The Virginia FOIA Opinion Archive

(optional)

Blackstock v. VDOT (circuit court)

A report prepared by the VDOT Assurance and Compliance Office looking into allegations of an improper hiring decision should not have been redacted under the personnel exemption, but it could be withheld under an exemption for internal investigations, 2.2-3705.3(7).

Lee BHM v. School Board of the City of Richmond (Circuit Ct.)

Circuit Court judge Reilly Marchant rules a report prepared by a law firm for the school board was not protected by attorney-client privilege in its entirety. Specific parts that actually reflect legal advice may be redacted, but otherwise, the report is a fact-finding endeavor, not legal advice, even if legal consequences could follow from the report's release.

Minium v. Hines (Hanover Circuit Court)

Hanover Circuit Court says the names of most officers in the Hanover Sheriff's office can be kept off of a spreadsheet of department salaries because some of those officers might one day work undercover.

Hawkins v. South Hill (remand)

Mecklenburg Circuit Court judge orders release of redacted records previously withheld under the personnel records exemption.

Dooley v. Gloucester School Board

Gloucester County General District Court: Meeting to discuss disciplining a fellow board meet was improper based on the notice given; recording made in the meeting must be released.

Gloss v. Wheeler (Supreme Court)

Community forum meeting that 5 members of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors attended and discussed police response to the George Floyd protests should have been open to the public under FOIA because it discussed "public business." The majority and dissenting opinions discuss the contours of "public business."

Suffolk City School Board v. Wahlstrom (Supreme Court)

The Virginia Supreme Court rules that the public must be able to physically attend a meeting. It also confirms that an injunction can be issued under FOIA without a finding of willful or knowing conduct, and without going through the usual steps for granting injunctive relief in other contexts.

Berry v. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court of Virginia voids a revamped zoning ordinance vote that was taken in the first year of the pandemic because the board voted on it in an electronic meeting, but neither FOIA, the county's continuity of government ordinance nor an amendment made to the 2020 budget allowed for votes on matters that are not somehow time-sensitive.

Hawkins v. South Hill (Supreme Court)

Supreme Court of Virginia interprets the personnel exemption and imposes guardrails on governments from applying it broadly.

Daily Press v. Commonwealth (Supreme Court)

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled there is a presumptive right of access by the public to bond hearings. A Newport News circuit court judge erred by closing a bond hearing for a police officer accused of second-degree murder.

Courthouse News Service v. Hade (federal district court)

The Virginia Officer of the Court Remote Access electronic case file system of circuit courts maintained by the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia does not violate the First Amendment rights of access to court records, even though it is limited to use by Virginia-licensed attorneys, their staff and related government officials and prohibits distribution of any records by those with access. The public and the press must visit each individual courthouse for copies of case files.

Stanfield v. Norfolk (Circuit Court)

A Norfolk circuit judge ruled that elected officials are not public bodies who have to respond to FOIA requests, the public body's response obligations are triggered when one of those officials receives a request. The judge also makes rulings on providing a "legal address" in a request and on unauthorized prepayment requirements for requests estimated at under $200.

Keefe v. Lovettsville

Loudoun County General District Court Judge Matthew Snow rules the town violated FOIA when it required a deposit of $115 (FOIA says a deposit can be requested for amounts over $200) and when the requester said she was going to ask the FOIA Council for its opinion, the town said it considered such an action a "threat" and would not process any more of the citizen's requests. (Plus, additional issues on redactions, post-litigation production of records, reasonableness of FOIA charges and attorney fees.)

In Re: Honorable Adrianne L. Bennett (SCOVA)

In Re: Honorable Adrianne L. Bennett
The Virginia Supreme Court rules, 4-2, that the exhibits a judge filed in the Supreme Court along with a petition for mandamus should remain under seal, though the rest of the papers filed in the case, and the order sealing all the files should be unsealed. (The dissent reveals that the reason the mandamus was filed was because the judge wanted the Supreme Court to reinstate her to the bench after the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission suspended her.)

Kessler v. Charlottesville (Cir. Ct.)

The Public Records Act "clearly has an administrative purpose -- and seems, in fact, totally administrative and procedural -- for the benefit of the good operation of the state government and its agencies and (unlike FOIA) not for the benefit of individual citizens themselves." The court confirms that text messages are public records, however: "If the documents (texts) were still in the possession of the CIty, even in deleted form, I believe that the City would still have the obligation and duty to retrieve (recover) them. To me it is no different than if paper records were torn up and thown in a trashcan but had not been taken out to the garbage yet."

CNS v. Schaefer (4th Circuit)

In ruling in favor of Courthouse News Service, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled June 24, 2021, that the clerks of the Norfolk and Prince William County circuit courts violated the press' First Amendment rights by delaying access to newly filed civil complaints.

Schilling v. JAUNT (general district court)

Albermarle General District Court Judge Matthew J. Quatrara ruled that the Jefferson Area United Transportation (JAUNT) service meets the definition of a public body and is thus subject to FOIA. Including money it gets from federal sourcces, JAUNT is "wholly or principally" supported by taxpayer funds. The judge said their was no statutory authority or court precedent to assume that federal funds should be excluded from the definition of "wholly or pincipally."

Hawkins v. Town of South Hill (circuit court)

Mecklenburg County Circuit Court Judge J. William Watson Jr. reviewed seven sets of documents South Hill said were exempt from release as personnel records and concluded that some were and some weren't. In the process, the judge reviewed past cases and FOIA's legislative history to determine that "personnel information" should be defined as "all information necessarily compiled and held by an employer, concerning an identifiable employee, which information directly relates to the commencement, continuation or termination of the employment relationship.”

Webster v. Filler-Corn

District court judge imposes civil penalties on Speaker of the House for her inaccurate response to a FOIA request that a requested record did not exist.

Gent v. Adams

Wise County general district court judge rules Town of Pound gave adequate notice of its meeting. Notice in the newspaper isn't required, and notice on the website wasn't required because a .com website isn't an "official government website." Judge says a .gov domain is required.

Sawyers v. Prince William County School Board

Direct messages sent by school superintendent through Twitter's direct message platform are "correspondence" that can be withheld under the "working papers and correspondence" exemption of FOIA, 2.2-3705.7(2).

Hart v. Town of Onley

General district judge rules town did not violate FOIA's provisions on motions to go into closed meeting or for proper topics for closed-meeting discussion, specifically discipline of the mayor by the town council.

Townes v. State Board of Elections

The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled June 18, 2020, (among other issues) that a circuit court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State Board of Elections to introduce multiple instances where two members of the Hopewell Electoral Board violated FOIA's meeting provisions. The petition SBE filed alleged violations on "at least three occasions," meaning that at trial they could offer evidence of those three plus others.

Cole v. Smyth County BOS (Supreme Court)

Supreme Court of VIrginia rules unanimously, May 28, 2020, that the Smyth County Board of Supervisors used an improper motion to go into closed session and talked about matters beyond the scope of the claimed exemption.

Harki v. Department of Corrections (2020)

A Norfolk Circuit Court Judge ruled April 15, 2020, that the Virginia Department of Corrections willfully and knowingly failed to provide a Virginian-Pilot reporter with documents he requested within the 5-day response time mandated by FOIA, nor did the VDOC ask for a 7-day extension. After repeated back and forth conversations between the reporter and the VDOC, the reporter's request was "reasonably specific," as required by FOIA, and the VDOC's attempt to argue otherwise is "disingenuous," the court wrote. Citing Hurst v. City of Norfolk, the court also ruled that even if VDOC had made a request for further specificity, that would not have tolled the 5-day response time limit.

Pages