Public records. Tennessee's Public Records Act, originally passed by the legislature in 1957, mandates that governmental entities grant full access to public records to every citizen of Tennessee. The legislative policy behind the Act is enunciated in the enforcement provision that directs courts to construe the Act broadly "so as to give the fullest possible access to public records." Tennessee Code Annotated ("T.C.A.") § 10-7-505(d) (1999). The original 1957 Act provided that "[a]ll state, county and municipal records" shall be open for inspection "unless otherwise provided by law or regulations made pursuant thereto." (Emphasis added.) In 1984, the legislature amended the emphasized portion to read: "unless otherwise provided by state statutes." The Tennessee Supreme Court has construed this amendment as reserving to the legislature alone the power to make exceptions to the accessibility of public records. Memphis Publishing Co. v. Holt, 710 S.W.2d 513, 517 (Tenn. 1986). In 1991, however, the specific language was further amended to read: "unless otherwise provided by state law." The change from "state statute" to "state law" arguably broadens the means of limiting access beyond the holding in Holt to include exemptions under common law privileges. The Public Records Act continues to go through many revisions. In addition to separate statutes throughout the Tennessee Code that create new exemptions to the Act, the Act itself has been subjected to several different pieces of legislation that modified the Act.
In 2008 the Public Records Act received substantial revisions to make it more user friendly. Changes to the Act included imposing a deadline for records custodians to respond to a request, and provisions to set a reasonable price for copies of records. Also in 2008, Tennessee created the Office of Open Records Counsel (“OORC”), as a department of the State Controller, to assist and advise public officials and the public, including the media, with open records issues. The OORC serves as an ombudsman that can mediate open records disputes and issue written opinions concerning open records issues. The OORC, and its Advisory Committee, may also review and make comments to the General Assembly on any legislation affecting Open Meetings. www.comptroller.tn.gov/openrecords
Open meetings. When the General Assembly enacted the Sunshine Law in 1974, Tennessee became the 46th state to fashion such legislation. A 1957 attempt to draft open meeting legislation died in committee. The legislature's source of authority to enact the Sunshine Law is Article 1, Section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution which provides: "That the printing presses shall be free to every person to examine the proceedings of the legislature; or of any branch or officer of the government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof." The opening policy statement of the Tennessee Sunshine Act echoes and specifies this broad grant of the public's right to open government:
The general assembly hereby declares it to be the policy of this state that the formation of public policy and decisions is public business and shall not be conducted in secret. This part shall not be construed to limit any of the rights and privileges contained in Article I, § 19, of the constitution of the state of Tennessee.
T.C.A. §§ 8-44-101(a) and (b) (1995). The broad legislative mandate that "all meetings of any governing body . . . [be] open to the public at all times, except as provided by the Tennessee Constitution," T.C.A. § 8-44-102(a) (1995), has survived vigorous constitutional challenges that the law was vague, ambiguous, unreasonable, and arbitrary and chilled free speech. Dorrier v. Dark, 537 S.W.2d 888 (Tenn. 1976); Memphis Publishing Co. v. City of Memphis, 513 S.W.2d 511 (Tenn. 1974).
Thus, from its enactment, the Tennessee Sunshine Law has been construed as embodying the will of the people, speaking through their elected legislative representatives, that the benefits of open government be safeguarded through a statute that secures these benefits in broad terms. The definitional provisions of the Sunshine Law are equally sweeping. Instead of listing those government entities subject to public scrutiny, the law was enacted defines governing body to include "members of any public body which consists of two or more members, with the authority to make decisions for or recommendations to a public body on policy or administration." T.C.A. §§ 8-44-102(b)(1) (1995). This legislative history can be viewed as reflecting the lawmakers' intent that those governmental entities covered by the mandate of openness be construed expansively. Dorrier v. Dark, 537 S.W.2d at 891. Unfortunately, case law establishes that the Sunshine Law does not apply to the General Assembly itself. Mayhew v. Wilder, 46 S.W.3d 760 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
The Tennessee open records law (the "Act") provides for a Tennessee citizen's personal inspection of all state, county and municipal records at all times during business hours unless the records are statutorily declared to be confidential. A public record is defined as follows:
all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, microfilms, electronic data processing files and output, films, sound recordings, or other material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any governmental entity.
