Date: 12-03-2024

Case Style: Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice v. Tulsa County Juvenile Bureau and Tulsa County Board of County Commissioners

Case Number: CV-2024-2799

Judge: Daman Cantrell

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Brent Rowland;
Colleen McCarty; and
Emily R. Turner

Defendant's Attorney: ADA Douglas A. Wilson

Description: Tulsa, Oklahoma social justice lawyers represented the Plaintiff seeking public records.

PETITION:

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Inc., ("Plaintiff'), and brings this action against Defendants, Tulsa County Juvenile Bureau ("Bureau'2.); and Tulsa County Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC"), for violations of the Oklahoma:

Open Records Act ("ORA"), Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.1 et seq., as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This action is brought under the ORA, Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.17(B), which establishes the public's right to access overnment records. Plaintiff seeks judicial review of Defendants' actions involving redactions, refusals to release, and mismanagement of public records related to personnel and disciplinary matters at the Tulsa County Juvenile Detention center. Plaintiff alleges that these actions contravene statutory requirements for transparency and disclosure, particularly regarding completed disciplinary records, which are subject to mandatory release under Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.7(B)(4) and supporting case law, including Okla. Pub. Emps. Ass'n v. State ex rel. Okla. Off of Pers. Mgmt., 2011 OK 68, 267 P.3d 838. The ORA permits agencies limited discretion to withhold information in narrowly specified instances where privacy or security concerns are significant, as noted in Okla. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 01-13 (Mar. 23, 2001).

PARTIES

1. Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Inc. ("Oklahoma Appleseed"): A Tulsa-based nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting justice and accountability in public administration, seeks to enforce the ORA to ensure transparency in government for all Oklahomans.

2. Tulsa County Juvenile Bureau ("Bureau"): Established under Okla. Stat. tit. 1 0A, § 2-4-101, the Bureau provides juvenile services in Tulsa County, including court services, prevention and diversion programs, treatment, and record-keeping. Operating out of the Family Center for Juvenile Justice ("FCJJ") at 500 W. Archer St., Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Bureau qualifies as a "public body" under the ORA, Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.3(2).

3. Tulsa County Board of Commissioners ("BOCC"): The BOCC is a political subdivision with statutory authority over county property and public records under Okla. Stat. tit. 19, §§ 1 and 452.1 and is also responsible for overseeing the county detention facility pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 1 0A, § 2-3-103. Operating within Tulsa County, the BOCC qualifies as a "public body" under the ORA, Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.3(2).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Jurisdiction is proper under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2004(F), as this case involves statutory
obligations under the Oklahoma Open Records Act and Records Management Act ("RMA"),
Okla. Stat. tit. 67, § 209.

5. Venue is proper in Tulsa County pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 12, §§ 133 and 1653, as this action
is against a public officer for acts performed or omitted under color of office, with the alleged
actions or omissions occurring within Tulsa County.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Abuse Allegations at the Tulsa County Juvenile Detention Center

6. Since its opening in late 2019, the FCJJ in Tulsa County has been the subject of recurring abuse
allegations, including physical and sexual misconduct against juveniles, inadequate care, and
failure to comply with regulatory standards, as documented in multiple inspections and
reports.1

7. Public concern escalated in April 2024, when Detention Officer Jonathan Hines was arrested
on charges of child abuse, child trafficking, smuggling contraband into FCJJ, and evidence
tampering. This arrest, following earlier reports of systemic issues at FCJJ, led to a federal
lawsuit in May 2024, on behalf of twenty (20) child victims ("Doe Lawsuit").2

8. In June 2024, further allegations arose when Detention Officer DQuan Doyle was arrested on
charges of sexual battery, indecent exposure, and drug-related offenses involving children
detained at FCJJ.

1 COLLEEN McCARTY, ESQ., Heinous Allegations: Final Report on the Tulsa County Family Center for Juvenile
Justice, OKLA. APPLESEED CTR. FOR L. & JUST., http://www.okappleseed.org/investigation-into-abuses-intulsa-
county-juvenile (2024).

