District attorneys and their offices are subject to Georgia’s Open Records Act, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled, rejecting a request by outgoing Athens-Clarke County District Attorney Deborah Gonzalez for protection from a constituent’s lawsuit.
Representatives for Gonzalez, a Democrat who lost her reelection bid to independent challenger Kalki Yalamanchili, did not immediately comment on the case.
The court’s unanimous decision prevents district attorneys from claiming immunity as prosecutors when they’re sued in their official capacities under the state’s public records law.
The Open Records Act instructs government agencies to produce or provide access to public records upon proper request and is intended to promote transparency.
In June 2023, Athens-Clarke County resident Jarrod Miller sued Gonzalez, alleging she failed to properly respond to 102 requests for information under the statute. Miller sought records related to Gonzalez’ performance, alleging in his complaint that her office had unprecedented staff shortages and staggering caseloads, and failed to effectively prosecute criminal cases.
Credit: Nell Carroll for the AJC
Credit: Nell Carroll for the AJC
In response, Gonzalez said she had properly responded to Miller’s open records requests, which were submitted by his attorney. A county judge denied Gonzalez’ attempt to dismiss the case on several grounds, and she sought the state Supreme Court’s review.
A key argument by Gonzalez was that the act applies only to the executive branch of government. She argued that district attorneys are part of the judicial branch and therefore exempt from public records requests. That theory was echoed by the District Attorneys’ Association of Georgia.
In their Oct. 22 opinion, Georgia’s nine justices held that district attorneys exercise executive power, though that is not expressly stated in the Georgia Constitution. They said judicial power is exclusively vested in the courts, and legislative power belongs to the Georgia General Assembly.
“All that remains for district attorneys, then, is executive power,” the justices said. “Second, the nature of the power exercised by district attorneys is neither legislative because district attorneys do not make the law, nor is it judicial, because district attorneys have no power to decide cases.”
The court also rejected Gonzalez’ argument that prosecutors have immunity from lawsuits like Miller’s. It said a district attorney can be sued under the Open Records Act in their official capacity as the custodian of their office’s public records.
“A district attorney’s prosecutorial immunity applies only to individual-capacity claims,” the court said. “With respect to Miller’s official-capacity claims against Gonzalez, those claims are deemed to be claims against the district attorney’s office, an agency of state government under the ORA, and not claims against Gonzalez personally.”
Gonzalez’ argument that Miller can’t sue over open records requests submitted by his attorney also failed. Miller’s attorneys did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the high court’s ruling.
During her time as district attorney, Gonzalez has been described by critics, including fellow Democrats, as ineffective. She was a main target of the state legislature’s creation of a prosecutorial oversight commission to investigate and discipline district attorneys and solicitors general for alleged job-related failures.