T.C.A. § 10-7-503(a)(1)(A)(i). See also T.C.A. § 10-7-403 (defining "Public records within the county"). The determination of whether a document has been received "in connection with the transaction of official business" requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances. Griffin v. City of Knoxville, 821 S.W.2d 921, 924 (Tenn. 1991) (suicide notes taken into police custody are public records). Tennessee courts have had occasion to determine that certain records claimed to be exempt were in fact intended to be open: applications of those seeking the position of school superintendent, Board of Education of Memphis City Schools v. Memphis Publishing Co., 585 S.W.2d 629 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979); payroll records of a public hospital, Cleveland Newspapers Inc. v. Bradley County Memorial Hospital Board of Directors, 621 S.W.2d 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981); and closed investigative files of a police department, Memphis Publishing Co. v. Holt, 710 S.W.2d 513 (Tenn. 1986). Forty eight categories of exceptions to the mandate of openness are contained in the Act itself under the rubric of "confidential records." T.C.A. § 10-7-504. The legislature has enacted numerous other statutes providing that certain records be deemed confidential or closed.
A 1988 survey by a special committee of the Tennessee General Assembly found a total of 89 exemptions either limiting or barring public access to various public records. Since that time, the General Assembly has frequently enacted additional exemptions. The attached Appendix lists 365 exemptions, but a list of exemptions the OORC released on January 30, 3018 finds 538 statutory exemptions with only two scheduled to sunset, which means the General Assembly has been passing exemptions at the rate of 15.5 per year since 1988. The OORC list was prepared for the General Assembly with the understanding that it might review the list to determine if more exception should be eliminated. The OORC list may be found at http://www.comptroller.tn.gov/openrecords/. The difference between this list and the attached Appendix maybe partly one of interpretation.
Any citizen of the state of Tennessee can request access to any records that are deemed to be records of public bodies. In 1998, the Supreme Court overturned earlier case law and held that a convicted felon is still a citizen for purposes of being able to seek access to public records. Cole v. Campbell, 968 S.W.2d 274 (Tenn. 1998) (overturning Roberson v. Rose, 17 TAM 3-28 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 1991) and Ray v. Stanton, C.A. No. 88-285-II (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 1989)); Corporations and other entities may be citizens of Tennessee for purposes of the Act. See Curve Elementary School Parent & Teachers Org. v. Lauderdale County Sch. Bd., 608 S.W.2d 855, 859-60 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980) (granting standing to an unincorporated association of state residents to sue under Tennessee open meetings law, which requires state citizenship to bring suit); Metropolitan Air Research Testing Authority Inc. v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 17 TAM 31-21 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 8, 1992) (standing granted to a Tennessee corporation to sue under the open meetings law). Cf. Huntsville Util. Dist. v. Gen. Trust Co., 839 S.W.2d 397 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (holding that the T.C.A. § 10-7-504 term "members of the public" does not include the courts and public officials in the performance of official duties and therefore such officials have access to confidential records that are not available to "members of the public").
Must be a citizen of Tennessee. The special study committee of the General Assembly that proposed the 2008 revision recommended that the state citizenship requirement be eliminated, but it was retained.
Neither the statute nor case law imposes restrictions as to the requester's purpose for requesting access or the use he makes of the information obtained under the open records law. See The Capital Case Resource Center of Tennessee Inc. v. Woodall, 17 TAM 8-8, p.14 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan,. 29, 1992) ("There is no statute which provides that exemption from disclosure is or may be premised on the purpose for which the citizen intends to use the requested documents").
There is no limitation of use of public records.
The Act grants full access to the public of all governmental records "unless otherwise provided by state law." T.C.A. § 10-7-503(a) (1999). Thus, no Tennessee agencies are entirely exempted from the mandate of the Act.
Copies of any act, record, or paper in the office of the secretary of state are available to any person, "except papers relating immediately to the executive department, and, in the governor's judgment, requiring secrecy." T.C.A. § 8-3-104(10). All law enforcement personnel records are open, however, special rules apply when inspections are made of these records. T.C.A. § 10-7-503(c)(1). Applications of applicants for city school superintendent are subject to the Act. Board of Education of Memphis City Schools v. Memphis Publishing Co., 585 S.W.2d 629 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979) (holding that applications of those seeking the position of superintendent of city schools in the possession of a search committee created by the board of education were public records).
