Wis. Stat. § 19.356
Notice to record subject; right of action
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
19.356(1)(1) Except as authorized in this section or as otherwise provided by statute, no authority is required to notify a record subject prior to providing to a requester access to a record containing information pertaining to that record subject, and no person is entitled to judicial review of the decision of an authority to provide a requester with access to a record.
19.356(2)(a)(a) Except as provided in pars. (b) to (d) and as otherwise authorized or required by statute, if an authority decides under s. 19.35 to permit access to a record specified in this paragraph, the authority shall, before permitting access and within 3 days after making the decision to permit access, serve written notice of that decision on any record subject to whom the record pertains, either by certified mail or by personally serving the notice on the record subject. The notice shall briefly describe the requested record and include a description of the rights of the record subject under subs. (3) and (4). This paragraph applies only to the following records:
19.356(2)(a)1.1. A record containing information relating to an employee that is created or kept by the authority and that is the result of an investigation into a disciplinary matter involving the employee or possible employment-related violation by the employee of a statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or policy of the employee’s employer.
19.356(2)(a)3.3. A record prepared by an employer other than an authority, if that record contains information relating to an employee of that employer, unless the employee authorizes the authority to provide access to that information.
19.356(2)(b)(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to an authority who provides access to a record pertaining to an employee to the employee who is the subject of the record or to his or her representative to the extent required under s. 103.13 or to a recognized or certified collective bargaining representative to the extent required to fulfill a duty to bargain or pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement under ch. 111.
19.356(2)(c)(c) Paragraph (a) does not apply to access to a record produced in relation to a function specified in s. 106.54 or 230.45 or subch. II of ch. 111 if the record is provided by an authority having responsibility for that function.
19.356(2)(d)(d) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the transfer of a record by the administrator of an educational agency to the state superintendent of public instruction under s. 115.31 (3) (a).
19.356(3)(3) Within 5 days after receipt of a notice under sub. (2) (a), a record subject may provide written notification to the authority of his or her intent to seek a court order restraining the authority from providing access to the requested record.
19.356(4)(4) Within 10 days after receipt of a notice under sub. (2) (a), a record subject may commence an action seeking a court order to restrain the authority from providing access to the requested record. If a record subject commences such an action, the record subject shall name the authority as a defendant. Notwithstanding s. 803.09, the requester may intervene in the action as a matter of right. If the requester does not intervene in the action, the authority shall notify the requester of the results of the proceedings under this subsection and sub. (5).
19.356(5)(5) An authority shall not provide access to a requested record within 12 days of sending a notice pertaining to that record under sub. (2) (a). In addition, if the record subject commences an action under sub. (4), the authority shall not provide access to the requested record during pendency of the action. If the record subject appeals or petitions for review of a decision of the court or the time for appeal or petition for review of a decision adverse to the record subject has not expired, the authority shall not provide access to the requested record until any appeal is decided, until the period for appealing or petitioning for review expires, until a petition for review is denied, or until the authority receives written notice from the record subject that an appeal or petition for review will not be filed, whichever occurs first.
19.356(6)(6) The court, in an action commenced under sub. (4), may restrain the authority from providing access to the requested record. The court shall apply substantive common law principles construing the right to inspect, copy, or receive copies of records in making its decision.
19.356(7)(7) The court, in an action commenced under sub. (4), shall issue a decision within 10 days after the filing of the summons and complaint and proof of service of the summons and complaint upon the defendant, unless a party demonstrates cause for extension of this period. In any event, the court shall issue a decision within 30 days after those filings are complete.
19.356(8)(8) If a party appeals a decision of the court under sub. (7), the court of appeals shall grant precedence to the appeal over all other matters not accorded similar precedence by law. An appeal shall be taken within the time period specified in s. 808.04 (1m).