2 Doe 1 v. Juv. Bureau of Tulsa Cnty. Dist. Ct., No. 4:24-cv-00380-SEH-JFJ (N.D. Okla. filed Aug. 15, 2024).

Plaintiffs First Request for Records on Detention Center Personnel

9. On May 3, 2024, Plaintiff submitted an Open Records Request to the Bureau seeking (a)
incident reports for juveniles who required medical attention or hospitalization; (b) employee
grievances filed against the Director; and ( c) disciplinary records for detention facility staff
over the past four (4) years. EXHIBIT 1- Plaintiff's May 3, 2024, Open Records Request.

10. On June 19, 2024, Defendant's attorney, Doug Wilson, responded, stating that certain records
required a court order. He provided some redacted grievances and indicated that the request
was closed. EXHIBIT 2 - Defendants' June 19, 2024, Response Letter.

11. Plaintiff inquired about the absence of disciplinary records, prompting Mr. Wilson to clarify
that he had erroneously reviewed only the personnel files of individuals named in the Doe
Lawsuit. He stated that no disciplinary records were found for any of these individuals.
Plaintiff requested that Mr. Wilson expand the search, in conformity with original request, to
include all personnel, as originally specified, and provide any disciplinary records maintained
in FCJJ personnel files over the past four (4) years.

12. On July 9, 2024, Mr. Wilson provided some redacted disciplinary reports for personnel not
named in the Doe Lawsuit, then closed the request on his own, improperly limiting access to
the information requested. EXHIBIT 3 - Redacted Disciplinary Records.

13. On July 31, 2024, Plaintiff sent Mr. Wilson a letter of intent to sue under the Oklahoma Open
Records Act, citing Defendants' failure to provide the requested records and indicating intent
to pursue legal action. EXHIBIT 4 - Plaintiff's July 31, 2024, Letter of Intent to Sue.

14. On August 6, 2024, Mr. Wilson responded, asserting that the redactions protected employee
privacy but did not provide specific statutory grounds to justify them. EXHIBIT 5 -
Defendants' August 6, 2024, Response.

15. On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff replied, disputing Defendants' legal interpretation and seeking
clarification on whether additional personnel records exist, particularly for former Juvenile
Bureau Director Anthony Taylor, former Detention Officer Hines, and former Detention
Officer Doyle. Plaintiff also proposed a meeting to review the records. Notably, Mr. Hines and
Mr. Doyle are facing criminal charges related to alleged abuses against youth at the detention
center. 3 EXHIBIT 6 - Plaintiff's August 8, 2024, Response.

16. Plaintiff met with Mr. Wilson at his office on August 14, 2024, to review the personnel files
of Mr. Taylor, Mr. Hines, and Mr. Doyle. Following the meeting, Mr. Wilson emailed the same
files in PDF format. No disciplinary records were found in any of the personnel files.
EXHIBIT 7 -Defendants' August 14, 2024, Response.

17. On August 14, 2024, Plaintiff confirmed receipt of the documents and raised concerns about
missing records, noting that termination and suspension records for Mr. Doyle were expected
but not provided. EXHIBIT 8-Plaintiff's August 14, 2024, Response.

18. On August 20, 2024, Mr. Wilson disclosed that some personnel records were maintained by
third-party contractors providing staffing to FCJJ, specifically Tulsa Green Country Staffing,
L.L.C. He further disclosed that Mr. Hines and Mr. Doyle were employed by Tulsa Green
Country Staffing, not the Bureau, which he stated explained Defendants' lack of disciplinary
and other personnel records for them. Mr. Wilson then provided timecards for Mr. Hines and
Mr. Doyle, noting that Mr. Doyle's timecard indicated disciplinary action by the Bureau.
3 State v. Hines, No. CF-2024-1559 (Tulsa Cnty. Dist. Ct. filed Apr. 26, 2024); State v. Hines, No. CF-2024-2030
(Tulsa Cnty. Dist. Ct. filed June 5, 2024); State v. Hines, No. CF-2024-2471 (Tulsa Cnty. Dist. Ct. filed July 8,
2024); State v. Hines, No. CF-2024-3143 (Tulsa Cnty. Dist. Ct. filed Aug. 26,204); State v. Hines, No. CF-2024-
3714 (Tulsa Cnty. Dist. Ct. filed Oct. 4, 2024); State v. Doyle, No. CF-2024-2270 (Tulsa Cnty. Dist. Ct. filed June
25, 2024.

