TAX ANALYSTS and LAUREN LORICCHIO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INDIANA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
STATE OF INDIANA
COUNTY OF MARION
IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL DIVISION NUMBER FIVE
Hon. John M.T. Chavis, II Judge
ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
On April 24, 2020, this Court issued an Order on Plaintiffs', Tax Analysts and Lauren Loricchio (collectively referred to as “TA”), Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's, Indiana Economic Development Corporation (“IEDC”), Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on TA's claim that IEDC violated Indiana's Access to Public Records Act, I.C. § 5-14-3-1 et seq. (“APRA”), by denying TA's APRA request for documents in response to Amazon's HQ2 Request for Proposal. The Court denied TA'S summary judgment motion and granted IEDC'S cross — motion for summary judgment. The Court further determined that TA'S APRA request was stated with reasonable particularity to include not only the original submission to Amazon's RFP, but also Amazon's questionnaire sent to the City of Indianapolis, and the City's response thereto.(See Order, p. 12).
During its consideration of the issues raised in the parties' briefs, the Court was not provided with Amazon's questionnaire or Indianapolis' response. It appeared likely to the Court that the questionnaire would amount to nothing more than records relating to negotiations between IEDC and Amazon created While negotiations were in progress and therefore excepted from disclosure at the discretion of the IEDC. See, Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(b)(5)(A)(i). But, the Court was reluctant to make this decision Without the benefit of having the actual documents in hand. Consequently, the Court ordered IEDC to tender to the Court Amazon's questionnaire and Indianapolis's response thereto within 14 days of the Court's April 24, 2020 Order for an in-camera inspection. (See Order, p. 23).
IEDC complied With the order and delivered the questionnaire and the portions of the response IEDC possessed to this Court Via Federal Express overnight delivery. The Court has now conducted an in-camera inspection of the questionnaire and response IEDC provided and concludes that (i) the APRA did not require IEDC to release the questionnaire or the questionnaire response because they are protected documents created While negotiations were in progress, Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(b)(5)(A)(i), and (ii) IEDC did not certify them as “accurately and completely represent[ing] the terms of the final offer. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(b)(5)(C).
Because of the Court's in-camera inspection of the questionnaire and the response IEDC provided, and for the reasons set out in the Court's April 24, 2020 Order, this Court denies TA'S Motion for Summary Judgment and grants IEDC'S Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. This Order is a final judgment on all claims as to all parties, With each party to bear their own costs and attorneys' fees. Ind. Trial Rule 58; Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H).
SO ORDERED this 8th day of June 2020.
John M.T. Chavis, II, Judge
Marion Superior Court
Civil Division Number Five
Distribution via IEFS:
David T. Vlink
William R. Groth
MACEY SWANSON LLP
445 North Pennsylvania Street
Suite 401
Indianapolis, IN 46204
dvlink@fd,qtlaborlaw.com
wgrothébfdgtlaborlawcom
Cornish F. Hitchcock
HITCHCOCK LAW FIRM PLLC
5614 Connecticut Avenue, NW
N0. 304
Washington, DC 20015
conh@hitchlaw.com
Bryan H. Babb
Bradley M. Dick
BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS LLP
111 Monument Circle
Suite 2700
Indianapolis, IN 46204
bbabb@boselaw.com
bdick@boselaw.com