In Weeks v. St. Louis County, et al., No. SC 100427 (Sept. 3, 2024), the Missouri Supreme Court vacated a grant of summary judgment in favor of Webster Groves and St. Louis County (the “Political Subdivisions”) and remanded Weeks’ Sunshine Law case for further proceedings. The nature of Weeks’ underlying Sunshine Law case was based on multiple requests. Those requests were to Webster Groves for the “annual ‘raw’ data files from the Vehicle Stop Forms with all columns including the DSN/PIN, that REJIS [Regional Justice Information Services Commission] uses to compile the stats for the annual Vehicle Stop Reports…” and to St. Louis County for “[f]iles of databases containing data generated from vehicle stop forms… including officer PINs/DSNs….” Weeks, page 2. Weeks further clarified that their request was for “files containing the databases (in worksheet, ie [sic] excel workbook formatting) created from the raw data transmitted upon completion of the vehicle stop forms.” Weeks, page 3. In short, Weeks appeared to be seeking data instead of records of the Political Subdivisions.
The central argument asserted by the Political Subdivisions is that Weeks’ request would require the creation of new records, which is not required by the Sunshine Law. Further, St. Louis County argued that an individual DSN (the “Department Service Number” or “Department Serial Number”) was exempt from disclosure pursuant to 610.021(3) and (13) regarding individually identifiable personnel records. The Supreme Court provided that even though the “raw data” files requested by Weeks are “not per se disqualified as a ‘public record’ under section 610.010(6)[,]” that the “ ‘raw data’ or other ‘electronically stored’ records in a public governmental body’s servers do not automatically qualify as a ‘public record’ required to be produced under the Sunshine Law.” Weeks, pages 8-9. Given the status of the record before the Supreme Court, the Court determined that summary judgment should not have been granted to the Political Subdivisions, and that neither party had demonstrated a right to summary judgment based on the record.
Further, St. Louis County had not yet demonstrated a clear nexus between the DSN requested and the exceptions cited in the Sunshine Law (subdivisions (3) and (13) of 610.021 RSMo.), as St. Louis County had not demonstrated the DSN is involved in hiring, firing, or disciplining of an employee, or that it is part of their personnel file. As such, the Supreme Court determined that the record was insufficient to support a grant of summary judgment in favor of St. Louis County regarding these cited exemptions.