Open records — mandamus

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Open records — mandamus

Mandamus is the exclusive remedy for enforcing the open records law.

“The Newspaper point-blank asserts that the requester does not have to first obtain a finding of actual damages as a condition precedent to a punitive damages award. Rather, the requester can skip having to seek actual damages altogether and assert only punitive damages. And although the Newspaper did not so claim, the logical extension of its WIS. STAT. § 19.37(3) stand-alone argument is that a requester could actually begin a mandamus action, seeking a finding of a violation, costs and actual damages and then, in a separate civil suit, seek punitive damages. Thus, presumably, the requester could obtain a finding of a violation and perhaps costs and actual damages by one fact finder and a finding of punitive damages by a different fact finder for the same violation. The Newspaper asks us to believe that the legislature intended a stand-alone punitive damages cause of action without the legislature having explicitly announced such a wholesale departure from the accustomed process. We reject the Newspaper’s interpretation. We are convinced, by reading the clear language of the statute, that the legislature crafted an efficient procedure whereby the mandamus court would mimic what courts do in civil suits. The mandamus court decides whether there is a violation and, if so, whether it caused actual damages. Then, the mandamus court may consider whether punitive damages should be awarded under § 19.37(3).”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP1687 The Capital Times Co. v. Doyle

Dist. IV, Dane County, Foust, J., Brown, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Dreps, Robert J., Madison; Santa Maria, Monica, Madison; For Respondent: Means, Steven P., Madison