South Carolina Lottery Commission v. Glassmeyer ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                    THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
    In The Supreme Court
    South Carolina Lottery Commission, Respondent,
    v.
    George S. Glassmeyer, Petitioner.
    Appellate Case No. 2020-000050
    ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
    Appeal from Richland County
    L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge
    Opinion No. 28023
    Heard March 2, 2021 – Filed April 21, 2021
    REVERSED
    Andrew Sims Radeker and Taylor Meriwether Smith IV,
    Harrison, Radeker & Smith, P.A., both of Columbia, for
    Petitioner.
    Vordman Carlisle Traywick III, Robinson Gray Stepp &
    Laffitte, LLC; Karl Smith Bowers Jr., both of Columbia,
    for Respondent.
    JUSTICE FEW: George Glassmeyer sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
    requests to the South Carolina Lottery Commission for information relating to
    million-dollar lottery winners. The Lottery Commission filed this lawsuit asking the
    circuit court to declare the information exempt from disclosure. The circuit court
    ruled in favor of the Lottery Commission without a trial. We reverse and remand
    for trial.
    I.     Facts and Procedural History
    Glassmeyer sent several FOIA requests to the Lottery Commission seeking
    information related to winners of lottery prizes equal to or greater than one million
    dollars between March 1, 2013, and March 20, 2014. Glassmeyer requested the "full
    name, address, and telephone number; the date and gross amount of the claim; and
    a copy of any and all forms of identification obtained from" each winner. The
    Lottery Commission responded to each request, stating that pursuant to subsection
    30-4-40(a)(2) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2020) it was not going to disclose
    the information. The Lottery Commission claimed the information sought was
    "personal" and "disclosure . . . would constitute unreasonable invasion of personal
    privacy." Instead, the Lottery Commission disclosed the hometown and state of each
    winner, the amount of each prize, the date of each prize, and the game associated
    with each prize. Glassmeyer responded that the Lottery Commission's disclosure
    did not satisfy his requests.
    The Lottery Commission then filed this lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that
    the release of lottery winners' names, addresses, telephone numbers, and forms of
    identification would constitute an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy under
    subsection 30-4-40(a)(2) and may be withheld. The Lottery Commission also sought
    injunctive relief preventing Glassmeyer from obtaining the information.
    At the start of the non-jury trial, the Lottery Commission made an oral motion for
    judgment on the pleadings. The circuit court granted the Lottery Commission's
    motion and declared the release of the lottery winners' "personal identifying
    information would constitute an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy within
    the meaning of § 30-4-40(a)(2)." The circuit court also entered an injunction
    permanently restraining Glassmeyer from seeking the lottery winners' full names,
    addresses, telephone numbers, and forms of identification.
    The court of appeals affirmed. S.C. Lottery Comm'n v. Glassmeyer, 
    428 S.C. 423
    ,
    
    835 S.E.2d 524
    (Ct. App. 2019).1 We granted Glassmeyer's petition for a writ of
    certiorari. We reverse the court of appeals.
    II.    Analysis
    A.    Injunction
    The circuit court issued an injunction in favor of the Lottery Commission which
    "PERMANENTLY restrained and enjoined [Glassmeyer] from seeking to obtain the
    (1) full names; (2) addresses; (3) telephone numbers; and (4) forms of identification
    of all lottery winners and claimants." The injunction prevented Glassmeyer from
    seeking the information from any source. This was improper.
    As the Lottery Commission conceded during oral argument to this Court, an
    injunction restricting Glassmeyer from seeking this information from any source is
    overly broad. The only question before the circuit court was the Lottery
    Commission's obligation to disclose the information. Thus, a proper injunction
    could restrict Glassmeyer only from seeking this information from the Lottery
    Commission. The Lottery Commission had no right to request an injunction
    permanently restraining Glassmeyer from seeking this information from any source,
    and the circuit court had no authority to prevent Glassmeyer from doing so.
    Even if the injunction was proper in scope, an injunction was unnecessary. The
    parties are in the midst of litigation. Glassmeyer requested the information from the
    Lottery Commission, and the Lottery Commission refused to disclose the
    information. The declaratory judgment entered by the circuit court, although
    improper as a judgment on the pleadings as we will discuss, is an adequate remedy
    to protect the Lottery Commission's interests. See Strategic Res. Co. v. BCS Life
    Ins. Co., 
    367 S.C. 540
    , 544, 
    627 S.E.2d 687
    , 689 (2006) ("The court will reserve its
    equitable powers for situations when there is no adequate remedy at law." (citing
    Santee Cooper Resort, Inc. v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 
    298 S.C. 179
    , 185, 
    379 S.E.2d 119
    , 123 (1989))); see also Hampton v. Haley, 
    403 S.C. 395
    , 409, 
    743 S.E.2d 258
    ,
    265 (2013) (noting an injunction was unnecessary because the declaratory judgment
    1
    The court of appeals also held the circuit court erred in not addressing Glassmeyer's
    counterclaim for willful abuse of process and remanded the claim to the circuit 
    court. 428 S.C. at 439
    , 835 S.E.2d at 532. This issue was not appealed to this Court.
    entered in the case provided an adequate remedy at law). Even a proper injunction
    would accomplish nothing in this case because the accompanying declaratory
    judgment permitted the Lottery Commission to refuse to disclose the information.
    B.    Declaratory Judgment
    Glassmeyer argues the Lottery Commission had no right to bring a declaratory
    judgment action asking the circuit court to determine its rights and obligations under
    FOIA. We disagree.
    When a party has a question regarding its rights or obligations under the law, the
    party may bring an action under the Declaratory Judgments Act to have the question
    resolved by a court. The Declaratory Judgments Act2 provides, "Courts of record
    within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status and
    other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed." S.C. Code
    Ann. § 15-53-20 (2005). It further provides, "Any person . . . whose rights, status
    or other legal relations are affected by a statute . . . may have determined any
    question of construction or validity arising under the . . . statute . . . and obtain a
    declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder." S.C. Code Ann.
    § 15-53-30 (2005). Despite Glassmeyer's arguments to the contrary, the Lottery
    Commission had the right to bring a declaratory judgment action asking the circuit
    court to determine whether the exemption applied.
    C.    Judgment on the Pleadings
    Glassmeyer also argues the circuit court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings
    in favor of the Lottery Commission on the declaratory judgment action. We agree.
    Under FOIA, "A public body may but is not required to exempt from disclosure the
    following information: . . . Information of a personal nature where the public
    disclosure thereof would constitute unreasonable invasion of personal privacy." S.C.
    Code Ann. § 30-4-40(a)(2). A public body must make two decisions before
    invoking this exemption. First, the public body must determine whether the
    information requested is personal and whether disclosure would constitute an
    unreasonable invasion of personal privacy. Second, if so, the public body must
    determine whether to disclose the information. Only the first decision is before us
    2
    S.C. Code Ann. § 15-53-10 et seq. (2005).
    at this time. When the Lottery Commission made the decision, it made a judgment
    call as to whether disclosure of the information would constitute an unreasonable
    invasion of personal privacy. The Lottery Commission's determination was
    necessarily based on evidence. "Whether a record is exempt depends on the
    particular facts of the case." Evening Post Publ'g Co. v. City of N. Charleston, 
    363 S.C. 452
    , 457, 
    611 S.E.2d 496
    , 499 (2005) (citing City of Columbia v. ACLU, 
    323 S.C. 384
    , 387, 
    475 S.E.2d 747
    , 749 (1996)).
    When the litigation began, the circuit court was required to "resort to general privacy
    principles, which [] involves a balancing of conflicting interests—the interest of the
    individual in privacy on the one hand against the interest of the public's need to know
    on the other." Glassmeyer v. City of Columbia, 
    414 S.C. 213
    , 220, 
    777 S.E.2d 835
    ,
    839 (Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Burton v. York Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 
    358 S.C. 339
    , 352,
    
