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 sided with the Marion Superior Court by agreeing that a college student was entitled to attorney fees after he won a court order for one of three public records requests filed with the Indiana Election Division.
The ruling shot down the state’s argument that the student wasn’t due attorney fees because he didn’t “substantially prevail” in the case because he lost on two of his three requests.
“That opinion breathes new life into Access to Public Records Act by making it abundantly clear that the lack of complete success in an APRA lawsuit does not render a plaintiff ineligible for attorney fees and costs, as the Court of Appeals erroneously held,” William Groth, attorney for the student-plaintiff Christopher Nardi, said in an email.
The state’s high court also ruled that Nardi could be entitled to even more fees than the lower court awarded and sent the case back to the lower court for a recalculation.
“We thus reverse and remand to the trial court to recalculate attorney’s fees after considering how much time Nardi’s counsel spent on the successful claim and if the time spent on the unsuccessful claims is indivisible from the time spent on the successful claim,” Justice Christopher Goff wrote in the unanimous opinion.
Nardi requested records from the Indiana Election Division for data analysis he was doing at Pomona College where he was studying politics.
Nearly five years, later the high court has ruled he “substantially” prevailed in his request.
In December 2020, Nardi submitted an Access to Public Records Act request to the Indiana Election Division related to Indiana’s voter registration system.
He made three requests: the latest standard operating procedures that describe the security protocols of the voter-registration system and explain how to carry out voter registration, absentee voting, and election-management duties; “build notes” that describe enhancements made to the voter-registration system; and a copy of the latest contract with third-party vendors who secure, maintain, and administer the voter-registration system.
APRA does not require a reason for the request but Nardi explained he was an undergraduate student at Pomona College studying politics and was “interested in performing data analysis [on] absentee voting in recent Indiana elections.”
The division’s co-directors J. Bradley King and Angela Nussmeyer denied the requests due to concerns that disclosure would jeopardize the voter registration system.
The division directed Nardi to an online portal containing state contracts that are available to the public. Nardi successfully accessed the contracts between the division and a third-party vendor, but he failed to save them and they were later removed from the portal.
Nardi then filed a complaint with Indina’s Public Access Counselor alleging the division violated APRA by not providing the requested documents. The access counselor recommended that the division provide Nardi with “substantive portions” of the contract because the link the division previously sent became inaccessible. The division refused.
In July 2021, Nardi filed a complaint in Marion Superior Court requesting the division to permit Nardi to inspect and copy the “latest [standard operating procedures] for the [voter-registration system] and the current vendor contract(s) for the [voter-registration system].”
He also requested attorney fees and costs.
Judge John Hanley ordered the division to provide Nardi with a redacted version of the contract but denied Nardi’s request for the standard operating procedures and build notes.
Nardi filed a petition for fees and costs claiming he “substantially prevailed” in his suit, thus entitling him to an attorney fees award of $60,795 plus filing fees and deposition costs. The division argued Nardi did not substantially prevail because he only won a court order for one of his three public record requests and therefore was not entitled to any fees or costs.
The trial court awarded Nardi one-third of the attorney fees he requested, $20,265 plus filing fees and deposition costs.
Both parties appealed.
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s entry of partial summary judgment in favor of Nardi but held that he did not substantially prevail in his APRA request and reversed the trial court’s partial grant of attorney fees plus costs.
The high court disagreed, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
“Because the Division wrongfully withheld portions of the contract, and because Nardi successfully obtained the redacted contract, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that he “substantially” prevailed under APRA.,” Goff wrote.
Further, the high court held that Nardi may recover attorney fees for time spent on unsuccessful claims if it is indivisible from the time spent on the successful claim.
“The prevailing party that has “substantially” prevailed and seeks fees should present evidence to the trial court on the time spent on the successful claims and unsuccessful claims. The trial court should award attorney’s fees for the time spent on the successful claims,” Goff wrote. “If the trial court determines that the time spent on unsuccessful claims is so closely related to the time spent on successful claims that the time is indivisible, the trial court may also award attorney’s fees for the unsuccessful claims.”
Groth said he and Nardi are hopeful that today’s ruling “will encourage state government to become more transparent in their affairs, and that it will incentivize attorneys to file APRA cases where necessary to vindicate APRA’s public policy that ‘government is the servant of the people and not their master.'”
The case is Christopher Nardi v. J. Bradley King and Angela M. Nussmeyer in their official capacities as members of the Indiana Election Division, 25S-PL-64.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.