Appellant’s Sunshine Law claim is a statutory cause of action seeking judicial enforcement of its provisions, and is not an action involving the deprivation of a constitutional right. See § 610.027.1; cf. City of Byrnes Mill v. Limesand, 599 S.W.3d 466, 471 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (internal citation omitted).Chapter 217, § 217.010 et seq., concerns DOC’s organization, powers, and responsibilities, and it authorizes DOC to promulgate administrative procedures for resolving offender grievances.
[2-5] "[W]e review a trial court’s denial of a motion to compel discovery for an abuse of discretion." Hale v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Corp., 638 S.W.3d 49, 63 (Mo. App. S.D. 2021) (quoting City of Byrnes Mill v. Limesand, 599 S.W.3d 466, 475 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020)). We allow the trial court broad discretion in the control and management of discovery, but we will , find it abused its discretion if its ruling was clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before it and so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock our sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration.
This Court reviews the circuit court’s ruling on a motion to compel discovery for an abuse of discretion. City of Byrnes Mill v. Limesand, 599 S.W.3d 466, 475 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). The circuit court abuses its discretion in administering the discovery rules when its ruling "is clearly against the logic of the circumstances, is arbitrary and unreasonable, and indicates a lack of careful consideration."
Berry v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 397 S.W.3d 425, 430 (Mo. banc 2013). An award of attorney’s fees is an abuse of discretion and requires reversal only if it is "clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration["] City of Byrnes Mill v. Limesand, 599 S.W.3d 466, 477 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). Berezo v. Berezo, 628 SW.3d 737, 748 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021).
In camera review has long been deemed a proper means for the trial court to determine how Sunshine Law exemptions and disclosure requirements apply to the records at the heart of the dispute. See City of Byrnes Mill v. Limesand, 599 S.W.3d 466, 475 (Mo. App. 2020); see also Laut v. City of Arnold, 417 S.W.3d 315, 326 (Mo. App. 2013) ("[I]n camera review is a practical remedy that would resolve any factual dispute, while at the same time maintaining confidentiality of documents that may be exempt from disclosure under the Sunshine Law.") Although affidavits that are part of a summary judgment record may provide context, and might even harm a party in a knowing/purposeful violation accusation if an affidavit were to characterize a record in a manner wholly inconsistent with the contents, where the disputed records are before the court, a determination as to the character of the records in relation to the Sunshine Law is ultimately governed by the records themselves, and not affidavits by the parties which purport to describe the contents.
Analogous to the purpose of the EAJA to increase government accountability and permit private parties to challenge unreasonable government actions, "Missouri's Sunshine Law is meant to foster openness and transparency in government." City of Byrnes Mill v. Limesand , 599 S.W.3d 466, 471 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (citing Chasnoff , 466 S.W.3d at 577 ). Per section 610.011.1: "It is the public policy of this state that meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law.
"Missouri's Sunshine Law is meant to foster openness and transparency in government." City of Byrnes Mill v. Limesand , 599 S.W.3d 466, 471 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). "It is the public policy of this state that ... records ... of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law," so that "all public records of public governmental bodies shall be open to the public for inspection and copying" unless otherwise provided by law.
An award of attorney's fees is an abuse of discretion and requires reversal only if it is "clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration." City of Byrnes Mill v. Limesand , 599 S.W.3d 466, 477 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). Discussion
Finally, "[w]e review a trial court's denial of a motion to compel discovery for an abuse of discretion." City of Byrnes Mill v. Limesand , 599 S.W.3d 466, 475 (Mo. App. 2020). "We allow the trial court broad discretion in the control and management of discovery, but we will find it abused its discretion if its ruling was clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before it and so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock our sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration."
Berry v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. , 397 S.W.3d 425, 430 (Mo. banc 2013). An award of attorney's fees is an abuse of discretion and requires reversal only if it is "clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration. City of Byrnes Mill v. Limesand , 599 S.W.3d 466, 477 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). B. Analysis