    594 S.E.2d 888
    , 895 (Ct. App. 2004)). This is also a determination necessarily based
    on evidence. The Lottery Commission had the evidentiary burden of proving the
    exemption applied. Evening Post Publ'g 
    Co., 363 S.C. at 457
    , 611 S.E.2d at 499.
    The court of appeals nevertheless held, "The question of whether the information
    Glassmeyer requested was exempt under FOIA is a question of law and does not
    require looking at any facts other than Glassmeyer's 
    request." 428 S.C. at 438
    , 835
    S.E.2d at 531. We disagree. See Evening Post Publ'g 
    Co., 363 S.C. at 457
    , 611
    S.E.2d at 499 (explaining FOIA exemptions "depend[] . . . on . . . facts").3 Without
    a trial on the issues to develop a factual record, there is no evidence on which the
    circuit court could base its judgment.
    Throughout this litigation, the Lottery Commission relied heavily on the threat to
    the safety of lottery winners to support its argument the invasion of a winner's
    privacy would be unreasonable. At the circuit court, just prior to asking for judgment
    on the pleadings, the Lottery Commission argued it is "very concerned in this day
    and age about invasion of privacy and the safety and security of [its] winners." To
    support the point, the Lottery Commission stated "there are a litany of examples of
    situations, not just in South Carolina, but nationwide about lottery winners who have
    been threatened, who have been harmed physically, who have been cheated. In fact,
    we had a situation here with one of those really high lottery winners where he was
    scammed." The Lottery Commission presented no evidence to support the
    statements.
    3
    The exemption set forth in subsection 30-4-40(a)(4) is uniquely based only on law.
    The court of appeals, however, found that evidence to support the Lottery
    Commission's argument was "not necessary to the circuit court's order." 428 S.C. at
    
    438, 835 S.E.2d at 531
    . The Lottery Commission was unconvinced. Even during
    oral argument to this Court, after the court of appeals said it did not matter, the
    Lottery Commission argued the safety of lottery winners is a consideration the
    circuit court should make in the balancing the conflicting interests. Specifically, the
    Lottery Commission told this Court "people are robbed, they are killed, they are
    extorted; there are . . . a legion of circumstances that take place that put the safety of
    lottery claimants, particularly those who come upon over a million dollars, in great
    jeopardy." We agree with the Lottery Commission that the extent to which these
    risks are real is important in the circuit court's determination of whether the
    exemption applies.
    Similarly, Glassmeyer's reason for requesting the information is important for the
    circuit court to consider in its determination of whether the exemption applies.
    Ordinarily, a citizen requesting information under FOIA should not have to disclose
    the reason for the request. However, when a public entity invokes the unreasonable
    invasion of personal privacy exemption in subsection 30-4-40(a)(2), the circuit court
    must balance the conflicting interests of the individual's privacy against the public's
    need to know. 
    Glassmeyer, 414 S.C. at 220
    , 777 S.E.2d at 839 (quoting 
    Burton, 358 S.C. at 352
    , 594 S.E.2d at 895). In such an instance, the court must understand and
    address the reason for seeking the information because the reason goes directly to
    the public's interest and whether the invasion of personal privacy would be
    unreasonable. In this case, Glassmeyer's reason for seeking the information from
    the Lottery Commission should be developed at trial.
    III.   Conclusion
    We vacate the injunction in favor of the Lottery Commission. We reverse the
    declaratory judgment—without addressing the merits—and remand the action to the
    circuit court for trial.
    BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN and JAMES, JJ., concur.