Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in a case involving a man’s public records access dispute with members of the Indiana Election Division.
According to court documents, in December 2020, Christopher Nardi submitted a request for three documents from the election division under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act.
He requested full copies of the latest maintenance contract, the standard operating procedures and the build notes for the Indiana Statewide Voter Registration System.
The election division denied Nardi’s request for the build notes and operating procedures, but directed him to a website to find the maintenance contract.
However, though Nardi accessed the website, he didn’t save a copy of the latest contract, and it was later removed from the website.
In January 2021, Nardi filed a formal complaint to the Indiana Public Access Counselor, arguing the election division should’ve granted his requests for the documents that were withheld, which later included the contract that was no longer on the website.
The counselor concluded the two documents had been properly withheld and recommended that the division ensure Nardi had access to the contract, which they did not do, according to court documents.
Nardi then sued J. Bradley King and Angela M. Nussmeyer in their official capacities as members of the election division for wrongfully denying him access to the records.
In April 2022, he moved for summary judgment, seeking access to the three documents and asking that the Marion Superior Court find King and Nussmeyer in violation of the public records act.
King and Nussmeyer cross-moved for summary judgment that June, arguing that the documents contained information that could allow a bad actor to circumvent the voter registration system, according to court documents.
In May 2023, the trial court entered partial summary judgment in favor of Nardi, ruling that the division carried their burden with respect to the operating procedures and build notes, but also that they were required to give Nardi a redacted version of the maintenance contract.
Nardi moved to amend the judgment to show he had prevailed in his suit according to the public records act and was therefore entitled to fees and costs of $61,471.30.
The trial court ruled in October 2023 that Nardi did substantially prevail in his lawsuit, and awarded him a third of his requested fees, which totaled $20,265.
Nardi argued the trial court abused its discretion by not awarding him the full amount, while the division argued the trial court erred in awarding Nardi any fees at all and claimed he didn’t substantially prevail.
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s entry of partial summary judgment in favor of Nardi, but reversed the partial grant of his request for fees.
Nardi filed a petition in July to transfer the case to the supreme court, which the court granted. In his petition, Nardi concluded that because he won substantial relief, he is eligible for the full fee award.
He is asking the high court to vacate the appeals court opinion, holding that he substantially prevailed on his Access to Public Records Act claim and is entitled to costs and some or all his fees.
He’s also asking the court to remand to the trial court to determine the amount of attorney fees he is entitled to.
The case is Christopher Nardi v. J. Bradley King and Angela M. Nussmeyer in their official capacities as members of the Indiana Election Division, 23A-PL-02832, and can be streamed online.
Oral arguments for two other cases will be heard on Tuesday, including a child in need of services case.
Another oral argument, focused on a trial court ordering a woman to be involuntarily committed to a stress center, will take place beginning at 9 a.m.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.