in the St. Joseph COUNTY circuit/superior court STATE of indianaespn, inc. and PAULA LAVIGNE,Plaintiffs,v.UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME SECURITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, a department of the University of Notre Dame du Lac,Defendant.)))))))))))CAUSE NO. COMPLAINT to compel inspection and copying of public recordPlaintiffs, ESPN, Inc. and Paula Lavigne (collectively “ESPN”) by counsel, for their Complaint against the Defendant, the University of Notre Dame Security Police Department (the “Police Department”) states as follows:INTRODUCTION1.The case arises from the September and November 2014 requests by ESPN to the Police Department for certain public records pursuant to the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”), Ind. Code § 5-14-3.2.As alleged more fully below, ESPN filed two Formal Complaints with the Public Access Counselor and both times the Public Access Counselor determined that the Police Department was subject to the requirements of APRA. In the second opinion, the Public Access Counselor found that the Police Department improperly denied ESPN’s public record request. Now, ESPN asks this Court to compel the Police Department to permit ESPN to inspect and copy public records.PARTIES AND VENUE3.ESPN, Inc., is a corporation located at ESPN Plaza, Bristol, CT 06010. Paula Lavigne (“Lavigne”) is a reporter employed by ESPN.4.The Police Department is the university police force for the University of Notre Dame du Lac and maintains its principal office at Hammes Mowbray Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556. 5.The Police Department is a public law enforcement agency subject to APRA because the Police Department is granted certain powers by the State of Indiana, including the power to arrest, create criminal records, and generally exercise the State’s police powers. 6.Preferred venue is proper in St. Joseph’s County, Indiana, pursuant to Ind. Code § 5-14-3-9(e), as St. Joseph’s County is the county in which the Police Department denied ESPN the right to inspect and copy its public records under APRA.FACTS7.On September 19, 2014, Lavigne, in the course and scope of her employment with ESPN, sought incident reports from the Police Department under APRA, Ind. Code § 5-14-3.8.The Police Department denied the request, alleging that the Police Department was not a public law enforcement agency.9.In response, ESPN filed its Formal Complaint, No. 14-FC-239, with the State of Indiana’s Public Access Counselor (“PAC”), which asserted that the Police Department violated APRA when it failed to provide records as mandated by Ind. Code § 5-14-3-3.10.On October 31, 2014, the PAC found that the Police Department was a public law enforcement agency subject to APRA. A true and accurate copy of the October 31, 2014 Opinion (“October 31 Opinion”) is attached as Exhibit 1.11.The PAC did not find that the Police Department had violated the APRA in the October 31 Opinion. Instead, the PAC stated that the Police Department would be treated as a public law enforcement agency for all future public access requests. 12.On November 4, 2014, ESPN submitted a public records request to the Police Department seeking all incident reports for certain specified individuals.13.On November 11, 2014, the Police Department denied the request and stated the Police Department was not a public law enforcement agency, despite the October 31 Opinion issued by the PAC. It also stated that it did not have documents responsive to the request.14.On November 20, 2014, ESPN submitted a request to the Police Department seeking specific information for named individuals that law enforcement is required maintain and make public pursuant to Ind. Code § 5-14-3-5. The Police Department again denied the request, stating it was not a public law enforcement agency and did not have responsive records.15.On December 8, 2014, ESPN filed its second Formal Complaint, No. 14-FC-306, with the PAC, alleging that the Police Department violated APRA by improperly denying access to records under Ind. Code § 5-14-3. 16.On January 5, 2015, the PAC found that if the Police Department has documentation regarding any suspected crimes, accidents, or complaints involving the individuals named in ESPN’s request and did not release that documentation, then the Police Department violated the APRA. A true and accurate copy of the January 5, 2015 Opinion (“January 5 Opinion”) is attached as Exhibit 2.17.Referencing the October 31 Opinion, the PAC reiterated in the January 5 Opinion that the Police Department is a public law enforcement agency subject to APRA and cited to APRA’s strong public policy that an essential function of a representative government is to provide people with information. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-2(n)(1).18.The PAC further stated in the January 5 Opinion that the Police Department must disclose documentation that satisfies the informational daily log requirements of Ind. Code § 5-14-3-5, and may disclose information relating to investigatory records under Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(b)(1).VIOLATION OF THE ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS ACT, IND. CODE § 5-14-319.ESPN made three valid requests for records to the Police Department under APRA, Ind. Code § 5-14-3.20.The Police Department has a statutory duty to release certain records to ESPN under APRA, Ind. Code § 5-14-3. This duty was confirmed by the PAC’s Opinions on October 31, 2014, and January 5, 2015.21.The PAC determined in the January 5 Opinion that the Police Department violated this duty by refusing to release the requested information or make the records available for inspection and copying.22.As of the date of this filing, the Police Department has not released the requested information or made the records available for inspection and copying.23.Under APRA, ESPN is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, and other reasonable expenses if it prevails and first sought and received an opinion from the PAC. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-9(i). WHEREFORE, ESPN respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment against the Police Department, order the Police Department to release the requested information for inspection and copying, order the Police Department to pay ESPN’s reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, and other reasonable expenses of litigation, and for all other just and proper relief.Respectfully Submitted,FROST BROWN TODD llcBy:James Dimos, #11178-49Jennifer A. Rulon, #32131-53Attorneys for Plaintiffs FROST BROWN TODD LLC201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1900P.O. Box 44961Indianapolis, IN 46244-0961Phone: (317) 237-3800 Fax: (317) 237-3900jdimos@fbtlaw.comjrulon@fbtlaw.com 0130404.0622363 4851-3695-8753v1