19.356(9)(a)(a) Except as otherwise authorized or required by statute, if an authority decides under s. 19.35 to permit access to a record containing information relating to a record subject who is an officer or employee of the authority holding a local public office or a state public office, the authority shall, before permitting access and within 3 days after making the decision to permit access, serve written notice of that decision on the record subject, either by certified mail or by personally serving the notice on the record subject. The notice shall briefly describe the requested record and include a description of the rights of the record subject under par. (b).
19.356(9)(b)(b) Within 5 days after receipt of a notice under par. (a), a record subject may augment the record to be released with written comments and documentation selected by the record subject. Except as otherwise authorized or required by statute, the authority under par. (a) shall release the record as augmented by the record subject.
19.356 NoteNOTE: 2003 Wis. Act 47, which created this section, contains extensive explanatory notes.
19.356 AnnotationThe right of a public employee to obtain de novo judicial review of an authority’s decision to allow public access to certain records granted by this section is no broader than the common law right previously recognized. It is not a right to prevent disclosure solely on the basis of a public employee’s privacy and reputational interests. The public’s interest in not injuring the reputations of public employees must be given due consideration, but it is not controlling. Local 2489 v. Rock County, 2004 WI App 210, 277 Wis. 2d 208, 689 N.W.2d 644, 03-3101.
19.356 AnnotationAn intervenor as of right under the statute is “a party” under sub. (8) whose appeal is subject to the time period specified in s. 808.04 (1m). The only time period referenced in s. 808.04 (1m) is 20 days. Zellner v. Herrick, 2009 WI 80, 319 Wis. 2d 532, 770 N.W.2d 305, 07-2584.
19.356 AnnotationThis section does not set forth the only course of action that the subject of a disclosure may engage in to prevent disclosure. Subs. (3) and (4) state that “a record subject may commence an action.” The plain language of the statute in no way discourages the subject of a records request from engaging in less litigious means to prevent disclosure nor does it prevent a records custodian from changing its mind. State ex rel. Ardell v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors, 2014 WI App 66, 354 Wis. 2d 471, 849 N.W.2d 894, 13-1650.
19.356 AnnotationFor challenges to decisions by authorities under the public records law to release records, as opposed to decisions by authorities to withhold records, the legislature has precluded judicial review except in defined circumstances. The right-of-action provision under sub. (1) unambiguously bars any person from seeking judicial review of an authority’s decision to release a record unless: 1) a provision within this section authorizes judicial review; or 2) a statute other than this section authorizes judicial review. Teague v. Van Hollen, 2016 WI App 20, 367 Wis. 2d 547, 877 N.W.2d 379, 14-2360.
19.356 AnnotationA district attorney is not an “employee” as defined in s. 19.32 (1bg) and as used in sub. (2) (a) 1. A district attorney may not maintain an action under sub. (4) to restrain an authority from providing access to requested records when the requested records do not fall within the sub. (2) (a) 1. exception to the general rule that a “record subject” is not entitled to notice or pre-release judicial review of the decision of an authority to provide access to records pertaining to that record subject. Moustakis v. Department of Justice, 2016 WI 42, 368 Wis. 2d 677, 880 N.W.2d 142, 14-1853.
19.356 AnnotationSub. (5) applies to an “authority” and does not preclude a court from providing limited access to the requested records on an attorney’s eyes-only basis for purposes of briefing a case before the court. Section 19.37 (1) (a), which applies when a party seeks release of records in an action for mandamus, provides guidance. Whether the action seeks release or an injunction, the need for limited review by a party who intervenes by right, in order to ensure fair and fully informed adjudication of the dispute, is equally applicable. Hagen v. Board of Regents, 2018 WI App 43, 383 Wis. 2d 567, 916 N.W.2d 198, 17-2058.
19.356 AnnotationSub. (1) clearly abrogates the common law rules for pre-release notice and judicial review. It does not distinguish between different categories of individuals or records; it states a general rule that applies to all claims for pre-release judicial review and provides two types of exceptions. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce v. Evers, 2022 WI 38, 401 Wis. 2d 699, 977 N.W.2d 374, 20-2081.