However, the Bureau maintains it holds no disciplinary or termination records for Mr. Hines,
Mr. Doyle, or Mr. Taylor. EXHIBIT 9-Defendants' August 20, 2024, Response.

19. Defendants failed to maintain records as required by the Records Management Act, Okla. Stat.
tit. 67, § 207 and the Open Records Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.1, et seq.

20. This failure obstructs public understanding of how internal disciplinary processes were
managed before reports of misconduct became public.

21. Defendants' actions in redacting critical documents violate the ORA's policy to facilitate
public access to government records, promoting informed civic engagement, per Okla. Stat.
tit. 51, § 24A.2.

22. By neglecting to maintain critical personnel records, Defendants violated the RMA and
hindered transparency in government operations, especially concerning allegations in the Doe
Lawsuit, criminal filings, and media reports detailing abuse by Mr. Hines and Mr. Doyle under
Mr. Taylor's supervision.

Plaintiffs Second Request for Detention Center Personnel Files

23. On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a separate ORA request for the personnel file of Curtice
Williams relating to his employment at the FCJJ detention center. EXHIBIT 10 - Plaintiff's
August 5, 2024, Open Records Request.

24. On August 14, 2024, Mr. Wilson, responding attorney for Defendant Bureau and Defendant
BOCC, responded to Plaintiffs request by producing several internal emails concerning Mr.
Williams but did not provide his personnel file. EXHIBIT 11 - Defendants' August 14, 2024,
Response.

25. On August 23, 2024, Plaintiff followed up with Mr. Wilson, noting that the emails were not
responsive to the request for Mr. Williams' personnel records. EXHIBIT 12 - Plaintiff's
August 23, 2024, Follow-Up.

26. In response, Mr. Wilson informed Plaintiff that Mr. Williams' personnel file had been seized
by the Tulsa Police Department ("TPD") during a multi-agency raid in July 2024, and the
Bureau no longer had access to the file. EXHIBIT 13 - Defendants' August 23, 2024,
Response.

27. Plaintiff attempted to obtain the file directly from TPD but was informed on October 14, 2024,
that TPD did not possess the records for the requested period and redirected the request to
Tulsa County. EXHIBIT 14- Communication from TPD.

28. Following these obstructions, on November 1, 2024, Plaintiff issued a second letter of intent
to sue, notifying Defendants of the continued failure to comply with the ORA and reiterating
the need for full access to Mr. Williams' personnel records. The second letter outlined
Defendants' sustained non-compliance and warned of impending legal action if the requested
records were not provided by a final deadline. EXHIBIT 18- Plaintiff's November 1, 2024,
Letter of Intent to Sue.

29. Defendants' failure to maintain copies of Williams' personnel records violates the RMA and
the ORA, Okla. Stat. tit. 67, § 207; Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.1 et seq.

30. On November 12, 2024, Defendants' counsel sent a letter acknowledging that specific records
related to Mr. Williams, including termination and disciplinary records, remained unavailable,
citing their seizure by TPD as part of its investigation into the Bureau. Mr. Wilson explained
that the original files remained with TPD, as the investigation into potential additional criminal
conduct was ongoing. Although Defendants produced a partial personnel file (27 pages)
obtained from TPD, they did not provide the complete records originally requested by Plaintiff,
attributing the failure to external circumstances beyond their control. EXHIBIT 19 -
Defendants' November 12, 2024, Response.4

31. Mr. Wilson further explained in his letter that, after receiving Plaintiffs November 1, 2024,
Notice oflntent to Sue, he contacted Officer Michelle Jackson at TPD, who confirmed she had
the Bureau personnel files in her office and determined that releasing Mr. Williams' file would
not impede the ongoing criminal investigation. On November 8, 2024, Mr. Wilson visited
Officer Jackson's office, located and reviewed Mr. Williams' personnel file, and arranged for
copies to be sent to Plaintiff. However, Defendants failed to provide any disciplinary records
Plaintiff had initially requested, offering only limited, publicly accessible portions, without
citing to any statutory exemption for this failure to produce.