The joint legislative services committee has sole authority to determine whether any member of the public may be permitted access to the legislative computer system in which confidential information is stored or processed. T.C.A. § 3-10-108(a). Direct access to such a computer may not be permitted unless protection of any confidential information is ensured. § 3-10-108(b). No information available in printed form may be obtained from the legislative computer system pursuant to the Open Records Act. § 3-10-108(c). A legislator's e-mail is subject to the Act if it was made or received in connection with the transaction of official business. Op. Atty Gen. No. 05-099 (June 20, 2005).
Judicial records that are exempt from the Act are: complaints of judicial disability to the Court of the Judiciary, T.C.A. § 17-5-303; proceedings involving allegations of misconduct by or the disability of an attorney, Sup. Ct. R. 9 § 25; proceedings of the court of the judiciary, Jud. Ct. R. 8; and predisposition reports of investigations and evaluations of juveniles, Juv. Proc. R. 33(e). Arguably, the separation of powers doctrine might prohibit additional judicial records from being disclosed by the legislature's enactment of the Public Records Act. See Art. II § 1, 2, Tennessee Constitution; Op. Att'y Gen. No. U92-131, 18 TAM 3-34 (Dec. 28, 1992). In Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652 (Tenn. 1996), the Supreme Court held that the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure are state law which can accept documents from the Public Records Act. Any conflict between provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure and provisions of the Tennessee Code which cannot be harmoniously construed shall be resolved in favor of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, documents sealed by a state court are not subject to inspection under the Act. Knoxville News Sentinel v. Huskey, 982 S.W.2d 359 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998)
The Supreme Court ruled that the documents filed with the clerk of a court are public records but that the Act does not apply to documents that were sealed subject to a protective order. See also Memphis Publishing Co. v. City of Memphis, 19 TAM 9-2 (Tenn. Feb. 22, 1994)(deposition transcripts taken during course of bankruptcy proceedings in which city was a creditor were public records and city could not claim that deposition constituted attorney work product).
In 2008 the Act was revised to state, “A governmental entity is prohibited from avoiding its disclosure obligations by contractually delegating its responsibility to a private entity.” T.C.A. § 10-7-503(a)(6) This amendment seems to incorporate a 2002 decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Even before the above stated amendment, Tennessee courts construed the Act to cover the records of nongovernmental bodies in receipt of public funds and of advisory boards of quasi-governmental bodies. In Memphis Publishing v. Cherokee Children & Family Services, 87 S.W.3d 67 (Tenn. 2002), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a "functional equivalency test" should be used to determine if the Act would apply to a private company retained by a government agency to perform governmental services. Whether a private entity operates as the functional equivalent of a government entity, so as to render its records subject to the Act, will be judged in light of the totality of the circumstances. Factors relevant to this analysis are: 1) level of government funding, 2) extent of government involvement or control, and 3) whether the entity was created by the government. However, not all records of non-government entities who assist government operation will be public. In early 2011, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled a nonprofit foundation that merely acted as a bookkeeper, paying a university medical school facility for services the facility rendered as a public hospital and securing reimbursement from the school for payments to the facility was not the functional equivalent of a governmental agency. Gautreaux v. Internal Medicine Education Foundation, Inc., 336 S.W.3d 526 (Tenn. 2011).
The International Association of Chiefs of Police Inc. was not deemed to be the functional equivalent of Memphis when that city contracted with that organization to assist in the hiring of the next Director of the Memphis Police Department. Memphis Police v. Memphis, 2017 Tenn. App LEXIS 507 (July 26, 2017)
A private company that managed a city sports arena under a contract with a metropolitan government acted as the functional equivalent of that governmental agency, because it assumed responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the arena. Allen v. Day, 213 S.W.3d 244 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Cases addressing this issue but decided before Cherokee Children & Family Services, and therefore before the 2008 amendment, may be of questionable validity. However, these cases include: Tenant subleases of city-owned property are open records. Creative Restaurants Inc. v. Memphis, 795 S.W.2d 672 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990) (tenant subleases of city-owned property in the possession of private, for-profit corporations that served as the city's leasing agent were public records under the Act). But see Webber v. Bolling, C.A. No. 177 (Tenn. Ct. App. December 13, 1989) (working papers of certified public accountants retained by Anderson County to conduct an audit of a department of the county government were not subject to disclosure under the Act). The payroll records of a public hospital were held to be open under the Act. Cleveland Newspapers Inc. v. Bradley County Memorial Hospital Board of Directors, 621 S.W.2d 763 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981), cert. denied, (Tenn. 1981) (holding that only the legislature can designate records confidential and that a hospital created by the state legislature and financed with public funds was an arm of the state carrying on a governmental function). However, employee personnel records of a hospital operated by a nonprofit corporation under a 50-year lease agreement with Shelby County were not subject to the Act. Memphis Publ'g Co. v. Health Care Corp., 799 S.W.2d 225 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990) (reasoning that hospital that was not created by the general assembly and never claimed governmental immunity from tort actions was a private rather than governmental entity).