19.356 AnnotationThis section makes clear that no one has a right to block the release of a public record unless otherwise specified. The Declaratory Judgments Act, s. 806.04, does not fall within the exception to sub. (1) for statutes that “otherwise provide” for pre-release judicial review of records responses. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce v. Evers, 2022 WI 38, 401 Wis. 2d 699, 977 N.W.2d 374, 20-2081.
19.356 AnnotationIn this case, the employer did not have the right under the sub. (2) (a) 3. exception to block the release by the sheriff’s office of the requested surveillance video footage from the employer’s parking garage. The employer did not qualify as a record subject, as defined in s. 19.32 (2g), because the employer was not an “individual” about whom personally identifiable information was contained in the record. Journal Sentinel, Inc. v. Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office, 2022 WI App 44, 404 Wis. 2d 328, 979 N.W.2d 609, 21-0615.
19.356 AnnotationSub. (2) (a) 1. must be interpreted as requiring notification when an authority proposes to release records in its possession that are the result of an investigation by an employer into a disciplinary or other employment matter involving an employee, but not when there has been an investigation of possible employment-related violation by the employee and the investigation is conducted by some entity other than the employee’s employer. OAG 1-06.
19.356 AnnotationSub. (2) (a) 2. is unambiguous. If an authority has obtained a record through a subpoena or a search warrant, it must provide the requisite notice before releasing the records. The duty to notify, however, does not require notice to every record subject who happens to be named in the subpoena or search warrant records. Under sub. (2) (a), DCI must serve written notice of the decision to release the record to any record subject to whom the record pertains. OAG 1-06.
19.356 AnnotationTo the extent any requested records proposed to be released are records prepared by a private employer and those records contain information pertaining to one of the private employer’s employees, sub. (2) (a) 3. does not allow release of the information without obtaining authorization from the individual employee. OAG 1-06.
19.356 AnnotationSub. (9) does not require advance notification and a five-day delay before releasing a record that mentions the name of a person holding state or local public office in any way. A record mentioning the name of a public official does not necessarily relate to that public official within the meaning of sub. (9) (a). Sub. (9) is not limited, however, to the specific categories of records enumerated in sub. (2) (a). OAG 7-14.
19.356 AnnotationThe use of the phrase “is created” in sub. (2) (a) 1. implies that the status of the record subject should be consistent with when the record was created. Therefore, if the record subject is an employee at the time the record is created, the record subject is entitled to notice even if the employee is no longer employed by the authority at the time the authority receives the request. OAG 2-18.
19.356 AnnotationSub. (9) does not apply when a record contains information relating to a record subject who is an officer or employee who formerly held a local or state public office. The provision only applies when an officer or employee of the authority currently holds a local or state public office. OAG 2-18.
19.356 AnnotationShould service fail in the manner specifically required in subs. (2) (a) 1. and (9) (a), after reasonable diligence, the alternatives to personal service in s. 801.11 may be used to provide notice to record subjects. Section 801.11 (1) appears reasonable and consistent with the public records law’s purposes with the exception of the publication requirement. An authority may leave a copy of the notice at the record subject’s usual place of abode in a manner substantially similar to s. 801.11 (1) (b). If the record subject’s usual place of abode cannot be located after reasonable diligence, an authority may leave a copy of the notice at the record subject’s usual place of business in a matter substantially similar to s. 801.11 (4) (b). If, after reasonable diligence, the authority is unable to effectuate service according to the public records law’s provisions and other alternatives to personal service that are consistent with the public records law’s purpose, the authority may release the records. OAG 2-18.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Albert D. Moustakis v. State of Wisconsin Department of Justice
Albert D. Moustakis v. State of Wisconsin Department of Justice (2016)
“¶3 This review raises a single question that was well- stated by the court of appeals: Is a district attorney an "employee" as that term is used in Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (2)(a)1. and defined in § 19.”
Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids School District (2010)
“They interpret Wis. Stat. § 19.356 as limiting judicial review of the disclosure of records under the Public Records Law.”
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce v. Tony Evers (2022)
“2 See Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (1) (2019-20).3 We conclude that it does, and therefore affirm the court of appeals' decision.”
Teague v. Van Hollen (2016)
“When it comes to challenges to *561 decisions by authorities under the public records law to release records, as opposed to decisions by authorities to withhold records, the legislature has precluded judicial review except in defined circumstances not presented here.”
LOCAL 2489, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Rock County (2004)
“32 (2g) (defining "record subject" as "an individual about whom personally identifiable information is contained in a record"); Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (prescribing procedures for a record subject to bring an action to enjoin release of the records).”
Zellner v. Herrick (2009)
“The person requesting the transcript, Heidi Morgan (Morgan), filed notice to intervene, as Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (4) authorizes, and appealed.”
Dennis A. Teague v. Brad D. Schimel (2017)
“Teague appealed the judgment of the circuit court, but presented arguments on only Claims II through VI.”
Kroeplin v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2006)
“In accordance with the notice requirements of Wisconsin's open records law, Stark also sent Kroep-lin a letter notifying him that the DNR would be releasing portions of the disciplinary letter and memo regarding his misconduct investigation, and notifying him of his right to…”
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel v. Wisconsin Department of Administration (2009)
“, the record custodian determines that it will disclose the record and the person whose records are at issue (the record subject) opposes release of the recordsthe record subject proceeds under Wis.”
Hutchins v. Clarke (2011)
“Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (2)(a). When deciding whether to open a record, the authority must conduct a balancing test to weigh the public interest in protecting its citizens' reputations and privacy against the strong public interest in maintaining open records.”
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce v. Tony Evers (2021)
“§ 19.356(1) against a court challenge to the planned release of public records by a governmental authority.”
Moustakis v. State (2015)
“Albert Moustakis, the Vilas County District Attorney, appeals an order dismissing his action under Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (4) to enjoin the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) from releasing certain records pertaining to Moustakis in response to a public records request.”
— Wis. Stat. § 19.356(1) — 7 cases
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce v. Tony Evers (2022)
“2 See Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (1) (2019-20).3 We conclude that it does, and therefore affirm the court of appeals' decision.”
Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids School District (2010)
“They interpret Wis. Stat. § 19.356 as limiting judicial review of the disclosure of records under the Public Records Law.”
Dennis A. Teague v. Brad D. Schimel (2017)
“Teague appealed the judgment of the circuit court, but presented arguments on only Claims II through VI.”
Albert D. Moustakis v. State of Wisconsin Department of Justice (2016)
“¶3 This review raises a single question that was well- stated by the court of appeals: Is a district attorney an "employee" as that term is used in Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (2)(a)1. and defined in § 19.”
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce v. Tony Evers (2021)
“§ 19.356(1) against a court challenge to the planned release of public records by a governmental authority.”
— Wis. Stat. § 19.356(2) — 5 cases
Kroeplin v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2006)
“In accordance with the notice requirements of Wisconsin's open records law, Stark also sent Kroep-lin a letter notifying him that the DNR would be releasing portions of the disciplinary letter and memo regarding his misconduct investigation, and notifying him of his right to…”
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce v. Tony Evers (2022)
“2 See Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (1) (2019-20).3 We conclude that it does, and therefore affirm the court of appeals' decision.”
Teague v. Van Hollen (2016)
“When it comes to challenges to *561 decisions by authorities under the public records law to release records, as opposed to decisions by authorities to withhold records, the legislature has precluded judicial review except in defined circumstances not presented here.”
