Legal battle over UNC’s civic life report returns to court Tuesday

The legal dispute over release of a $1.2 million report prepared for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is scheduled to return to court Tuesday. Media outlets want a judge to force university officials to release the report about the School of Civic Life and Leadership.

An online hearing is scheduled Tuesday morning before Superior Court Judge Alyson Grine. Media outlets led by the student-run Daily Tar Heel filed paperwork seeking an “immediate” hearing and “summary disposition” that would resolve the dispute.

University officials oppose the media groups’ request.

“Having been made at the request of and on behalf of the University, paid for by the University out of public funds, and received by the University, the report is facially and presumptively a public record as defined by the North Carolina Public Records Law,” the media groups’ lawyers wrote Friday. “Defendants have refused to release it, in whole or in part, to Plaintiffs or anyone else.”

“In their Answer, Defendants admit that the report may be considered a document made or received in connection with the transaction of public business but ‘some or all [of] the report is not subject to disclosure as a public record” based on provisions of the state’s Public Records Act, Human Resources Act, Personal Privacy Protection Act, and “applicable privilege doctrines.”

Former Superior Court Judge Osmond Smith is mediating the dispute. A mediation session is scheduled July 16.

“Nevertheless, this matter is eligible for summary disposition pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. § 7A-38.3E(h),” the media groups argued. “N.C. GEN. STAT. § 7A-38.3(h) provides that, despite the mandatory mediation provision of N.C. GEN. STAT. § 7A-38.3E(b), ‘[n]othing in this section shall prevent a party seeking production of public records from seeking injunctive or other relief, including production of public records prior to any scheduled mediation.’”

The university rebutted the media groups’ arguments in a separate court filing Friday.

“North Carolina’s appellate precedent is emphatically clear: a trial court’s jurisdiction to decide a Public Records Act case under Section 132-9(a) only attaches after the mediation requirements it references have been completely satisfied,” UNC lawyers wrote. “The parties have not yet mediated this dispute; therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to decide the merits of Plaintiffs’ Public Records Act claim.”

“Yet Plaintiffs contend that Section 132-9(a)’s jurisdictional requirements are merely optional and that they are entitled to have this Court decide the merits now,” the university’s court filing continued. “In particular, Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Summary Disposition demands that Defendants produce the investigatory report of the University’s School of Civil Life and Leadership (the ‘SCiLL Report’) for immediate in-camera review and demands the Court issue an order declaring which portions of the SCiLL Report are subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act or should be redacted — the ultimate relief requested in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.”

“Even if this Court had jurisdiction, which Defendants dispute, Plaintiffs’ demand for summary disposition is procedurally improper,” UNC lawyers argued. “The Court should proceed with the resolution of this case in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure as required by North Carolina law. As such, Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Summary Disposition should be denied.”

UNC-CH announced on March 6 that it would not release the report to the public. A coalition of media outlets led by the Daily Tar Heel filed suit on April 10 to gain access to the document.

The media groups filed an earlier motion in April seeking an “immediate hearing and summary disposition” of their complaint.

“Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the report, which was completed and provided to Defendants early in 2026, is approximately 400 pages in length, cost the University approximately $1.2 million, and embodies the law firm’s findings and recommendations based on interviews of dozens of persons and the review of hundreds of thousands of documents,” according to the court filing.

“In contrast to many, or even most, disputes that arise under the Public Records Law, the report that is the subject matter of this action is a single document that Defendants can readily and promptly provide to the Court for in camera review and adjudication,” the April court filing continued.

The media groups sought a hearing for a judge to review the report “and ordering Defendants to show cause, if any, why the report at issue should not be released to Plaintiffs and the public, either in whole or in part.”

After the review, the judge would “issue an order declaring, as a matter of law, which specific portions of the report are and are not subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Law.” The judge also would “issue an order compelling Defendants to separate and redact, at their expense, any portions of the report determined not to be public records and to permit the inspection and copying of all portions of the report determined by the Court to be public records.”

“From its inception, SCiLL has been controversial,” the media group’s lawyers wrote in the initial lawsuit. “Its critics contend, among other things, that its very establishment, the process by which it was established, and many of the actions taken by its appointed leader, Dean Jed Atkins, have violated UNC academic policies, traditions, and procedures related to curriculum, hiring, faculty tenure and status, faculty governance, and funding.”

The school’s supporters, including Chancellor Lee Roberts, “have vigorously defended SCiLL and Dean Atkins, asserting that establishing SCiLL was not only appropriate and warranted, but necessary, in order for UNC to strengthen civic knowledge, civil dialogue, and principled leadership,” the suit added.    

The university hired the law firm K&L Gates in 2025 to conduct an independent review of the school. UNC-CH received the report earlier this year.

The university announced on March 6 that it had “unwavering confidence” in SCiLL after reviewing the report.

Paul Newton, UNC-CH’s vice chancellor and general counsel, explained that the report was not being released because it included “a series of allegations that implicate sensitive and confidential personnel information that is protected by state law and University policy.”

“Given the nature and putative scope of the investigation, however, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that significant portions of the report do not ‘implicate sensitive and confidential personnel information,’” according to the suit. “Moreover, to the extent that it does, the Public Records Law requires the University, at its expense, to separate such information from non-confidential information and release the latter.”

“In sum, neither the Defendants nor anyone else acting on behalf of the University has offered a reasonable or persuasive explanation or justification for the University’s refusal to release the report, in whole or in part,” the media outlets’ lawyers wrote. “Accordingly, the University’s refusal to release the report, even in part, is in violation of the Public Records Law.”

In addition to the DTH, the media coalition features WRAL-TV, the News and Observer, NC Newsline, The Assembly, and Carolina Public Press.

“Legal battle over UNC’s civic life report returns to court Tuesday” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.