Opinion
C.A. No. 01C-01-039 WLW.
Submitted: April 13, 2004.
Issued: September 6, 2005.
Upon Defendant's Motion for Reargument. Denied.
W. Michael Tupman, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Dover, Delaware, for the State of Delaware.
Richard G. Elliott, Jr., Esquire, and Jennifer C. Jauffret, Esquire, of Richards, Layton Finger, Wilmington, Delaware, for the Gannett Co., t/a The News Journal.
ORDER
Pending before this Court is Gannett Co. t/a The News Journal's ("Defendant") motion for reargument of this Court's Order dated March 19, 2004 pertaining to a writ of mandamus as it relates to non-conviction data and geographic information. This Court decided Defendant's motion for attorneys fees by separate Order dated April 19, 2004. As the issue is a narrow one, the decision of this Court will only address the matter before the Court. Having said that, a recitation of the relevant facts may be helpful.
The Court notes that the Motion for Reargument was filed on March 29, 2004, ten days after the issuance of the decision. The Court will consider this motion despite it being five days late.
Background
This case arises from the News Journal's attempt to obtain information from the Delaware Criminal Justice Information System (DELJIS) in order to study the state's criminal justice system. On February 1, 2001, DELJIS sought relief from this Court and filed an action for declaratory judgment. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, this Court concluded that the News Journal was not permitted to receive geographic information, non-conviction data and any information relating to the identity of police officers.
Board of Managers of the Delaware Criminal Justice Information System v. Gannett Co., 808 A.2d 453, 454 (Del.Super.Ct. 2002).
The News Journal appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which held that this Court's decision denying the release of non-conviction data fields and the geographic information fields was outside the jurisdiction of the Court. Thus this Court's decision with respect to those fields was vacated. With respect to the police officer identification information, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of this Court, concluding that the Court had improperly applied the Delaware Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Supreme Court upheld the decision awarding partial attorneys' fees to the News Journal under title 29, section 10005(d) of the Delaware Code.
Gannett Co., Inc. v. Board of Managers of the Delaware Criminal Justice Information System, 840 A.2d 1232, 1234 (Del. 2003).
Id.
Id.
The News Journal's motion for reargument contends that the Board had absolutely no discretion and must release non-conviction data and geographic information pursuant to the FOIA. On or about May 25, 2004, the News Journal requested that this Court reserve its decision on the Motion for Reargument. The News Journal stated that it intended to voluntarily withdraw its motion for reargument pending production of all the requested fields from DELJIS and assurance that such fields would be in usable format. The parties apparently reached an agreement conditioned upon payment of outstanding fees and it was expected that a stipulation would be entered into.
In June, 2004, DELJIS approved a user agreement with The News Journal to release approximately 200 fields of data, including non-conviction date, certain geographic identifiers, and other related information which arguably is consistent with the new April 2004 amendment to Chapter 85 of Title 11 of the Delaware Code. It is also noted that on April 28, 2005, the parties entered into a second users agreement.
The Court granted its request conditioned upon periodic status reports updating the Court of the progress. The parties generally complied and progress was apparently made to resolve all remaining issues. Most recently, the News Journal requested three additional fields of information in order to further clarify the information provided to it and to keep that information current. DELJIS has agreed to provide two of the fields but the cost of providing those fields was left unresolved. The third field was left unresolved until April 28, 2005, when a second user agreement, which encompassed the additional field requested, was executed between DELJIS and the News Journal.
On June 28, 2005, DELJIS submitted a status report contending that all of the relevant issues have been resolved and the motion for reargument should be dismissed as moot. The status report also indicates that the News Journal might have acted in non-compliance with the Court-ordered User Agreement. The News Journal takes the position that while it does not contemplate ongoing judicial supervision for its request, the outstanding matters are limited in size, relate to previously disclosed information and are within the jurisdiction of this Court. Counsel for the parties recently met in Chambers for a status conference where the Court determined that matters have stalemated at the present time and some judicial guidance would be necessary to bring finality to this long-standing action.
Discussion
A motion for reargument is the appropriate method for requesting the Court to reconsider its findings of fact or conclusions of law. While such motion affords the Court an opportunity to correct erroneous findings of fact or conclusions of law prior to an appeal, a motion for reargument will only be granted when the Court has overlooked a controlling legal principle or has misapprehended the law or facts that would have changed the outcome of the underlying decision.
Beatty v. Smedley, 2003 Del. Super. LEXIS 437, at *5.
Id.
To some extent this case is procedurally unusual as the parties initially requested this Court to reserve its decision on the motion for reargument pending potential resolution of the matter without further litigation. The parties have since provided the Court with progress reports memorializing their continuous efforts to reach an amicable resolution. Unfortunately, while many issues have since been resolved, more issues continue to surface and it has become readily apparent that the pending motion for reargument will never be completely resolved absent judicial intervention. This Court must therefore consider The News Journal's pending motion for reargument.
Due consideration must be given to the limited jurisdiction of the Court over this matter when considering the issues raised by the parties in their status reports. This Court obtained jurisdiction over this action by virtue of the writ of mandamus and motion for reargument; therefore, the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court is limited to issues pertaining only to these motions. Upon careful consideration of the status reports and records before this Court, it appears most issues arising from the original writ of mandamus and motion for reargument have become moot by virtue of both parties' efforts to compromise and the User Agreements executed between the parties. The only outstanding issue marginally related to the original motions concerns the costs associated with producing the last three fields of data that DELJIS has agreed to provide. This Court will therefore retain its extremely limited jurisdiction over this action until the issue of "reasonable expenses" is resolved. Because the parties have thus far been able to settle much of their dispute without judicial guidance, this Court will defer any action for sixty days allowing the parties ample time to reach an agreement on the reasonable expenses necessary for providing the final three fields of data agreed upon: the CRT-DISP, 2004 convictions and dispositions, and count of all previous convictions to date. If the parties are unable to amicably resolve this final issue within the prescribed time period, the Court will schedule a hearing and decide the issue.
The remaining issues and concerns of the parties exceed the jurisdiction of this Court. Disputes concerning proper usage of the User Agreements and disputes over requests for additional information and data fields are inevitable. While it is unfortunate that further litigation may ensue despite both parties' commendable efforts to compromise and resolve their dispute amicably, this Court lacks the authority and subject matter jurisdiction to continuously engage in judicial supervision over the matter. Because these outstanding issues are beyond the scope of this Court's jurisdiction, the motion for reargument will be dismissed as moot once the final issue concerning "reasonable expenses" has been addressed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.