32. Under the ORA and RMA, Defendants are legally obligated to retain essential personnel
records, including completed disciplinary actions, by managing and duplicating records as
necessary to ensure continuous accessibility. Defendants' failure to produce all relevant
records contravenes statutory mandates under Okla. Stat. tit. 51, 24A.7(B)(4), and Okla. Stat.
tit. 67, §§ 203 and 207, which require agencies to maintain and preserve duplicate records to
meet public access obligations.

33. This incomplete production further underscores Defendants' ongoing failure to fulfill their
statutory duties under the ORA and RMA, specifically as these duties relate to transparency
and public oversight for disciplinary records of individuals holding positions of trust within
public institutions.

4 On November 12, 2024, Defendants' counsel sent a letter with a photograph of a box of files labeled with names of
individuals under criminal investigation by TPD. Plaintiff has redacted all names not related to this matter to ensure
their release does not constitute an invasion of personal privacy. See EXHIBIT 19 - Defendants' November 12,
2024, Response.

Change in Management Structure of Detention Center by BOCC

34. In response to public scrutiny, ongoing lawsuits, and investigations into the FCJJ, the BOCC
initiated a restructuring of the facility's management. On July 19, 2024, the BOCC,
exercising its authority under Okla. Stat. tit. 1 0A, § 2-3-103(C)(3)(b ), created a dedicated
manager position to oversee the juvenile detention facility. This decision followed
discussions with the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs, which had expressed concerns
regarding the facility's operations. EXHIBIT 15- BOCC Inter-Office Memo.

35. On July 18, 2024, the BOCC posted noticed of a special meeting scheduled for the following
day. Despite the importance of the new managerial position, the BOCC did not conduct a
public hiring process or consider other candidates for the role. EXHIBIT 16 - Special
Agenda.

36. At the July 19, 2024, special meeting, the BOCC entered executive session to interview
David Parker for the newly established Manager role. Upon returning to open session, the
BOCC promptly voted to create the position and hired Mr. Parker, without additional public
discussion or opportunity for public comment. EXIDBIT 17 - Meeting Minutes.

37. As part of the restructuring, the BOCC explicitly reasserted custodial control over personnelrecords for the juvenile detention facility, centralizing authority previously held by the Bureau. This change, combined with the closed hiring process for Mr. Parker, supports Plaintiffs assertions of a systemic and intentional opacity in records management. Plaintiff asserts that these actions demonstrate a deliberate pattern of restrictive practices, reinforcing
claims of non-compliance with the ORA.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I: Violation of the Public's Right to Access under the Oklahoma Open Records Act

38. The Oklahoma Open Records Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.1 et seq., affirms the public's right
to access government records. It requires public bodies to provide "prompt, reasonable access
to its records," underscoring a commitment to transparency. If a public body seeks to withhold
a record, the ORA places the burden squarely on that entity to prove the record is exempt from
disclosure. Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.5(4). In Okla. Pub. Emps. Ass 'n v. State ex rel. Okla. Off
of Pers. Mgmt., 2011 OK 68,117,267 P.3d 838,843, the Oklahoma Supreme Court reinforced
that this burden is critical for upholding the public's right to information.

39. While the ORA allows certain personnel records to remain confidential for reasons of privacy
or internal investigations, this confidentiality must be interpreted narrowly, particularly where
transparency serves the public interest. Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.7(A). The ORA also mandates
that public bodies disclose any "reasonably segregable portion" of a record, with only the
exempt parts redacted. Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.5(3). Here, Defendants' extensive redactions
lack specific statutory support, contradicting these requirements and undermining the ORA's
purpose of ensuring openness.

40. Defendants abused their discretion by heavily redacting records, withholding crucial details on
disciplinary actions against certain employees - information that is undeniably of public
interest. Oklahoma courts have consistently held that ORA exemptions must be narrowly
applied, with a strong bias toward disclosure. In Nichols v. Jackson, 2001 OK 90, 18, 38 P.3d
228, 231, and Ross v. City of Owasso, 2017 OK 34, 1 10, 389 P.3d 396, 399, the courts

4 All allegations in the Petition are incorporated into each Count.

reaffirmed that exemptions are to be construed narrowly, always presuming in favor of
transparency.

