Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sharp v. Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

November 9, 2017

NATALIE SHARP
v.
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INSURANCE

          Session April 11, 2017

         Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 15C3610 Thomas W. Brothers, Judge.

         This appeal involves the trial court's order of disclosure of certain public records over the objection of the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance and the corresponding denial of attorney fees for failure to disclose the said records. We affirm.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed; Case Remanded

          Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General & Reporter; Andrée S. Blumstein, Solicitor General; and Janet M. Kleinfelter, Deputy Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, State of Tennessee, Department of Commerce and Insurance.

          Jackie Sharp, Jr., Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Natalie Sharp.

          John W. McClarty, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Frank G. Clement, Jr., P.J., M.S and Andy D. Bennett, J., joined.

          OPINION

          JOHN W. McCLARTY, JUDGE.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In December 2011, the Executive Director of the Board of Cosmetology discovered that a license technician, Latrisha Johnson ("Johnson"), had destroyed a number of cosmetology licensee files and had likely been collecting bribes and fraudulently issuing cosmetology licenses. Maliaka Bass, Deputy General Counsel for the General Civil Division of the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance ("the Department"), began an investigation. As part of her investigation, General Bass requested an internal audit of reciprocal license applications issued from July 1, 2011, through February 14, 2012. On March 13, 2012, the Department notified Johnson of its intent to dismiss her from employment based upon the allegations. Johnson resigned two days later. On May 24, 2012, the Office of Internal Audit issued a final audit investigation report related to the missing applications.

         As a result of the final audit, the Department revoked the licenses of those it believed fraudulently obtained a license. The Department also brought an administrative action to revoke the license of Lee Phan, an owner of a nail salon, upon discovery of his alleged involvement in the scheme. Natalie Sharp ("Petitioner") represents Mr. Phan.

         On January 20, 2015, Petitioner submitted a public records request to the Department pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated section 10-7-101, et seq., in which she sought to inspect the final audit investigation report, as well as supporting documentation. The Department denied the request, citing the attorney work product and attorney-client doctrines.

         On January 31, 2015, Petitioner submitted a second public records request in which she sought the following:

(1) All correspondence regarding cosmetology licensing between [the Department] and media outlets and their representatives, including, but not limited to, Jennifer Kraus of News Channel 5[;]
(2) A list of the [employee numbers for] Mark Green, Shilina Brown, and Roxana Gumucio[; and]
(3) All correspondence between [the Department] and witnesses subpoenaed for APD Case No. 12.09-12456A.

         While not indicated in her request, Petitioner sought the information for purposes of drafting a brief in support of her request for judicial review of the administrative decision to revoke Mr. Phan's license. The brief was due on March 13, 2015.

         The Department, through Anthony Glandorf, replied to the request by email, advising Petitioner that the request could not be completed until February 20, 2015. The employee numbers were provided on February 19; however, Mr. Glandorf sent additional emails in which he extended his estimation of the time necessary to compile the requested documents. Petitioner did not respond to the emails.

         On March 6, Mr. Glandorf informed Petitioner that he had compiled the witness correspondence, and on March 26, he informed her that the remaining records were available. Petitioner asked to inspect the records on March 27. Her request was denied because Mr. Glandorf was out of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.