Can a Delaware school district withhold a lawsuit settlement that a court has ordered sealed?

Official title

11-IB06 RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Brandywine School District

Plain-English summary

Michael Lang asked Brandywine School District for the full settlement terms, attorney names, fees, and funding source for two lawsuits the District had settled, one filed in Delaware Superior Court and one in federal court. The District agreed that, in general, records of how much a public body's insurer pays to settle a claim are public records, but explained that both specific settlement agreements had been sealed by court order, backing that up with copies of the sealing orders.

The AG agreed the sealed documents were off-limits. Delaware Superior Court rules make court filings public unless sealed for good cause, and those court rules override any conflicting statute, so a Superior Court seal order controlled. In the federal case, the settlement had been filed in a court-approved public version with the dollar amount redacted; the AG noted that even the U.S. Supreme Court has said federal FOIA doesn't require an agency to defy a court's confidentiality order, and declined to make the District do what the nation's highest court wouldn't require of a federal agency. Because both settlements were protected by valid court orders, the District's refusal to release the sealed or redacted portions did not violate FOIA.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2011. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Can a Delaware public body refuse a FOIA request for a lawsuit settlement that a court sealed?

Yes, according to this opinion. Once a public body proves a settlement document was sealed by a valid court order, FOIA does not override that seal, because records "specifically exempted from public disclosure by statute" are not public records.

Are settlement amounts a public school district pays through its insurer normally public records?

Yes, this opinion recognized that a public body's records of amounts its insurer pays to settle a claim are generally public records; that principle simply didn't apply here because both specific settlements had been sealed or redacted by court order.

Why didn't the AG make the district release the unredacted federal court settlement?

Because doing so would have required the district to defy a federal court's own redaction order, and the AG followed the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning that FOIA-type laws are not meant to force an agency into contempt of court to release documents a court has ordered kept confidential.

Background and statutory framework

Delaware's FOIA generally opens public records "to inspection and copying," 29 Del. C. § 10003(a), but exempts records "specifically exempted from public disclosure by statute." 29 Del. C. § 10002(g)(6). Superior Court Civil Rule 5(g) makes court filings public unless sealed on a showing of good cause, and Superior Court's own rules "supersede all statutory provisions in conflict or inconsistent therewith," 10 Del. C. § 561(c). Once the District showed the Superior Court settlement had been sealed by court order, that seal controlled over FOIA's general public-access rule.

The federal-court settlement, arising from Thomas v. Bd. of Brandywine Sch. Dist., No. 08-cv-205 (D. Del. Jan. 26, 2011), had been filed in a court-approved public version redacting the dollar amount. The AG relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of the U.S., Inc., 445 U.S. 375, 387 (1980), that Congress did not intend federal FOIA to require an agency to commit contempt of court by releasing documents a court had ordered kept confidential, and concluded the Delaware DOJ should not require more of the District than the U.S. Supreme Court required of federal agencies.

Citations

• 29 Del. C. § 10003(a) (public records open to inspection and copying)
• 29 Del. C. § 10002(g)(6) (exemption for records specifically exempted from disclosure by statute)
• Super. Ct. Civ. R. 5(g) (court records public unless sealed for good cause)
• 10 Del. C. § 561(c) (Superior Court rules supersede conflicting statutes)
• GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of the U.S., Inc., 445 U.S. 375, 387 (1980) (U.S. Supreme Court; FOIA doesn't require an agency to commit contempt of court)
• Thomas v. Bd. of Brandywine Sch. Dist., No. 08-cv-205 (D. Del. Jan. 26, 2011) (federal court order; settlement filed in redacted public version)
• Lee v. Minner, 458 F.3d 194 (2006) (federal appeals court; restricting FOIA rights to Delaware citizens is unconstitutional)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2011/06/22/11-ib06-re-freedom-of-information-act-complaint-against-brandywine-school-district/
• Original PDF: not linked from landing page

Original opinion text

Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 11-IB06 (Del.A.G.), 2011 WL 2741858

Office of the Attorney General

State of Delaware

Opinion No. 11 – IB06

June 22, 2011

RE: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against Brandywine School District

*1 Mr. Michael Lang

101 Garrett Road

Claymont, DE 19703

Dear Mr. Lang:

On April 13, 2011, the Delaware Department of Justice (“DDOJ”) received your complaint that the Brandywine School District (“the District”) violated the Freedom of Information Act (“ FOIA ”) by denying you access to records related to two lawsuits filed against the District. The DDOJ forwarded your letter to the District and, after granting an extension of time for the District to respond, received its timely response. This is the DDOJ’s determination of your complaint pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10005 (e).

RELEVANT FACTS

By letter of March 3, 2011, you requested the District to provide the following:

· The complete settlement negotiated between the district and the plaintiffs in the case reported in the News Journal on Jan. 8, 2011. That includes any financial compensation along with all other terms of this settlement

· The name of the district’s outside attorney(s) and the amount of money paid for their services.

· The source of the money for the settlement and attorneys’ fees.

· The same information with respect to a lawsuit settled in August ….

One of the suits was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Delaware, and the other in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

The District responded by letter of March 9, 2011 that it intended to provide you with access to all public documents responsive to your request. Although in that response, the District took the position that documents from its insurer as to the status of settlement payments are not public records, it now recognizes that a public body’s records of amounts paid by its insurer in settlement of a claim are public records. It asserts, however, that the settlement agreements in both lawsuits were filed under seal with court approval, and the District attached to its response copies of court records indicating the settlement documents are sealed—not available to the public—by orders of the respective courts. Because the District has met its burden of proving the settlement documents are under seal, the issue for us to determine is only whether court documents filed under seal are public records under FOIA .

RELEVANT STATUTES

“All public records shall be open to inspection and copying by any citizen of the State during regular business hours ….” 1 29 Del. C. § 10003 (a). However, “records specifically exempted from public disclosure by statute” are not public records. 29 Del. C. § 10002 (g)(6).

DISCUSSION

All records of a court proceeding in the Delaware Superior Court are public unless they are filed under seal upon a motion showing good cause. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 5(g) . The rules of the Superior Court in civil actions “supersede all statutory provisions in conflict or inconsistent therewith.” 10 Del. C. § 561 (c). Therefore, in the Superior Court case, the documents placed under seal by court order are not public records ….

*2 The settlement agreement in the District Court case was filed in a court-approved public version that redacts the amount of the settlement. Order, Thomas v. Bd. of Brandywine Sch. Dist. , No. 08-cv-205 (D. Del. Jan. 26, 2011). As the United States Supreme Court has stated, “[t]here is nothing … to suggest that in adopting the [federal] Freedom of Information Act to curb agency discretion to conceal information, Congress intended to require an agency to commit contempt of court in order to release documents.” GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of the U.S., Inc. , 445 U.S. 375, 387 (1980) . For the DDOJ to require the District to produce an un-redacted form of the District Court settlement agreement would be to require it to commit contempt of court. There is no reason for the DDOJ to do what the United States Supreme Court has declined to do in similar circumstances.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Brandywine School District did not violate the Freedom of Information Act, because the records it refused to make available are protected from public access by court order.

Sincerely,

Judy Oken Hodas

Deputy Attorney General

Approved:

Lawrence W. Lewis

State Solicitor

Footnotes

1
While FOIA refers throughout to “citizens,” restricting the rights created by FOIA to only citizens of Delaware has been held to be unconstitutional. Lee v. Minner , 458 F.3d 194 (2006) .

Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 11-IB06 (Del.A.G.), 2011 WL 2741858