The Virginia FOIA Opinion Archive

Not an FOIA violation when a public official chooses to exercise an exemption, redacted exempt information, but failed to timely cite the applicable Code section for the exemption.

Defendant reporters got jobs with Food Lion through misrepresentation and made a videotape, which was aired on ABC, of the store’s unwholesome food handling practices. (1) The court held that, since the reporters were at-will employees for an indefinite period, there was no reliance on their misrepresentations that would support a fraud claim. (2) However, since the reporters intended to act against the interests of plaintiff, they were liable in tort for employee disloyalty. (3) Their disloyalty rose to trespass, because it went beyond the consent Food Lion granted them to enter the store’s premises. (4) The final two charges could not be shown. ABC and its reporters were not guilty of unfair trade practices, since they did not harm the consuming public. (5) Food Lion could not claim damages to its reputation resulting from the broadcast since it did not allege actual malice on the part of the defendants.

The Virginia Constitution requires that votes taken on all municipal ordinances must reflect how each member present voted.

Yeagle, a college employee, filed a complaint against Virginia Tech’s Collegiate Times, alleging defamation after the phrase . . .director of butt licking’ appeared under her name in an article. Her suit was dismissed, and the Court upheld that dismissal. As a matter of law, the phrase could not convey a defamatory meaning. It contained no factual information, but was instead a . . .disgusting’ bit of rhetorical hyperbole.

Ringgold, a police official, restricted a reporter's access to police department information, after she aired a story about possible department corruption, by only communicating with her in writing and prohibiting her from any exclusive interviews with department personnel. The reporter brought a §1983 action, claiming that the restrictions violated her 1st 14th Amendment rights. After the reporter's summary judgment motion on liability was granted, Ringgold asserted the defense of qualified immunity in a summary judgment motion, which was denied by the district court. On appeal, the Court reversed the decision, holding that the rights involved were not sufficiently clear to deny Ringgold qualified immunity. Acting reasonably, Ringgold might not have understood that the reporter's rights would be violated by the restrictions placed on her. NOTE: This is an unpublished opinion, meaning it cannot be relied on as precedent.

Tapes used to record 911 calls are public records, but they are exempt as noncriminal incident information.

Materials that would nonetheless be official records standing alone may become exempt correspondence if they are transmitted to a qualified office as a letter.

FOIA does not require the production of trade secrets or proprietary information.

An injunction is proper where a school board enters into any contract, which was discussed during a closed executive session conducted pursuant to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and whose effective date is before the date on which the school board reconvenes in open session and formally approves the contract.

A valid subpoena duces tecum is not a matter covered by FOIA.

High school student election results are not official records subject to disclosure under FOIA.

An action taken in open session of a meeting is valid.

Decided City Council did not violate FOIA by meeting in closed session; Shenandoah Publishing House Inc. v. The Winchester City Council; Chancery No. 95-156.

A city ordinance passed when all members of a public body vote in open session is valid.

Letters exchanged between an institution of higher learning and a law firm representing a university student are not exempt as work product compiled for use specifically for litigation.

FOIA and the discovery rules of the Supreme Court are mutually exclusive. Under FOIA, citizens are entitled to criminal incident reports that describe the criminal act.

A corporation to which the Virginia Retirement System appoints two board of trustee members is not a public body under FOIA. A willful and knowing violation of FOIA warrants the imposition of a civil penalty.

Times-World Corp. v. Wells

CIRCUIT COURT OF BEDFORD COUNTY, VIRGINIA

32 Va. Cir. 239

November 16, 1993

OPINIONBY: JUDGE MOSBY G. PERROW III

FOIA violations made in good faith do not require the imposition of civil penalties

Four South Carolina reporters who covered the bribery investigation of several state legislators were subpoenaed to testify in the subsequent criminal trial. Even after their motion to quash the subpoenas failed, the reporters refused to comply, asserting that: 1) they had a qualified privilege against being compelled to testify on newsgathering; and 2) the subpoenas violated Department of Justice guidelines that say the government must fail to exhaust all reasonable alternative sources. The district judge found them in contempt, and the Court affirmed, citing only an incidental burden on freedom of the press. Without evidence of governmental harassment or bad faith, the reporters had no privilege different from that of any other citizen not to testify about knowledge relevant to a criminal prosecution. Furthermore, the government did make clear that it could uncover no other source with evidence that the state senator had made false exculpatory statements.

an individual's wilful and knowing violation of FOIA merits penalty

Is the RF&P Corporation a public body subject to FOIA? Has there been a willful violation of FOIA?

A plaintiff must exhaust all available state remedies in an action against an agency before proceeding to circuit court.

The tax-exempt status of certain individuals is information that is exempt from disclosure under FOIA by virtue of the Tax Code's general prohibition against release of taxpayer information.

Va FOIA excludes evidence related to a criminal investigation unless needed for criminal defense.