Entities that are not governmental bodies are not subject to the Act just because the entity has government officials on its board or in some other capacity. This is one factor, however, courts might consider in determining if the body is the functional equivalent of government.
The Act presumably does not include the records of multistate or regional bodies, however, records of such bodies might also be maintained by state offices that are subject to the Act.
Presumably open. A sports authority created pursuant to the Sports Authorities Act, T.C.A. § 7-67-109, is a governmental agency within the meaning of the Act. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 96-011 (Feb. 6, 1996). City Press Communications, LLC v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 447 S.W. 3d. 230 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (association that governs interscholastic athletic competition is the functional equivalent of a governmental agency and its records concerning whether a school violated the associations bylaws were public).
The records of any association or nonprofit corporations established for the benefit of local governmental entities or as a municipal bond financing pool, who receive government funding amounting to at least 30 percent of their income, and who are authorized to allow their employees to participate in the state retirement system are subject to the Act. T.C.A. § 10-7-503(d)(1). See Fodness v. Newport and Cocke County, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 148 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2004). However, this section of this statute also allows such organization to exempt themselves from the Act if they meet certain criteria.
All "state, county and municipal records" are public unless otherwise exempted. Broad categories of records legislatively mandated to be excluded from the Public Records Act include medical records of patients in state institutions, investigative files of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, records of students in public educational institutions, federal military and state militia records, state attorney general records, and investigative records of the internal affairs division of the department of corrections. T.C.A. § 10-7-504 (1999). Additionally, T.C.A. § 10-7-403 defines and enumerates county records that are public.
Records covered by the Act include “all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, microfilms, electronic data processing files and output, sound recordings, or other materials regardless of physical form” made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by a governmental agency. T.C.A. § 10-7-301(6). A records custodian will be required to disclose certain information maintained in a computer database even though it does not maintain the information in the exact format in which the request has been made. The Tennessean v. Electric Power Board of Nashville, 979 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1998); See Real Estate Search System Inc. v. Baltimore, 8 TAM 5-13 (Tenn. Ct. App. December 27, 1982) ("raw data" in the form of computer printouts are available under the Act).
Only records are covered by the Act: A requester cannot demand the government agency to provide information. Shabazz v. Campbell, 63 S.W.3d 776 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
The right to inspect public records includes the right to make copies. T.C.A. § 10-7-506(a). Therefore, all records that may be inspected should be available for copying.
Presumably open, although telephone information that might be used to locate someone who has a protective order is closed to protect such person from violence. T.C.A. § 10-7-504 (a)(16).
The Act has no provision for allowing the requester to choose a format to receive records except that “the requestor be given the option of receiving information in any format in which it is maintained by the agency, including electronic format.” T.C.A. § 8-4-604(a)(1)(A)(ii)(d). In Wells v. Warton, 2005 WL 3309651 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2005), the court stated the Act “does not require a custodian of records to provide public records in a manner a citizen requests.” The custodian can chose the manner so long as it does not distort the information or inhibit access. Id. In Lance v. York, 359 S.W. 3d. 197 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) the court ruled the custodian was not required to convert requested records from the existing paper format to a scanned electronic format.
The Act has no provision to allow a requester to obtain a customized search of computer databases to accommodate particular needs.
The Supreme Court held that if there is information that is stored on computer but not in the format desired by the requester, the agency is required to provide the information in the format requested. The Tennessean v. Electric Power Board of Nashville, 979 S.W. 2d 297 (Tenn. 1998) (electric power board was required to disclose its customer names, addresses, and telephone numbers as a public record, even though it did not have a list of only that information.). This 1998 decision probably overturns Seaton v. Johnson, 20 TAM 8-20 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 1995) (stating that the Act does not require that state conduct a computer search for a particular type of record).
