×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Charging Excessive Fees Preparing, Producing Records Prohibited Under Freedom Of Information Act
The South Carolina Civil Justice Coalition (CJC) probed the Office of the Attorney General (AG) for an opinion regarding excess fees for requesting documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and clarification as to who determines the documents' exemption. The AG stressed strict adherence to the legislative intent for minimal fees as to ensure access.
The questions arose when South Carolina Workers' Compensation quoted $434,250 to provide copies to the CJC. It was opined that under South Carolina Code section 30 4 30(b), "The records must be furnished at the lowest possible cost to the person requesting the records" and "fees may not be charged for examination and review to determine if the documents are subject to disclosure. Nothing...prevents...charging a reasonable hourly rate...nor requiring a reasonable deposit... ."
A November 4, 1976, opinion by the AG cautioned that an internal system or policy for handling such requests "must be carefully considered to make sure that it does not, by design or implication, inhibit or reduce the public's ability to examine public records." A 2004 AG opinion re-iterated this.
The AG concluded that only a court could determine if the fees or costs are appropriate and that the fees in question appeared to be "excessive and exorbitant" and suggested that the CJC seek FOIA remedies. See: In re Office of the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 2006 S.C. AG Lexis 239.
The questions arose when South Carolina Workers' Compensation quoted $434,250 to provide copies to the CJC. It was opined that under South Carolina Code section 30 4 30(b), "The records must be furnished at the lowest possible cost to the person requesting the records" and "fees may not be charged for examination and review to determine if the documents are subject to disclosure. Nothing...prevents...charging a reasonable hourly rate...nor requiring a reasonable deposit... ."
A November 4, 1976, opinion by the AG cautioned that an internal system or policy for handling such requests "must be carefully considered to make sure that it does not, by design or implication, inhibit or reduce the public's ability to examine public records." A 2004 AG opinion re-iterated this.
The AG concluded that only a court could determine if the fees or costs are appropriate and that the fees in question appeared to be "excessive and exorbitant" and suggested that the CJC seek FOIA remedies. See: In re Office of the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, 2006 S.C. AG Lexis 239.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
In re Office of the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina
| Year | 2006 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2006 S.C. AG Lexis 239 |
| Level | Administrative Agency |
| Injunction Status | N/A |