Judge does not force UNC-CH to release $1.2 million SCiLL report

An Orange County judge rejected a media coalition’s request Tuesday to force the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to release its $1.2 million report on the School of Civic Life and Leadership.

University officials announced in March that they would not release the document. Media groups led by the student-run Daily Tar Heel sued in April to have the document released as a public record.

The case is scheduled for mediation on July 16. But the media coalition asked Superior Court Judge Alyson Grine Tuesday to “short circuit” the mediation process and order the report’s release.

“It appears clear that the court lacks jurisdiction to decide merits,” Grine said near the end of a 38-minute online hearing. “The defendants want to develop and have the opportunity to robustly present this argument that the entirety of the report may be subject to exception if it is found to be material developed for the purposes of litigation.”

“There are probably factual questions that need to be heard and fleshed out before that decision can be made,” Grine continued. “So I’m not going to provide summary disposition. I’m not going to order injunctive or declaratory relief at this point. I’m going to let the matter go to mediation.”

Grine made her decision “without prejudice,” so plaintiffs could return to her court if the mediation reaches an impasse.

Lawyers for the media groups had argued that a section of North Carolina’s public records law allowed the judge to release the document before the mediation session.

“Probably four decades of case law on the public records say that the court is to err on the side of openness and construe any exemption narrowly,” argued lawyer Mike Tadych.

“Public records that are transacted in the public business are the property of the people,” Tadych added. “So this is a property-right interest of not only the plaintiffs but everybody else in North Carolina.”

“Plaintiffs ask this court to exercise jurisdiction that it doesn’t yet possess,” responded lawyer Wes Camden, representing UNC-CH.

The media groups sought a “loophole” that would help them resolve the case before it followed its proper course, Camden argued. The section of the public records law the plaintiffs cited doesn’t allow them to “perform an end run and allow this court to adjudicate the matter on the merits.”

Barring a successful mediation, the university is likely to file a motion for summary judgment that would give the judge another opportunity to address the legal issues in the case, Camden said. The judge would then decide whether some or all of the document is exempted from disclosure under the public records law.

The media groups filed court documents seeking an “immediate” hearing and “summary disposition” that would resolve the dispute.

“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.

“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. The media groups filed suit on April 10 to gain access to the document.

The media coalition filed its first motion in April seeking a hearing and summary disposition of the 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.

“Judge does not force UNC-CH to release $1.2 million SCiLL report” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.