— Wis. Stat. § 19.356(2)(a) — 7 cases
Albert D. Moustakis v. State of Wisconsin Department of Justice (2016)
“¶3 This review raises a single question that was well- stated by the court of appeals: Is a district attorney an "employee" as that term is used in Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (2)(a)1. and defined in § 19.”
Teague v. Van Hollen (2016)
“When it comes to challenges to *561 decisions by authorities under the public records law to release records, as opposed to decisions by authorities to withhold records, the legislature has precluded judicial review except in defined circumstances not presented here.”
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce v. Tony Evers (2022)
“2 See Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (1) (2019-20).3 We conclude that it does, and therefore affirm the court of appeals' decision.”
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce v. Tony Evers (2021)
“§ 19.356(1) against a court challenge to the planned release of public records by a governmental authority.”
Kroeplin v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2006)
“In accordance with the notice requirements of Wisconsin's open records law, Stark also sent Kroep-lin a letter notifying him that the DNR would be releasing portions of the disciplinary letter and memo regarding his misconduct investigation, and notifying him of his right to…”
— Wis. Stat. § 19.356(3) — 1 case
— Wis. Stat. § 19.356(4) — 10 cases
Albert D. Moustakis v. State of Wisconsin Department of Justice (2016)
“¶3 This review raises a single question that was well- stated by the court of appeals: Is a district attorney an "employee" as that term is used in Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (2)(a)1. and defined in § 19.”
LOCAL 2489, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Rock County (2004)
“32 (2g) (defining "record subject" as "an individual about whom personally identifiable information is contained in a record"); Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (prescribing procedures for a record subject to bring an action to enjoin release of the records).”
Teague v. Van Hollen (2016)
“When it comes to challenges to *561 decisions by authorities under the public records law to release records, as opposed to decisions by authorities to withhold records, the legislature has precluded judicial review except in defined circumstances not presented here.”
Zellner v. Herrick (2009)
“The person requesting the transcript, Heidi Morgan (Morgan), filed notice to intervene, as Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (4) authorizes, and appealed.”
— Wis. Stat. § 19.356(5) — 2 cases
LOCAL 2489, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Rock County (2004)
“32 (2g) (defining "record subject" as "an individual about whom personally identifiable information is contained in a record"); Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (prescribing procedures for a record subject to bring an action to enjoin release of the records).”
— Wis. Stat. § 19.356(6) — 1 case
LOCAL 2489, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Rock County (2004)
“32 (2g) (defining "record subject" as "an individual about whom personally identifiable information is contained in a record"); Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (prescribing procedures for a record subject to bring an action to enjoin release of the records).”
— Wis. Stat. § 19.356(7) — 1 case
LOCAL 2489, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Rock County (2004)
“32 (2g) (defining "record subject" as "an individual about whom personally identifiable information is contained in a record"); Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (prescribing procedures for a record subject to bring an action to enjoin release of the records).”
— Wis. Stat. § 19.356(8) — 1 case
Zellner v. Herrick (2009)
“The person requesting the transcript, Heidi Morgan (Morgan), filed notice to intervene, as Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (4) authorizes, and appealed.”
— Wis. Stat. § 19.356(9) — 1 case
Albert D. Moustakis v. State of Wisconsin Department of Justice (2016)
“¶3 This review raises a single question that was well- stated by the court of appeals: Is a district attorney an "employee" as that term is used in Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (2)(a)1. and defined in § 19.”
— Wis. Stat. § 19.356(9)(a) — 2 cases
Albert D. Moustakis v. State of Wisconsin Department of Justice (2016)
“¶3 This review raises a single question that was well- stated by the court of appeals: Is a district attorney an "employee" as that term is used in Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (2)(a)1. and defined in § 19.”
Moustakis v. State (2015)
“Albert Moustakis, the Vilas County District Attorney, appeals an order dismissing his action under Wis. Stat. § 19.356 (4) to enjoin the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) from releasing certain records pertaining to Moustakis in response to a public records request.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.