Prince William commonwealth's attorney facing $22K fine following FOIA violation

Prince William commonwealth's attorney facing $22K fine following FOIA violation

Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney Amy Ashworth has been ordered to pay a $22,250 penalty after violating Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, a law designed to ensure public access to government activities.

The plaintiff, Fairfax County resident Valeria Juarez, filed a lawsuit in 2023 claiming the commonwealth’s attorney’s office failed to produce 172 emails in a timely manner before subsequently over-redacting them upon handing them over.

In a Feb. 10 motion hearing, the court ruled in favor of Juarez, as Ashworth was instructed to pay over $22,000 in “petitioner’s reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees,” per a court order obtained by InsideNoVa.

According to the court order, the majority of Juarez’s FOIA requests related to a prior criminal case, Kevin Miles Lydon v. Commonwealth of Virginia – including the investigation and prosecution of Lydon from Aug. 11, 2016, through Aug. 31, 2018, by attorneys who had since left office. Lydon was ultimately convicted and received multiple sentences for several charges of sexual assault.

In Prince William County Circuit Court, Chief Judge Angela Lemmon Horan ruled on Feb. 10 that Ashworth had committed six FOIA violations.

The first infraction involved the commonwealth’s attorney’s office failing to produce the 172 responsive emails within a 60-day timeframe. The second infraction arose when the office over-redacted the emails it ultimately did provide, the court found. Other violations were caused by similar errors.

The court order states, “[The Commonwealth’s Attorney's office] additionally violated FOIA when they failed to ‘identify with reasonable particularity the subject matter of withheld portions, and cite, as to each category of withheld records, the specific Code section that authorizes the withholding of the records,’” citing Virginia Code 2.2-3704 .

Under the same Virginia statute, the court included a footnote in its order affirming, “While for simplicity the Court is characterizing each failed response to produce records as a FOIA violation, it was actually multiple FOIA violations because of the failure to produce records, the over-redaction of records that they produced, the failure to cite specific exemptions for their redactions and the failure to describe with reasonable particularity the documents withheld.”

Jonathan P. Sheldon, the attorney representing Juarez in the FOIA case, did not immediately respond to multiple requests for comment.

In her conclusion as part of the court order, Horan stated, “There is no doubt that [the commonwealth’s attorney’s office] violated the FOIA statute numerous times and in numerous ways over more than a one-year period from its response to Petitioner’s initial request January 18, 2022, all the way up until this Court's hearing on August 31, 2023, where this Court found that [the commonwealth’s attorney’s office] still had not fully complied after more than 18 months of requests.”

On Feb. 27, the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office submitted a motion for reconsideration before the Circuit Court requesting the court vacate the awarded attorney fees.

Ashworth filesfor reconsideration

In a Tuesday email to InsideNoVa, Ashworth said her office “disagrees with the judge’s ruling” and referred to the Feb. 27 motion for reconsideration.

The motion argues the court should reconsider its award regarding attorney fees for two main reasons. According to the motion, “The Petitioner has not substantially prevailed in this matter to qualify for such fees; and there exist circumstances in this matter which would make such an award unjust.”

Where the first reason is concerned, the motion cites a 2022 Virginia Court of Appeals case, Town of South Hill v. Hawkins, which established a precedent for what may be protected as a personnel exemption under FOIA. The Hawkins ruling clarified that to “substantially prevail, a litigant need not have achieved all of his or her objectives in the litigation, but rather, must have been successful regarding the main object of his or her suit.”

The motion goes on to claim Juarez’s principal goal in the matter was merely to obtain attorney fees, not to receive the requested documents to which she was made privy prior to the opening of litigation.

Per the motion, “The Petitioner has not substantially prevailed in this matter, because she received all relevant, unredacted, documents prior to the commencement of litigation.”

As for the second reason, the motion adds that, “The award in this matter would be unjust given the unique circumstances of this case, namely the delay caused by the Petitioner, the voluminous material that the Petitioner did receive in comparison to what the Court examined, the fact that Petitioner had already received that which she requested prior to the initiation of litigation, and the main goal of the instant litigation …”

Citing a 2024 Virginia Court of Appeals case, Citizens for Fauquier County v. Town of Warrenton, the motion continues, “These special circumstances are defined as ‘unusual, uncommon, noteworthy, or extraordinary circumstances [which would] make such an award unjust.’”

Horan issued an additional order on Feb. 28 instructing the court’s prior ruling be stayed until March 21, pending the outcome of a hearing on the motion for reconsideration that has yet to be scheduled.