E-FILED 2026 MAY 26 10:07 AM SCOTT - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SCOTT COUNTY
Plaintiff, DAVID EZRA SIDRAN, vs. CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWA, JASON GORDON, KYLE GRIPP, JAZMIN ) NEWTON, RICHARD DUNN, TIM DUNN, ) JOHN BLUNK, BEN JOBGEN, MARK ) HOLLOWAY, and MATT LIENEN, Defendants.
No. ____________________ PLAINTIFF’S PETITION AT LAW AND EQUITY
COMES NOW Plaintiff DAVID EZRA SIDRAN and hereby files this Petition at Law and Equity pursuant to the Iowa Fair Information Practices Act (“Act”), Iowa Code section 22.1 et seq., against Defendants CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWA, JASON GORDON, KYLE GRIPP, JAZMIN NEWTON, RICK DUNN, TIM DUNN, JOHN BLUNK, BEN JOBGEN, MARK HOLLOWAY, and MATT LIENEN. SIDRAN alleges upon personal knowledge and information based upon the investigation of counsel as follows:
INTRODUCTION
As Justice Thomas Waterman of the Iowa Supreme Court has observed, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” City of Riverdale v. Diercks, 806 N.W.2d 643, 645 (Iowa 2011). This is a case in point. In February 2024, the CITY OF DAVENPORT sued SIDRAN in response to his public records requests seeking, inter alia, a letter from former city administrator Corrin Spiegel in which she complained of harassment and demanded a monetary settlement in exchange for the promise not to sue. In ruling that the CITY OF DAVENPORT had no legal or factual basis to withhold Spiegel’s demand letter, the Iowa District Court for Scott County observed that the CITY OF DAVENPORT did “not even point to [a] code provision that arguably renders the [Spiegel] letter confidential.” The CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWA subsequently dismissed its lawsuit after the Court’s ruling.
In March 2026, SIDRAN requested the billing statements of the city’s outside legal counsel who prosecuted the case against him. Defendants refuse to provide him the unredacted billing statements that show descriptions of the services for which the city was charged. The city’s conduct has effectively compelled SIDRAN, as a taxpayer, to pay for litigation against himself while being denied access to critical information necessary to meaningfully review outside counsel’s billing records. Accordingly, SIDRAN has no choice but to bring this action to obtain the sunshine that he and the citizens of Davenport deserve.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, & VENUE
1. Plaintiff DAVID EZRA SIDRAN is taxpayer and citizen of the State of Iowa residing in Scott County.
2. At all times material hereto, defendant CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWA was a municipal corporation organized and authorized to operate under the laws of Iowa.
3. At all times material hereto, defendant JASON GORDON was the mayor of the CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWA, and a resident of Scott County.
4. At all times material hereto, KYLE GRIPP was a member of the Davenport city council and a resident of Scott County, Iowa.
5. At all times material hereto, JAZMIN NEWTON was a member of the Davenport city council and a resident of Scott County, Iowa.
6. At all times material hereto, RICHARD DUNN was a member of the Davenport city council and a resident of Scott County, Iowa.
7. At all times material hereto, TIM DUNN was a member of the Davenport city council and a resident of Scott County, Iowa.
8. At all times material hereto, JOHN BLUNK was a member of the Davenport city council and a resident of Scott County, Iowa.
9. At all times material hereto, BEN JOBGEN was a member of the Davenport city council and a resident of Scott County, Iowa.
10. At all times material hereto, MARK HOLLOWAY was a member of the Davenport city council and a resident of Scott County, Iowa.
11. At all times material hereto, MATT LIENEN was a member of the Davenport city council and a resident of Scott County, Iowa.
12. This Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to Iowa Code section 22.10.
13. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Iowa Code section 22.10(1) as Scott County is the county in which defendants have their principal places of business.
BACKGROUND
14. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
15. On March 10, 2026, SIDRAN submitted a public record request PRR- 152-2026 pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 22 through the CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWA’s portal requesting:
[A]ll billing statements, time sheets, invoices, unredacted, from Lane & Waterman to the City of Davenport for the Davenport v. Sidran lawsuit that was filed on or about February 14, 2024 and was voluntarily dismissed by the city of Davenport on or about September 27, 2024.
16. Defendants were the lawful custodians of the records requested in PRR- 152-2026.
17. The records that SIDRAN sought contained information “of or belonging” to the CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWA, and therefore, they were public records under Iowa Code section 22.1(3)(a).
