2010AP221 Kriegl v. Stammen

Open Records
Definition of ‘record’

Thomas Kriegl appeals from the judgment that dismissed his petition for a writ of mandamus. Kriegl argues that Randy Stammen violated the open records law by not providing him with information he sought and by not posting a sign that complies with the statutory requirements. Wis. Stat. §§ 19.34(1), 19.35 (2007-08). Stammen cross-appeals from that portion of the judgment that denied costs or fees to either party, arguing that the circuit court did not explain its reasons for denying him attorney fees and costs as a sanction under Wis. Stat. § 802.05(3). We conclude that Stammen was not required to produce the information Kriegl sought, and we affirm the portion of the judgment granting summary judgment to Stammen and denying summary judgment to Kriegl. Because the circuit court did not make any findings or explain its reasons for denying Stammen’s motion for sanctions, we reverse that portion of the judgment and remand the matter to the circuit court for further consideration of Stammen’s motion for sanctions under Wis. Stat. § 802.05(3). This opinion will not be published.

2010AP221 Kriegl v. Stammen

Dist IV, Sauk County, Miller, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys: For Appellant: Schernecker, James G., Reedsburg; For Respondent: Hazelbaker, Mark, Madison

Full Text