Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 02-IB16 (Del.A.G.), 2002 WL 31031225
Office of the Attorney General
State of Delaware
Opinion No. 02IB16
July 30, 2002
Re: Freedom of Information Act Complaint Against New Castle County
*1 Mr. Steven Church
Staff Reporter
The News Journal
950 West Basin Road
P.O. Box 15505
New Castle, DE 19720
Dear Mr. Church:
Our Office received your Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) complaint on April 12, 2002. You allege that New Castle County (“the County”) violated the public records requirements of FOIA by denying you access to a document you requested (“a letter of engagement between the county and the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis”).
By letter dated March 7, 2002, you asked the County for copies “of any agreement, correspondence, or letter of engagement between the county and or any county employee and the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis.”
By letter dated March 11, 2002, the County took the position that the records you requested were exempt from disclosure under FOIA “under the attorney/client and/or attorney work product privileges.”
By letter dated April 19, 2002, we asked the County to respond to your complaint. By letter dated May 3, 2001, the County provided you with the retention letter, and notified our office on May 6, 2002.
Your original complaint to this Office mentioned only the retention letter. By letter dated May 7, 2002, you renewed your request to the County for any other agreements or correspondence with Kirkland & Ellis. By letter dated May 30, 2002, the County provided you with copies of billing statements from Kirkland & Ellis (dated April 22 and May 20, 2002), but denied the remainder of your request based on attorney/client and attorney work product privileges.
You then renewed your FOIA complaint with our office. By letter dated June 14, 2002, we asked the County to respond to your complaint and “include copies of the documents in question for our in camera review.” After two extensions of time to accommodate vacation and holiday schedules, we received those documents on July 15, 2002.
We have reviewed the documents in camera, and conclude that they are not “public records” under FOIA because they are “records specifically exempted from public disclosure by statute or common law.” 29 Del. C. § 10002(d)(6). The “privileges for attorney-client communication and work product established by common law have been incorporated into the Public Records Act.” Denver Post Corp. v. University of Colorado, Colo. App., 739 P.2d 874, 880 (1987). Based on our in camera review of the documents, we find that each of them is exempt from disclosure under FOIA either by attorney-client privilege or work product immunity.
 
Conclusion
 
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the County did not violate the public records requirements of FOIA.
Very truly yours,
W. Michael Tupman
Deputy Attorney General
 
Approved:
 
Malcolm S. Cobin
State Solicitor
Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 02-IB16 (Del.A.G.), 2002 WL 31031225

<< Back