Patrick Starr, Maurice Charles, and Lee Francis v. Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney

Citation: Not availableDocket: WD83634

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals; September 14, 2021; Missouri; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Patrick Starr, Maurice Charles, and Lee Francis (Requestors) appealed a judgment from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, in favor of the Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney (Prosecutor) regarding alleged violations of Missouri’s Sunshine Law. The Requestors argued that the court erred in granting judgment for the Prosecutor, claiming they demonstrated all three elements necessary to establish a violation under the Sunshine Law, specifically citing substantial compliance with the requirement that their records requests be received by the designated custodian.

The Requestors filed their lawsuit on May 8, 2018, alleging knowing violations of the Sunshine Law after submitting written requests for documents related to their respective cases on dates ranging from May 3, 2017, to November 1, 2017. They claimed that despite repeated inquiries, they did not receive the requested documents until December 7, 2018, when the Prosecutor’s office informed them the documents were available for review at a cost of $591.52.

During a bench trial on October 29, 2019, Trista Davies, identified as a paralegal in the Prosecutor's office, testified about her role in handling Sunshine Law requests. She clarified that she was not the custodian of records and that decisions regarding the release of records were made by attorneys on the executive staff. Davies confirmed she received the requests via email on January 9, 2018, but denied receiving them earlier. She explained that the requests resulted in six boxes of documents, and although she intended to process the requests, her workload and a medical absence hindered timely production before her departure from the office on June 9, 2018. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding no error in the judgment favoring the Prosecutor.

Counsel for the Requestors, Taylor Rickard and Kent Gipson, testified regarding their communications with Davies, the designated contact for a prior Sunshine Law request. Rickard confirmed receiving a December 7, 2018 email stating that the total cost for the records was $591.52 and that they were ready for pickup. Gipson indicated he had previously interacted with Davies in another case, leading him to assume Davies was the appropriate contact for future requests. Both attorneys noted that Davies was unresponsive to their inquiries, but they did not reach out to the Prosecutor regarding their requests.

At trial's conclusion, the Prosecutor sought judgment as a matter of law under Rule 73.01(b), arguing that the Requestors failed to submit their requests to the custodian of records and did not demonstrate a knowing violation of the Sunshine Law. The Requestors countered that they complied with the law by directing their requests to Davies, whom they believed had the authority to act as custodian. In response, the Prosecutor reiterated the need for requests to be received by the custodian, citing that the Requestors did not prove their requests reached the Prosecutor.

On January 23, 2020, the court granted the Prosecutor’s motion, referencing Chapter 12 of the Jackson County Missouri Code, which designates the Prosecutor or their designee as the custodian of records. The court determined that a violation of the Sunshine Law requires that records requests be received by the custodian, which the Requestors failed to establish. The Prosecutor did not designate a records coordinator as allowed by the Code, and the standard for reviewing the trial court’s judgment is based on whether there is substantial evidence to support it, with deference given to factual findings unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence. The Requestors are appealing the court's decision.

Missouri’s Sunshine Law mandates that public governmental bodies keep their records accessible to the public unless legally exempted. Each public body must appoint a custodian responsible for maintaining records, and the custodian's identity and location must be available upon request. When access to a public record is requested, the custodian must respond within three business days. If immediate access is not granted, the custodian must provide a detailed explanation for the delay and the expected availability of the records. A Sunshine Law violation occurs if a request is made, received by the custodian, and the custodian fails to respond within the required timeframe. 

The current appeal focuses on whether the Requestors proved their requests were received by the custodian. The trial court found they did not, and this conclusion is supported by the statute, which designates the custodian as the sole recipient of access requests. The statute implies that until the custodian receives the request, the three-day response obligation does not begin. In this case, evidence showed that the Prosecutor's Office, as the custodian, did not receive the requests made by the Requestors between May and November 2017, as these requests were only acknowledged when attached to an email in January 2018. Thus, the necessary second element for proving a Sunshine Law violation was not established.

Davies was not the official custodian of records for the Jackson County Prosecutor’s Office, despite having previously worked on records requests. Requestors claimed that Davies had apparent authority as a custodian, which relies on a principal's actions leading third parties to believe that authority has been granted. To establish this apparent authority, Requestors needed to demonstrate that the Prosecutor had consented to Davies' authority, that they reasonably believed Davies had such authority, and that they would suffer harm if the agent's actions were not binding. Although Requestors argued that Davies’ past responses to Sunshine Law requests indicated her role, they provided no evidence that the Prosecutor authorized Davies as a custodian. The Prosecutor did not designate Davies as records coordinator as per the Jackson County Code, and simply serving as a contact person was insufficient for establishing apparent authority.

Additionally, Requestors contended that they substantially complied with Section 610.023.3 by sending requests to Davies. However, no Missouri court has recognized a substantial compliance standard under the Sunshine Law, and the cited cases from different contexts were deemed irrelevant. Although the Sunshine Law encourages liberal interpretation to promote public access to records, this does not support the acceptance of the substantial compliance argument in this instance. The law mandates that requests be received by the designated custodian to ensure a clear and efficient process for handling public records requests.

Open records requests must be directed to a designated custodian of records to ensure timely and effective compliance by public entities. Sending requests to staff members other than the designated custodian does not guarantee proper notice or compliance. Although the burden on requestors is minimal, the Requestors did not identify the custodian of records for the Jackson County Prosecutor’s Office, assuming a staff member was the custodian without verifying. The failure to prove receipt of the request by the designated custodian is not necessarily fatal to a claim under the Sunshine Law, as the statute allows for liberal interpretation. However, no allegations were made that the governmental entity's actions obstructed compliance with the law. The Requestors' claim that the custodian’s inadequate responses thwarted compliance was unsupported by evidence, as the custodian did not identify herself and the Requestors failed to identify her despite being represented by counsel. Consequently, the trial court's judgment in favor of the Prosecutor was affirmed due to the Requestors' failure to demonstrate receipt of their requests by the custodian. Additionally, their claim for civil penalties and attorneys’ fees was not addressed because they did not establish a violation of the Sunshine Law and did not raise the issue of a knowing or purposeful violation in their main argument, which is necessary for preservation for review.