[41] The Superior Court concluded that DELJIS should not provide the News Journal with non-conviction data after analyzing and construing FOIA and Chapter 85. The general construction of these provisions was not in issue, however. Rather, the issues that were presented addressed whether Chapter 85 "prohibits the disclosure of SBI or other numbers linked to an individual... because they are within the definition of 'criminal history record information,'" whether FOIA "exempts numbers linked to an individual from the definition of a 'public record' because their disclosure 'would constitute an invasion of personal privacy,'" and whether "FOIA exempts officer identification numbers from the definition of a 'public record' because their disclosure 'would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.'"*fn16 The parties presented the trial court with limited issues, and the court went beyond the boundaries of those issues when it decided the case as it did. The trial court should not have addressed issues as to which there was no actual controversy.

[42] The News Journal's answer and counterclaim did not raise*fn17 the general issue whether geographic and non-conviction data may be released, as DELJIS claims. That pleading did refer in broad terms to the data requested by the News Journal, and it did ask the court to determine whether DELJIS's refusal to release that information violates FOIA. It appears, however, that neither the parties nor the trial court read that pleading as opening to the court's scrutiny all the data fields requested by the News Journal. We regard the Pretrial Stipulation as controlling on the parameters of the issues presented for the court's consideration. In addition, the trial court itself several times acknowledged the narrow issues before it.*fn18 A review of the record as a whole leads to the conclusion that the non-specific language in the News Journal's answer and counterclaim did not create different parameters for the dispute than those that had been established by the complaint and specific language in the answer.

[43] The Police Officer Identification Information

[44] The News Journal argues that the Superior Court erred by declaring that, under FOIA, DELJIS should not release the police officer identification information because of concerns about officer safety. The News Journal contends that in order to be exempt from release under FOIA, information must invade privacy. DELJIS relies on officer safety concerns to argue that the Superior Court properly denied the release of police officer identification information.

[45] The Superior Court's decision that officer names and identification numbers should not be released was based on its factual determination that release of those data fields would threaten officer safety.*fn19 The Superior Court's factual findings are "entitled to substantial deference unless clearly erroneous or not the product of a logical and deductive reasoning process."*fn20 This Court reviews de novo, however, the Superior Court's formulation and application of legal principles.*fn21 It is on this de novo review of legal principles that our determination rests.

[46] Despite its factual determination that release of police officer identification information would pose a threat to officer safety, the Superior Court applied an incorrect legal standard in excluding officer information based on safety concerns. FOIA makes no reference to officer safety as a basis for redacting officer information. Rather, FOIA is concerned with the disclosure of information "which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy."*fn22 The statute's provision authorizing omission of "the names of witnesses, intelligence personnel and aids or any other information of a privileged and confidential nature"*fn23 from disclosed FOIA information must be read in light of the concern about privacy, not a concern about officer safety that does not appear in the statute. Which officer conducted an arrest is a matter of public record. Where the officer is not an undercover, or "intelligence," officer, the Superior Court did not articulate any privacy-related concerns but relied solely on its concern for officer safety. The Superior Court's holding, therefore, did not comport with the limitations on FOIA's disclosure requirements. Accordingly, it must be reversed.

[47] Attorneys' Fees

[48] The News Journal contends that the Superior Court improperly distinguished between media entities and others when awarding only partial attorneys' fees to the News Journal. DELJIS argues that the Superior Court should have denied entirely the News Journal's request for attorneys' fees on the basis that the News Journal was not a "successful plaintiff" because the Superior Court denied the company's request for the non-conviction data, the geographic information, and information allowing the identification of police officers.

[49] This Court reviews for abuse of discretion the Superior Court's award of attorneys' fees.*fn24 To the extent the award requires the formulation of legal principles, however, that formulation is subject to de novo review.*fn25

[50] The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the News Journal partial attorneys' fees. The award of attorneys' fees is a matter of the trial court's discretion.*fn26 The News Journal was a "successful plaintiff" as required by FOIA for an attorneys' fees award*fn27 because it prevailed on at least some issues before the court -- specifically, the release of the linking numbers. Because the trial court had the authority to decide whether or not to award attorneys' fees at all, it is within the court's discretion to consider the incentive structure facing the parties to a particular suit in deciding the extent of fees to award. This consideration need not turn on the relative depths of the parties' pockets, as the News Journal contends. Rather, the Superior Court based its conclusion on the fact that the News Journal would use the information requested from DELJIS in an attempt to increase its revenue from newspaper sales.*fn28 The News Journal has a private financial incentive to procure the DELJIS information. Therefore, the Superior Court acted within its discretion in concluding that the News Journal was not entitled to an award of all its attorneys' fees in order to have an incentive to bring suit under FOIA.

[51] Because of our disposition of the above issues, we need not address the remaining questions raised in this appeal.

[52] Conclusion

[53] Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment of the Superior Court to the extent that it denies the News Journal access to the police officer identification information. We VACATE the judgment of the Superior Court to the extent that it denies the News Journal access to the non-conviction data and the geographic information. Our decision in this latter respect does not necessarily mean that access to such information must be provided. It simply means that those issues were not before the trial court and remain undecided. We AFFIRM the award by the Superior Court of partial attorneys' fees to the News Journal.


Opinion Footnotes

[54] *fn1 Gannett Co. v. Del. Criminal Justice Info. Sys., 768 A.2d 508 (Del. Super. Ct. 1999), aff'd, No. 535, 1999, 2000 Del. LEXIS 544 (Del. Sept. 14, 2000) (ORDER).

[55] *fn2 Gannett Co., 768 A.2d at 515.

[56] *fn3 Id. at 515-16.

[57] *fn4 An SBI number is unique to an individual arrested and remains the same for any subsequent involvement of that individual with the criminal justice system. A CJIS number is assigned to a case and is attached to all proceedings in a single case. The News Journal requested the creation of fictitious linking numbers to allow it to track "vertical histories." Creating vertical histories would allow the News Journal to link a single individual's involvement in different prosecutions over time, rather than just tracking each defendant's case through the criminal justice system, as if he or she were never prosecuted for any other offense.

[58] *fn5 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 29, 10001 et seq. (1997) contains Delaware's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

[59] *fn6 Bd. of Managers of the Del. Justice Info. Sys. v. Gannett Co., 808 A.2d 453, 455 (Del. Super. Ct. 2002).

[60] *fn7 Id. The parties also presented the issue whether FOIA exempts officer identification numbers from disclosure.

[61] *fn8 Id. at 462-64.

[62] *fn9 Id. at 464.

[63] *fn10 Stabler v. Ramsay, 88 A.2d 546, 552 (Del. 1952).

[64] *fn11 Cf. Am. Ins. Group v. Risk Enter. Mgmt., Ltd., 761 A.2d 826, 829 (Del. 2000) (reviewing de novo the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment based on its interpretation of a written instrument); cf. also McMullin v. Beran, 765 A.2d 910, 916 (Del. 2000) (stating that the standard of review of the dismissal of a complaint based on the pleadings is de novo).

[65] *fn12 Schick Inc. v. Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union, 533 A.2d 1235, 1238 (Del. Ch. 1987) (quoting Rollins Int'l, Inc. v. Int'l Hydronics Corp., 303 A.2d 660, 662 (Del. 1973)); see also DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, 6501-6513 (1999) (providing that Delaware courts may enter declaratory judgments).

[66] *fn13 Gannett Co., 808 A.2d at 455.

[67] *fn14 See, e.g., Pretrial Stipulation, Gannett, 808 A.2d 453 (Del. Super. Ct. adopted Jan. 2002 ), at 4-5; Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Gannett, 808 A.2d 453 (Del. Super. Ct. submitted Jan. 25, 2001), at 5-8.

[68] *fn15 Gannett, 808 A.2d at 460. The court did find, based on the testimony of Dr. Latanya Sweeney, one of DELJIS's expert witnesses, that certain geographic data such as zip codes and grid numbers could be used to re-identify defendants. The News Journal withdrew its request for those fields, however, because of this concern. The Superior Court therefore concluded, "After the withdrawal, there is no testimony that there nevertheless remains a privacy concern." Id.

[69] *fn16 See, e.g., Pretrial Stipulation, supra note 14, at 4-5 (emphasis added).

[70] *fn17 See Rollins, 303 A.2d at 663 (considering the answer and counterclaim as well as the initial complaint when determining what issues had been placed before the court in a declaratory judgment action).

[71] *fn18 See, e.g., Memorandum Opinion, Gannett, 808 A.2d 453 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 2, 2001), at 4 ("The declaratory judgment action at bar was filed by the Board to determine whether they are required to give the News Journal the three [CJIS, SBI, and defendant identification] fields under FOIA or is the information Chapter 85 criminal history information which implicates privacy concerns apart from the public information concerns of FOIA."); id. at 3 (stating that "[o]nly three of the requested fields: SBI, CJIS and Defendant Identification Numbers are in contention"); see also, e.g., Gannett, 808 A.2d at 455 (noting that the evidentiary hearing "was on the narrow issue of whether the News Journal could take vertical criminal histories and cross reference them with other sources to determine names to correspond with the vertical histories").

[72] *fn19 Gannett, 808 A.2d at 461.

[73] *fn20 Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., 634 A.2d 345, 360 (Del. 1993).

[74] *fn21 Id.

[75] *fn22 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 29, 10002(d)(4).

[76] *fn23 Id.

[77] *fn24 Roadway Express v. Folk, 817 A.2d 772, 776 (Del. 2003).

[78] *fn25 Cede & Co., 634 A.2d at 360. Cf. In re State, 708 A.2d 983, 985 (Del. 1998) ("The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Family Court has the authority pursuant to Family Court Criminal Rule 16(f) to award attorney's fees and costs for violations of the Family Court's discovery rules, an issue of law this Court reviews de novo.")

[79] *fn26 See Chem. Indus. Council of Del., Inc. v. State Coastal Zone Indus. Control Bd., C.A. No. 1216-K, 1994 Del. Ch. LEXIS 70, at *49 (Del. Ch. May 19, 1994) (denying an application for attorneys' fees as a matter of discretion).

[80] *fn27 DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 29, 10005(d).

[81] *fn28 Bd. of Managers of the Del. Criminal Justice Info. Sys. v. Gannett Co., C.A. No. 01C-01-039 WLW, at 12 n.30 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 17, 2003) (ORDER).