The existence of information in electronic format does not seem to affect its openness. See T.C.A. § 10-7-121(a)(I)(A) (providing that government records kept on computer or removable computer storage media is available for public inspection, unless it is confidential according to law); T.C.A. § 6-1-126(b)(3) (providing that adoption records maintained by electronic media are confidential and must be secured as such); Op. Att'y Gen. No. 95-01, 20 TAM 6-46 (Jan. 1, 1995) (State Public Records Commission and various county public records commissions have discretion to authorize records to be stored on optical discs and destruction of such records stored in this manner would have to be in accordance with statutory requirement).
Some government agencies have websites with some public records available from those sites.
Computer programs sold, licensed or donated to the state are closed. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(18)
The custodian of public records of convictions of traffic violations or other offenses can charge a reasonable fee per copy to defray the costs of producing and delivering the copy or copies. T.C.A. § 10-7-507 (1995).
However, an electric power board was not permitted to charge a requester for costs, totaling $86,400, incurred in notifying customers about whom information had been requested, as it was required to do in accordance with its own privacy policy. The Tennessean v. Electric Power Board of Nashville, 979 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1998).
Under T.C.A. § 8-4-604(a), the Office of Open Records Counsel was required to establish a schedule of reasonable charges for copies of Public Records (“Schedule of Charges”), and it has done so. This Schedule of Charges may be found on the Open Records Counsel’s website, www.comptroller.gov/openrecords
The Schedule of Charges allows a “Labor Charge” for “the time reasonably necessary to produce the requested records and includes the time spent locating, retrieving, reviewing, redacting, and reproducing the records.” There is no charge, however, for the first hour of such labor. The charge will be the hourly rate of such public employee involved in the search.
Generally, the Schedule of Charges allows $.15 for black and white copies and $.50 for color copies. Oversized documents will cost more. The records custodian may charge less. Also, the custodian may charge more if it can document its actual cost is higher.
If the requester can identify the records requested with specificity, he need not personally appear to have copies of the records sent to him. Waller v. Bryan, 16 S.W.3d at 773. The Schedule of Charges confirms that the records may be mailed to the requestor.
If records have "commercial value" that requires the reproduction of a computer generated map, the custodians may also charge fees to offset the cost of developing and updating the records. T.C.A. § 10-7-506. This additional cost might not apply if the requestor is the news media. T.C.A. § 10-7-506(c)(1) & (c)(4).
The Act has no provision for either requiring or waiving fees. The Schedule of Charges permits a custodian to waive fees only pursuant to a written policy.
There are no requirements or prohibitions regarding advance fees, and the Schedule of Charges permits this.
Sometimes. See The Tennessean v. Electric Power Board of Nashville, 979 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1998).
None. Other than to participate in any open records litigation where the constitutionality of any statute is challenged, or to represent the State when it (as opposed to local government) is the records custodian.
Yes. Office of the Open Records Counsel. T.C.A. §§ 8-4-601 to -604.
Yes. The Act allows for the recovery of court costs and attorney’s fees, but only if the refusal to disclose was willful. T.C.A. § 10-7-505(g).
Agencies are not required to make certain categories of information available even if it is not requested, however, certain records are available on agency websites.
Records retention is addressed generally at T.C.A. §§ 10-7-509, -511.
Records exempted by the Tennessee Open Records Act itself are specific and are listed in 48 categories that deal with confidential records.
The withholding of these records is not generally left to the discretion of the custodian; rather, the withholding is mandated unless otherwise indicated.
