The Virginia FOIA Opinion Archive

Fairfax Circuit Court Judge David Oblon ruled April 21, 2020, that settlements under the infant settlement statute (§8.01-424(A)) cannot be sealed. The court left open the door for sealing when there is "credible, particularized evidence of the child's medical condition necessary to justify a complete sealing of the settlement terms."

A Rappahannock County circuit judge ruled the board of supervisors there improperly closed a meeting to talk about an advertisement seeking a replacement for an outgoing county attorney as well as alternatives to the county attorney set-up. The topic was not "legal advice," nor did it fall under the personnel exemption for "prospective candidates for employment."

GMU Foundation not subject to Virginia FOIA and not a university agent, therefore university not responsible for accessing foundation's records, either.

Minke v. Page County

Feb. 25, 2019

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Harrisonburg Division

Chief U.S. District Judge Michael F. Urbanski

The Virginia Supreme Court unanimously ruled the City of Virginia Beach erred by redacting all entries on its bill from an outside law firm that was representing the city in an eminent domain case against a city dentist.

Richmond Circuit Judge Designate William N. Alexander II entered an order Oct. 15, 2018, that (1) FOIA does not apply to "the judiciary, including the Executive Secretary"; (2) enforcement of FOIA against the judiciary and the OES is "barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which has not been waived."; and (3) separation of powers bars enforcement of FOIA against the judiciary and the OES.

Fairfax Circuit Court rules GMU Foundation is not subject to FOIA, nor is the university required to respond to a FOIA request on the foundation's behalf.

Virginia Supreme Court unanimously rules that citizen's affidavit in support of an alleged closed meeting violation adequately demonstrated good cause for proceeding.

Batterson v. Voorhees, Powhatan County Judge Paul W. Cella

In a case brought against the City of Norfolk alleging violations of FOIA's response times and fee estimates, a Norfolk Circuit Court gives much deference to FOIA Council prior opinions and finds:

A Fairfax Circuit County judge's order on various pretrial motions in a case brought by a transparency group against George Mason University and the George Mason University Foundation, Inc.

A unanimous Supreme Court rules a Loudoun County parent is not entitled to student growth percentile data for certain Loudoun County Public School students under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.

Henrico circuit judge rules a senator can be sued for a FOIA violation in her individual capacity and that Facebook posts can be public records. But, the Facebook posts in this case are deemed not about public business and so did not need to be disclosed.

Clerks of court are the individual custodians of the court case data supplied to the Office of Executive Secretary's online database.

Virginia state senators are not individually subject to FOIA. (OVERRULED by a subsequent decision)

The letter signed by five members of a city council and presented to another council member in a closed meeting should have been voted on first in open session.

Circuit Court of Richmond Judge W. Allan Sharrett rules Hopewell cannot used a closed meeting to discuss whom to elect to the positions of mayor or vice mayor.

Harki v. Department of Criminal Justice Services: DCJS must turn over database of training records for law enforcement officers. Judge Joseph A. Migliozzi Jr. agrees that they are personnel records, but notes that the department said it would turn the records over (i.e., exercise their discretion to release records that could be withheld) and then reneged. The opinion also rejects the DCJS argument that it didn't own the database and that it really belonged to the individual law enforcement agencies that supplied the data.

The Virginia Supreme Court rules that a trial court must make its own determination of the proprierty of withholding documents when a security interest is cited, but while doing so, it must accord "substantial weight" to the agency's (in the case, the Virginia Department of Corrections) determinations.

The court also holds that there is no duty to redact a record that is exempt under an exemption that is not limited by the phrases "to the extent" and "portions of."

(On this last point, the majority opinion does not even cite 2.2-3704 where it says one of the four allowable responses is to redact a record if it has exempt material in it.)

In a proceeding under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, to obtain a copy of a suicide note contained in a criminal investigative file opened by a sheriff’s office under its lawful authority to investigate the unexpected and unattended death of a senior United States Air Force official, the sheriff had the discretion, but not the duty, to disclose documents within this file and eventual closure of the file did not change its character. Nor did the suicide note, standing alone, constitute a compilation subject to disclosure under Code § 15.2-1722(B). The judgment of the circuit court denying a writ of mandamus to compel disclosure of this document is affirmed.

Supreme Court of Virginia rules unanimously that UVA can withhold records requested by the American Tradition Institute (ATI) under the exemption for academic research and "proprietary records." Court adopts interpretation of "proprietary" that encompasses records that are within the "ownership, title and possession" of the university. Though the ruling is limited to the research exemption (2.2-3705.4(4)), Justice Mims, in concurrence, notes the potential for expansion into FOIA's many other references to "proprietary" records.

The opinion also gives the green light to charging for the review of records to determine their responsivness to a request.

The case was clouded from the beginning by the topic and target of ATI's request: the emails of climate scientis Michael Mann. The issues became one's opinion on climate change and/or one's feelings on academic freedom instead of on whether FOIA's exemption did or did not apply.

Virginia Supreme Court rules trial court did not err in refusing TV station's request to have cameras present during the sentencing phase of convicted murder defendant George Huguely.

The court attempted to reconcile two seemingly contradictory phrases within the statute and while setting forth the specific procedure to be used in the future, acknowledged that it is not the way things have been done practically speaking.

The U.S. Supreme Court rules (9-0) that Virginia FOIA's limitation on out-of-state requests (i.e., requests from out of state do not have to be honored) is constitutional.

Virginia Supreme Court rules that Newport News judge wrongly sealed trial exhibits. 

In a petition under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act arising from a request for production by a police department of personnel records of a specific officer, such records are subject to the protections of Code § 2.2-3705.1(1) and their production was appropriately refused by the Department; the circuit court's order requiring disclosure of the personnel records is reversed. The request for criminal incident information including the identities of all individuals, other than juveniles, arrested or charged by this officer must be accommodated by the Department. However, under Code § 2.2-3706 the portion of the request concerning the identities of individuals arrested by other officers based on observations or information supplied by the specified officer seeks information that is exempt from disclosure. Concerning the award of attorneys' fees in this matter under Code § 2.2-3713(D), the determination of "special circumstances" lies in the sound discretion of the trial court, and this issue must be considered in light of the several holdings in favor of the responding police department on this appeal. The circuit court must reconsider whether to award attorneys' fees and, if so, the appropriate quantum. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded.