Court’s Rationale for Imposing Attorney’s Fees
The court’s ruling methodically details Willis’ failure to conduct any meaningful search for records until confronted with civil litigation. In the court’s own words:
“Most basically, by operation of law Defendant acknowledged violating the ORA when she defaulted. … Even if the records prove to be exempt from disclosure for sound public policy reasons, this late revelation is a patent violation of the ORA.”
From a legal standpoint, the court’s decision highlights how the Georgia Open Records Act contains explicit, mandatory provisions. Noncompliance triggers consequences—one of which is responsibility for the requestor’s legal fees.
Inconsistent Searches and the Request to Appoint a Special Master
Given Willis’ inconsistent record searches, Judicial Watch is now seeking the appointment of a special master. This request is grounded in the suspicion that not all responsive communications have been identified, and the group is asking for an in-camera (private) inspection of any withheld documents. Judicial Watch explains:
“Willis by her own admission conducted at least three searches before finding any responsive records not already supplied by [Judicial Watch]. She did not even bother to conduct a search until the Complaint was filed. … The foregoing gives rise to grave suspicion that all responsive records have not been found.”
Special masters, when appointed, serve as neutral third parties to oversee searches, document reviews, and disclosure. In this kind of high-profile matter, it can be a crucial step to maintain public confidence and legal integrity.