The Tennessee Open Records Act has little resemblance to the federal Freedom of Information Act. See Schneider v. City of Jackson, 226 S.W.3d 332 (Tenn. 2007) (court noted differences and refused to apply FOIA exemption rationale to state Act).
a. The medical records of patients in state institutions, including those containing the source of organ donations for transplantation and information concerning organ donors, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(1);
b. All investigative records of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and all criminal investigative files of the motor vehicle division of the department of safety, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(2). See Abernathy v. Whitley, 838 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992) (court of appeals upheld denial that particular parts of records constitute investigation records of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation);
c. Records of the military department involving national or state security, including national guard personnel records and staff studies and investigations, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(3);
d. The academic, financial, and medical or psychological records of students in public educational institutions, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(4);
e. Books, records, and other materials in the possession of the attorney general's office relating to any pending or contemplated legal or administrative proceeding in which the office may be involved, including (1) records designated confidential or privileged by state law, (2) records related to federal investigations and designated confidential or privileged under federal law, (3) the work product of the attorney general or his subordinates, (4) communications to or by the attorney general covered by the attorney-client privilege, and (5) records available for public inspection in other departments and agencies, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(5);
f. Agency records containing opinions of the value of real and personal property intended to be acquired for public purposes, until acquisition is complete, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(6);
g. Sealed bids for the purchase of goods and services and leases of real property, until completion of evaluation, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(7);
h. All investigative records and reports of the internal affairs division of the department of corrections or department of youth development, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(8);
i. Official health certificates obtained and maintained by the state veterinarian, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(9);
j. The capital plans, marketing, and proprietary information and trade secrets submitted to the Tennessee venture capital network at Middle Tennessee State University, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(10);
k. Records of historical research value given or sold to public archival institutions or libraries when the owner or donor of such records wishes to place restrictions on access to the records, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(11);
l. Personal information contained in motor vehicle records which shall be open only pursuant to Title 55, chapter 25 (the Uniform Motor Vehicle Records Disclosure Act, which implemented the Federal Driver Privacy Protection Act) of the Tennessee Code Annotated; T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(12);
m. Memoranda, work notes, case files and communications related to mental health intervention techniques conducted by mental health professionals in a group setting to provide counseling and therapy to law enforcement officers, firefighters, paramedics and other emergency medical technicians, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(13);
n. Riot, escape, and emergency transport plans of county jails and workhouses or prisons, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(14);
o. A utility department's records of address, telephone number and Social Security number that might be used to locate someone who has a protection order from a court to protect such person from violence, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(15);
p. A governmental entity's records of address, telephone number and Social Security number that might be used to locate someone who has a protection order from a court to protect such person from violence, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(16);
q. The telephone number, address and any other information which might be used to locate the whereabouts of a domestic violence shelter or rape crisis center, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(17);
r. Computer programs sold, licensed or donated to the state, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(18);
s. Credit card numbers of persons doing business with the state or any subdivision, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(19);
t. The private records of any utility, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(20);
u. Records identifying structural or operational vulnerability of a utility, T.C.A. § 10-7-504-(a)(21);
v. the audit working papers of the comptroller of the treasury and state, county, and local government internal audit staffs. T.C.A § 10-7-504(a)(22).
w. Records containing the results of individual teacher evaluations administered by the State Board of Education, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(23).
x. Commercial and financial information provided to the Alcoholic Beverage Commission that would give competitors an advantage over those who do not know or use such information, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(24).
y. Records related to a student’s academic performance, financial status, medical or psychological treatment, and family information maintained by a voluntary association for interscholastic sports competition of private and public secondary schools, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(25).
z. Job performance evaluations of employees in the Department of the Treasury, Secretary of State, public institutions of higher education, and the Comptroller’s Office, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(26).
aa. Email addresses collected by the Department of State’s Division of Business Services, T.C.A. § 10-7-504 (a)(27).
bb. Proposals and statements of qualifications received by local government entities in response to a personal service, professional service, or consultant service request for proposals, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(28).
cc. Certain personally identifiable information, including social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, alien registration numbers or passport numbers, employer or taxpayer identification numbers, biometric data such as fingerprints, voice prints, retina or iris images, and unique electronic identification numbers, routing numbers, “or other personal identifying data which enables an individual to obtain a merchandise or service or otherwise financially encumber the legitimate possessor of the identifying data,” T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(29).
dd. Records of employees' identity, treatment, or referral for treatment maintained by state or local government employee assistance program, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(d);
ee. Unpublished telephone numbers in the possession of emergency communications districts, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(e);
ff. Telephone numbers, residential addresses, Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, and driver's license information of public employees or his immediate family member, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(f);
gg. Personnel information of undercover police officers may be restricted, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(g), however, such information is generally available. TCA § 10-7-503
hh. Identifying information about someone who "has been or may in the future be directly involved in the process of executing a sentence of death," T.C.A. § 10-7-504(h);
ii. Information that would allow a person to obtain unauthorized access to confidential information or government property, including electronic information processing systems T.C.A. § 10-7-504(i).
