Smith v. DeKalb County

654 S.E.2d 469, 288 Ga. App. 574
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 27, 2007
DocketA07A1490
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 654 S.E.2d 469 (Smith v. DeKalb County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smith v. DeKalb County, 654 S.E.2d 469, 288 Ga. App. 574 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Ellington, Judge.

Philip Smith appeals from an order of the DeKalb County Superior Court granting a permanent injunction to Cathy Cox, in her official capacity as Georgia’s Secretary of State. 1 Smith contends that the court erred in finding that the Secretary of State had standing to pursue the injunction, in granting the Secretary of State’s request for temporary restraining orders and the permanent injunction, and in denying his motion to recuse. For the following reasons, we affirm.

The record shows the following facts. On October 23, 2006, Smith’s attorney, Mike Raffauf, submitted a written request, pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act, OCGA § 50-18-70 et seq., to Linda Latimore, the DeKalb County Director of Voter Registration and Elections, for disclosure of certain information concerning the 4th Congressional District 2006 primary and runoff elections. Raffauf requested that Latimore make available for copying and inspection the following materials:

A copy of the GEMS CD-ROM(S), 2 generated pursuant to OCGA§ 21-2-500 (a) 3 and [Rule of the State Election Board]

*575 According to Raffauf s request, “[a] review of the entire GEMS backup CD-ROM(S) for both elections is the only way ... to undertake a complete audit.”

In response to the request, DeKalb County advised Raffauf by letter that it would produce the requested CD-ROM on November 9, 2006. The county also noted, however, that it was going to utilize the letter to “notify the Secretary of State [and] the Attorney General... of [its] impending release of the requested CD-ROM in the event they choose to take action.” Further, the county refused to produce “documents or records that are not subject to production under the [Open Records] Act” and expressly reserved “any and all statutory exemptions from disclosure provided by OCGA § 50-18-72, and any and all other exemptions or protections provided by law, including but not limited to privileged and confidential documents.”

On November 9,2006, the Secretary of State objected to the open records request and filed a petition for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a verified complaint for a permanent injunction prohibiting DeKalb County from releasing the CD-ROM. After the trial court granted two TROs, 5 Smith intervened. The court conducted a hearing on the petition for a permanent injunction, and the Secretary of State and Smith presented evidence and argument. The court *576 permanently restrained and enjoined DeKalb County and Latimore from “releasing, disclosing, or providing to any person not authorized by law to obtain them copies of the pre-election and post-election CD-ROMs.” Smith appeals from this order.

1. Smith claims that the trial court erred in finding that the Secretary of State had standing to object to his Open Records Act request. As the court found, however, the Secretary of State “is statutorily charged with the supervision of all elections in this State, and as such has a complete right to seek the Court’s intervention in this matter.” See OCGA§§ 21-2-30 (creating the State Election Board andnamingthe Secretary of State as the board chair); 21-2-31 (duties of the State Election Board); 21-2-32 (authorizing the State Election Board to institute or intervene in court actions involving elections); 21-2-50 et seq. (powers and duties of the Secretary of State regarding elections); 45-13-20 et seq. (general duties of the Secretary of State); see also Ga. Dept. of Natural Resources v. Theragenics Corp., 273 Ga. 724, 725 (545 SE2d 904) (2001) (a corporation had the right to enjoin a state agency from allowing a third-party competitor to review the agency’s file on the corporation, which included some of the corporation’s trade secrets, after the third party filed a request with the agency under the Open Records Act).

2. Smith contends that the court erred in granting the permanent injunction. Smith claims that he is entitled to inspect the CD-ROM by running a copy on an independent computer which would enable him to examine the CD-ROM’s computer codes to determine when various voting records were created and by whom, “to verify file formats, software versions, [and] file sizes” on the CD-ROM, and to look for evidence of irregularities resulting from election fraud and malfunctions of the electronic voting equipment and election software. 6

In determining whether the trial court’s grant of a permanent injunction was proper, the standard of review on appeal is whether or not the trial court manifestly abused its discretion. A trial judge manifestly abuses his discretion when he grants an injunction adverse to a party without any evidence to support such judgment and contrary to the law and equity. Entry of a permanent injunction is appropriate in clear and urgent cases where there is a vital necessity to prevent a party from being damaged and left without an adequate remedy at law.

*577 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) City of Atlanta v. Southern States Police Benevolent Assn. &c., 276 Ga. App. 446, 458 (4) (623 SE2d 557) (2005). We conclude that the court’s ruling that Smith is not entitled to a copy of the CD-ROM under the Open Records Act is proper for several reasons.

Under Georgia’s Open Records Act,

[a]ll public records of an agency as defined in subsection (a) of this Code section, except those which by order of a court of this state or by law are prohibited or specifically exempted from being open to inspection by the general public, shall be open for a personal inspection by any citizen of this state at a reasonable time and place; and those in charge of such records shall not refuse this privilege to any citizen.

OCGA § 50-18-70 (b). As the trial court found, the Georgia Code provides that the designated custodian of a CD-ROM created by the county or municipal superintendent of an election must maintain it under seal following the election for at least 24 months, unless otherwise directed by the superior court. OCGA § 21-2-500 (a); 7 see Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 183-1-12-.02 (6) (storage of returns). The superior court in this case has not ordered that the seal be lifted as to the CD-ROM Smith seeks.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

LOVE v. FULTON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS
859 S.E.2d 33 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2021)
Citizens Oversight v. Vu
California Court of Appeal, 2019
Citizens Oversight, Inc. v. Vu
247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 521 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2019)
Harris v. Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Inc.
721 S.E.2d 906 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2011)
Price v. Town of Fairlee
2011 VT 48 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2011)
State Road & Tollway Authority v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp.
702 S.E.2d 486 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)
Fulton DeKalb Hospital Authority v. Miller & Billips
667 S.E.2d 455 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
654 S.E.2d 469, 288 Ga. App. 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-dekalb-county-gactapp-2007.