East Bay Media Group v. Barrington School Department, 090220 RIAGO, AGO PR 20-61

• Case Date: September 02, 2020
• Court: Rhode Island

East Bay Media Group v. Barrington School Department AGO PR 20-61 No. PR 20-61 Rhode Island Attorney General Opinion State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations September 2, 2020          Mr. Josh Bickford          Mr. Scott Pickering          Marissa L. Janton, Esquire          Whelan Corrente & Flanders LLP Counsel, Barrington School Department          RE: East Bay Media Group v. Barrington School Department          Dear Mr. Bickford, Mr. Pickering, and Attorney Janton:          We have completed an investigation into the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) complaint filed by Mr. Josh Bickford and Mr. Scott Pickering on behalf of the East Bay Media Group (“Complainant”) against the Barrington School Department (“Department”). As explained below, this Complaint involves a series of APRA requests, but the record indicates that in the end the Department disclosed the total hours billed by a law firm for services rendered to the Department in 2019 and the total amount this law firm charged the Department for services rendered in 2019. For the reasons set forth herein, we find that the Department did not violate the APRA.          Background and Arguments          The Complainant asserts it sent three APRA requests to the Department related to the Department’s legal counsel. The first request, sent on October 31, 2019, provided:

“This is a request for information: How much money has the Barrington School Department/Barrington School Committee spent on legal fees in the case of the former middle school student who has challenged his out-of-school suspension from 2018?”

         The Department responded that its legal counsel “does not break down billables by matter, but instead cumulatively by lawyer by day by topic area[.]” It therefore maintained that “discrete bills for the student matter do not exist.”          The Complainant sent a second request on November 15, 2019. It included several paragraphs of questions to the Department and additionally sought the following records: “[a] copy of the contract, agreement or binder describing the relationship between the Barrington Public Schools and its legal representatives, inclusive of a description of fees, rates, etc.” as well as “[a] copy of all 2019 bills from the firm representing Barrington Public Schools in the middle school suspension case.”          The Department responded to the first part of the request for a copy of the “contract, agreement or binder describing the relationship between the Barrington Public Schools and its legal representatives, inclusive of a description of fees, rates, etc.” by stating that responsive records were exempt under R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(A)(I)(a) as relating to a client/attorney relationship, and under R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(B) as commercial information that is propriety to the law firm. The Department responded to the second part of the request by referring to their response to the Complainant’s first APRA request and noting that “[t]o the extent you have again requested bills with respect to one particular matter, [the Department] does not maintain those records.”          The Complainant sent a third request on December 5, 2019, clarifying that the November 15, 2019 request sought all 2019 bills from the firm, not just those related to a particular case. In making this third request, the Complainant specifically indicated that the Complainant wished to “amend the original request” and “clarify” it as seeking “all bills for all services rendered, middle school suspension case or otherwise.”          Just one day after sending the third request, the Complainant filed the instant Complaint. The Complainant alleges that the Department should have produced records responsive to the request for legal bills and that the Department improperly...