41. In Okla. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 09-33 (Dec. 8, 2009), the Attorney General mandates that public
bodies specify the legal basis for each redaction to prevent indiscriminate redaction and uphold
transparency. Defendants, however, failed to cite statutory grounds for each redaction,
violating this directive and abusing their discretion under the ORA. Additionally, in Okla.
Att'y Gen. Op. No. 17-12 (Sep. 7, 2017), the Attorney General clarified that disciplinary
records are generally open to the public, further challenging Defendants' excessive redactions
and reinforcing the ORA's pro-disclosure stance.

42. The U.S. Supreme Court in US. Dep't of Def v. Fed. Lab. Reis. Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 114 S.
Ct. 1006, 127 L. Ed. 2d 325 (1994) emphasized the need to balance public access with
legitimate privacy interests, allowing redactions only when privacy concerns clearly outweigh
the public interest. Defendants disregarded this principle, applying blanket redactions without
considering the public's right to access. Likewise, in Merrill v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 1992
OK 53, ,i 12, 831 P .2d 634, the Oklahoma Supreme Court restricted redactions to truly sensitive
information, a standard that does not support withholding personnel or disciplinary records
typically subject to public disclosure under the ORA.

43.In Okla. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 17-12 (Sep. 7, 2017), the Attorney General clarified that
disciplinary records are generally open to the public under the ORA. This opinion directly
challenges Defendants' excessive redactions, reinforcing that the ORA does not allow for
indiscriminate withholding of such records.

44. Following Plaintiffs November 1, 2024, Letter of Intent to Sue, Defendants' November 12,
2024, correspondence admits the non-production of critical disciplinary records for Mr.
Williams, citing the TPD's seizure of these records as a reason for non-accessibility. However,
Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.7(B)(4) mandates that completed disciplinary actions, including
terminations, be disclosed in full, as these records are of significant public interest, particularly
employees in public roles overseeing children. Defendants' failure to retain or produce
accessible copies of these records, even if under TPD control, violates the ORA's requirement
for complete disclosure of final disciplinary actions.

45. Defendants have a duty to maintain accessible records, even when originals are held by a third
party. The RMA, specifically Okla. Stat. tit. 67, § 207, and Okla. Admin. Code § 60:10-3-3
(2024) obligate public bodies to duplicate essential records or implement alternative access
solutions to ensure compliance with statutory access requirements despite external custody.
Defendants' reliance on TPD's seizure as a justification for non-production fails to meet these
standards and violates the ORA's transparency mandate. As reinforced in Okla. Pub. Emps.
Ass 'n v. State ex rel. Okla. Off of Pers. Mgmt., 2011 OK 68, 1 17, 267 P.3d 838, 843, the
public's right to access completed disciplinary records should not be obstructed, even when
records are under third-party control.

46. After addressing redactions and privacy concerns, Defendants' failure to retain accessible
termination records for employees like Mr. Taylor, Mr. Hines, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. Williams
obstructs the public's right to transparency and oversight of FCJJ operations. The General
Records Disposition Schedule ("GRDS") mandates that key personnel records, including
termination records, be retained for a specific period to ensure they remain accessible for
compliance and transparency purposes. Under the GRDS, pre-termination records must be kept
for five (5) years after employment is resolved, or, if litigation is pending, until two (2) years
after all legal remedies are exhausted. See Okla. Archives & Records Comm'n, Consol. Gen.
Recs. Disp. Schedule§§ 3-78, 3-79 (Jan. 26, 2023). By failing to fulfill these statutory retention
obligations, Defendants undermine the ORA's goal of promoting accountability in
government.

47. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants violated the ORA by imposing
excessive and unjustified redactions. Plaintiff further requests an injunction requmng
Defendants to release the requested personnel records, specifically termination records,
promptly and without undue redactions, along with attorneys' fees and costs as authorized by
Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 24A.17(B).

COUNT II: Failure to Preserve Records Required by the Records Management Act

48. The Oklahoma Records Management Act ("RMA"), specifically Okla. Stat. tit. 67, § 209,
requires public officials to manage, preserve, and retain records related to official business.
This statute explicitly forbids the unauthorized "mutilation, destruction, alteration, or improper
disposal" of public records, ensuring that essential records remain accessible for public
inspection under the Oklahoma Open Records Act.

* * *

Outcome: ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES' JOINT MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: