Parent Pages
Sibling Pages
Child Pages
This portion of the request deals with an important trap.
Assume, for example, that they deny your request on the ground that the responsive records are attorney-client privileged and exempt under § 2.1-342.01.A.7. You are in a pickle:
- You don't know how many records they are withholding
- You don't know anything about what those records are
- You can't even begin to guess whether the records in question really are privileged, or whether the City is stonewalling you.
In contrast, if they tell you they are withholding a letter of July 15, 1999 from City Attorney Rupp to Mayor Kaine on the subject of legal issues raised by pictures on the floodwall, you can make a judgment that you probably aren't going to be able to get the document because of the exclusion at § 2.1-342.01.A.7. .
The sample letter demands that the city identify the records it is withholding, tell you where the copies are and who has seen them, and tell you explicitly the statute they rely upon to withhold the records. The Act supports the first and last of these: It requires that they identify "with reasonable particularity the volume and subject matter" of the records they withhold, and that they "cite, as to each category of withheld records, the specific Code section which authorizes the withholding of the records." Code § 2.1-342.A
"Identify with reasonable particularity" should mean to tell you enough to make an informed judgment whether or not the records in fact are exempt. You need to be very insistent about this, or you can get seamrolled.
The Act is silent on the question of copies and who has seen them, but you also need to be insistent about this. For example, if that privileged letter from Mr. Rupp to Mr. Kaine has been shared with a reporter from the Richmond Times-Dispatch, they have waived any privilege and you also should be able to see the letter.
See the discussion at § 2.1-342.A for more details.