jj. Identifying information of anyone who has requested the department of correction or the department of probation and parole to provide information regarding the status of a criminal proceeding or a convicted felon, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(j).
kk. Addresses, phone numbers, Social Security Numbers, and the criminal offense at issue for those persons seeking compensation as crime victims, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(k)
ll. Identifying information of those persons receiving services from the department of children’s services, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(l).
mm. Information directly related to the security of any government building, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(m).
nn. Documents concerning pricing and other financial arrangements submitted to the state for health related procurements or requests for proposal, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(n).
oo. Information related to application for handgun carry permits. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(o)
pp. Records related to school security. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(p)
qq. Certain information related to victims of sexual assault after the defendant has been convicted and sentenced. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(q) However, in The Tennessean v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville, 485 SW 3d 857 (Tenn 2016), the court indicated this protection would also apply during the pendency of the criminal proceedings.
rr. Bank account information held by state government including debit card numbers, personal identification numbers, authorization codes, bank account numbers, and transit routing numbers. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(r)
ss. Records of motor vehicle insurance verification held by the Department of Revenue, Department of Safety, Department of Commerce and Insurance, Law Enforcement and the Judiciary. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(s)
tt. Certain personally identifiable information of victims of criminal offenses who are minors. T.C.A. § 10-7-504 (t)
uu. Law enforcement body camera video, however, this provision sunsets on July 1, 2022. T.C.A. §10-7-504(u)
vv. Test questions, answers, scoring keys, and other examination data for the purposes of licensing health care professionals. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(v)
In addition to the exemptions provided in the Act itself, more than 300 other statutes and court rules designate certain records confidential. In order to override the Act, the legislature must enact a statute that exempts the material. Memphis Publishing Co. v. Holt, 710 S.W.2d 513, 514 (Tenn. 1986) (holding that neither the expungement statute nor Rule 16(a)(2) of Tenn. R. Crim. P. was authority for denying access to closed police investigative files). But see Appman v. Worthington, 746 S.W.2d 165 (Tenn. 1986) (Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2) was sufficient to deny access to investigative files while investigation was in progress).
The Work Product Doctrine, Rule 26.02(3) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, protects certain documents and papers prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. This doctrine extends to reports or investigations made by, or on behalf of any party, where such documents have been prepared in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. Cf. Arnold v. City of Chattanooga, 19 S.W.3d 779 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (City waived work product protection for a report prepared by city attorney by making the report a focal point at two public meetings). The fact that a document may have been created before a complaint was actually filed does not exempt it from the scope of the work product doctrine. Id. The possibility of avoiding litigation would not render the document any less "work product" created in anticipation of litigation than if the suit had already been filed. An attorney and client should not be disadvantaged simply because they were hoping to settle a case without filing a suit. Id. Documents considered work product may be protected from discovery under the Public Records Act. However, the holder of the documents may waive their confidentiality. One way confidentiality may be waived is if the party uses the documents to further its cause offensively, as a "sword," and also asserts the benefit of privilege as a "shield." Id. See also Coats v. Smyrna/Rutherford County Airport, 2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 911 (Tenn. App. Dec. 13, 2001) (records concerning a lien on airport property were not protected by attorney client privilege or work product doctrine.)
The Act has been construed as precluding courts from exempting records from public inspection. Memphis Publishing Co. v. Holt, 710 S.W.2d 513, 517 (Tenn. 1986). Arguably, however, the 1991 amendment to the statute now allows exemptions based upon common law. In Schneider v. City of Jackson, 226 S.W.3d 332 (Tenn. 2007), however, the Supreme Court refused to recognize a “law enforcement privilege” as a part of Tennessee’s common law. Therefore, such records of local police departments are not exempt.
Courts have adopted federal statutes requiring certain records to be kept confidential. In Seaton v. Johnson, 20 TAM 8-20 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 1995), the court, adopting the holding in Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Yarnell, 863 P. 2d 271 (Ariz. App.1993), ruled that 23 U.S.C. § 409 protected disclosure of reports compiled for the purpose of identifying potential highway or railway accident sites.