Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 0-985 / 10-0966 Filed February 23, 2011

JOSHUA MARTIN NEER, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA; IOWA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; IOWA STATE PATROL; COLONEL PATRICK HOYE, in his Official Capacity; and COURTNEY GREENE, in her Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert A. Hutchison, Judge.

The plaintiff appeals a district court order granting summary judgment to the defendants in an action under the Open Records Act. AFFIRMED.

Scott A. Michels of Gourley, Rehkemper & Lindholm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Jeffrey C. Peterzalek and Matthew Oetker, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ. Tabor, J., takes no part.

2 VAITHESWARAN, J. We must decide whether certain records in the possession of the State are confidential. I. Background Facts and Proceedings Joshua Neer was arrested for operating while intoxicated and eluding. After he pleaded guilty and was sentenced, he asked the Iowa Department of Public Safety for records relating to his arrest. When the department declined to release the records, Neer filed suit to compel production. The department

voluntarily turned the records over to Neer, then sought summary judgment on the ground the lawsuit was moot or, alternately, the records were confidential. The district court agreed the lawsuit was moot but found the confidentiality issue of sufficient public importance to warrant a decision on the merits. The court concluded the requested records were confidential and granted summary judgment for the State.1 On appeal, Neer takes issue with this conclusion. Our review of the

district court`s ruling is on error. Gannon v. Bd. of Regents, 692 N.W.2d 31, 37 (Iowa 2005); see also Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(3). II. Mootness As a preliminary matter, Neer contends the district court erred in finding the case moot. The State counters that the district court erred in sua sponte

1

We collectively refer to all the defendants as the State.

3 applying an exception to the mootness doctrine to reach the question of whether the records were confidential. A case is moot if it no longer presents a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or nonexistent. Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 133 (Iowa 1988). The test is whether a judgment, if rendered, would have any practical legal effect upon the existing controversy. Id.

Because the State released the records to Neer, we agree with the district court that this case became moot. See Shannon v. Hansen, 469 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1991) (noting plaintiff no longer sought production of witness statements in light of settlement of underlying civil suit, rendering the issues raised on appeal academic and moot); see also Papa v. United States, 281 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2002) ([T]he production of all nonexempt material, however belatedly,` moots FOIA claims. (citations omitted)); Clapper v. Oregon State Police, 206 P.3d 1135, 1139 (Or. Ct. App. 2009) (affirming grant of summary judgment to defendant where plaintiff had received all of the requested records). We recognize that Neer`s lawsuit also contained requests for prospective injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs. See Iowa Code

Download JOSHUA MARTIN NEER, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA; IOWA DEPARTMENT OF P

Iowa Law