18. Defendants provided SIDRAN with the attached billing statements, which included redactions in the column for the “description” of the legal services that were provided.
OPEN RECORDS VIOLATION
19. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
20. The Iowa Fair Information Practices Act, Iowa Code section 22.1 et seq, seeks to prevent the Government from secreting its decision-making activities from the public, on whose behalf it is its duty to act.
21. Its goal is to facilitate public scrutiny of the conduct of public officers.
22. The Act provides, “Every person shall have the right to examine and copy a public record and to publish or otherwise disseminate a public record or the information contained in a public record.” Iowa Code § 22.2(1).
23. The Iowa Supreme Court has construed the Act to establish a presumption of openness and disclosure.
24. “Disclosure is the rule, and one seeking the protection of one of the statute’s exemptions bears the burden of demonstrating the exemption’s applicability.” Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222, 229 (Iowa 2019).
25. Accordingly, exemptions from the statutory disclosure requirements “are to be construed narrowly.” Id.
26. Thus, a records custodian violates the Act by failing to produce records based on the improper invocation of an exemption. Des Moines Independent Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Des Moines Register & Tribune Co., 487 N.W.2d 666, 669 (Iowa 1992).
27. The records that SIDRAN sought with his March 2026 request are public records of a government body.
28. Defendants failed to produce unredacted copies of the requested records.
29. Accordingly, “the burden of going forward shall be on the defendants to demonstrate compliance with the requirements” of the Act. Iowa Code § 22.10(2).
30. Defendants cannot carry their burden of demonstrating compliance with the Act.
31. Defendants appear to believe that the general description of legal services in an attorney’s billing statement is categorically exempt from disclosure on the basis of the attorney-client privilege.
32. But, it was clearly established at the time of SIDRAN’s request that “[a]bsent ‘unusual circumstances,’ production of billing records does not invade the attorney-client privilege, and such records as are available should be produced.” Smith v. Iowa State Univ. of Sci. & Tech., 885 N.W.2d 620, 626 n.6 (Iowa 2016) (citing Avgoustis v. Shinseki, 639 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. Ct. 2011)).
33. “[N]o court of appeals has held that disclosure of the general subject matter of a billing statement . . . violates attorney-client privilege.” Avgoustis, 639 F.3d at 1344.
34. Just the opposite, “[c]ourts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients’ representations are not privileged.” Id. (quoting United States v. Legal Servs. for N.Y.C., 249 F.3d 1077, 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2001)).
35. “For example, entries that state ‘reviewed discovery’ or ‘drafted brief’ do not constitute privileged confidential information.” Nat. Surety Corp. v. Dustex Corp., 2014 WL 46541 at *4 (N.D. Iowa 2014).
36. “If billing entries only describe general work they do not constitute information, and shall not be redacted” under Iowa Code chapter 22. D0056 (Dierks v. Bettendorf, EQCE129375) at 9 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Scott Cty. 01/03/20).
37. It was also clearly established at the time of SIDRAN’s request that a records custodian violates the Act by failing to produce records based on the improper invocation of an exemption or privilege. Des Moines Independent Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Des Moines Register & Tribune Co., 487 N.W.2d 666, 669 (Iowa 1992).
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that a trial be held in this matter and the Court enter an order that:
(A)Declares that Defendants failed to comply with the requirements of the Act by redacting the requested billing statements;
(B) Enjoins Defendants to refrain for one year from any future violations;
(C) Assesses Defendants statutory damages in the amount of not less than five hundred dollars and not more than two thousand five hundred dollars;
(D) Removes the individual Defendants from office if either is found to have engaged in a prior violation of the Act for which damages were assess against her or him during her is his term;
(E) Directs Defendants to pay all costs and reasonable attorney fees to SIDRAN; and
(F) Grants all such other relief as allowable under the Iowa Fair Information Practices Act and as the Court deems appropriate, including mandatory training conducted by an entity that is not affiliated with the City of Davenport or the Iowa Public Information Board.
DATED this 26th day of May 2026.
Gary Dickey, AT#0001999
Counsel of Record for Plaintiff
DICKEY, CAMPBELL, & SAHAG LAW FIRM, PLC
301 East Walnut Street, Suite 1
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
Author
Anonymous (not verified)
