought by the media, when both
    the entities seeking the documents and the individual who was the subject of the
    documents invoked important constitutional rights.
    ¶10   In the case of criminal records that may contain confidential criminal justice
    information, § 44-5-303(5), MCA, provides that a prosecutor may initiate a declaratory
    judgment action requesting an in camera review of the records and may ask the court to
    determine whether the demands of individual privacy exceed the merits of public
    disclosure. We agree that the initiation of a similar proceeding in this case seeking a
    4
    judicial determination regarding the release of personnel records in a non-criminal case
    was an appropriate process for the Schools to invoke to resolve the request by the media.
    We affirm the District Court’s exercise of its discretion in this matter, reviewing the
    disputed documents and determining which should be released after balancing the
    demand for individual privacy against the merits of public disclosure.
    ¶11    In a situation like this, balancing the public’s right to know with an individual’s
    right to privacy requires a fact-specific analysis of the interests at stake to determine
    whether the demands of individual privacy exceed the merits of public disclosure.
    Billings Gazette v. City of Billings, 
    2013 MT 334
    , ¶¶ 14-15, 
    372 Mont. 409
    , 
    313 P.3d 129
    .   The court must consider whether the individual has a subjective or actual
    expectation of privacy, and if so whether society should recognize that the expectation is
    reasonable. Havre Daily News v. City of Havre, 
    2006 MT 215
    , ¶ 23, 
    333 Mont. 331
    , 
    142 P.3d 864
    . Documents are not shielded from public disclosure simply because they are in
    a public official’s personnel file when that official occupies a position of trust. Billings
    Gazette, ¶ 22 (2011) (investigation report alleging that a police department clerk
    misappropriated funds should be released because the clerk occupied a position of trust).
    ¶12    The District Court applied settled Montana law in reviewing the disputed
    documents, concluding that Addis had an actual or subjective expectation of privacy in
    some of the records in her personnel file. Those included information in the employment
    application, a medical evaluation, beneficiary designation forms and “other benign
    information that has no relationship to the investigation of misconduct.” As to the
    records pertaining to the investigation of misconduct, the District Court found that they
    5
    concerned misuse of public money, misuse of public facilities and careless management
    practices. The District Court found that Addis’ position as supervisor of food services
    was “one of public trust because she was responsible for the expenditure of public
    money.” Finally, the District Court concluded that Addis could have no reasonable
    expectation of privacy in documents relating to a violation of public trust, citing the
    similarities to the 2011 Billings Gazette case involving the clerk at the police department.
    ¶13    Under the facts of this case, the District Court determined that Addis did not have
    a protectable privacy interest in the investigatory documents, and that any privacy interest
    she had was outweighed by her position involving the public trust. The District Court
    determined that “the public has a compelling and substantial interest in investigatory
    documents concerning the misuse and misappropriation of public funds.”
    ¶14    The District Court conscientiously and correctly determined and applied Montana
    law, and properly determined that the six disputed documents should be released. Addis
    has not presented a substantial reason in fact or law to demonstrate that the District
    Court’s decision was error.
    ¶15    Affirmed.
    /S/ MIKE McGRATH
    We Concur:
    /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
    /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
    /S/ PATRICIA COTTER
    /S/ JIM RICE
    6