Legal battle over UNC’s $1.2M SCiLL report returns to court Tuesday

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a media coalition return to court Tuesday in their battle over the public release of a $1.2 million report. The report focuses on UNC-CH’s School of Civic Life and Leadership.

Media outlets led by the student-run Daily Tar Heel seek a court order forcing the university to release the report. The university argues that the document is exempt from state public-records requirements.

Both sides seek summary judgment from Superior Court Judge John Morris. That type of ruling would resolve the dispute without a trial.

“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,” media lawyers wrote in a court filing Friday. “Defendants have refused to release it, in whole or in part, to Plaintiffs or anyone else.”

“The North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled, clearly and repeatedly, that the Public Records Act must be construed broadly and liberally to achieve the public policy that underlies it; exemptions and exceptions to the public’s right of access must be strictly construed,” the court filing added.

“[T]he North Carolina General Assembly fashioned the Public Records Law to allow broad access to the property of the people,” the media lawyers explained. “For decades, our courts have erred on the side of openness, construing access broadly and exemptions narrowly. ‘[I]n a society in which each individual has but limited time and resources with which to observe at first hand the operations of his government, he relies necessarily upon the press to bring to him in convenient form the facts of those operations.’ Plaintiffs take their role serving in that capacity seriously and brought this action to promote access to government expenditures, decision making, and oversight.”

The media groups argued that UNC-CH has the burden of proving that the document is not a public record. “Plaintiffs remain in the dark regarding Defendants’ specific positions and assertions with regard to their blanket claim that provisions of the Public Records Act permit them to withhold the entire report,” according to the brief.

“[T]he Court should conduct an in-camera review of the report to exercise oversight to determine if Defendants have complied with their obligations under the Public Records Act, whether any portions of the report have been permissibly withheld and why, which portions of the report the Defendants should be compelled to produce for inspection and copying, and whether Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of fees,” the media lawyers wrote.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill argues in a new court filing that a $1.2 million report on its School of Civic Life is full of material “cover to cover” that exempts it from state public-records requirements.

The university filed a July 24 motion for summary judgement. A memorandum filed along with the motion noted that SCiLL “has been the subject of criticism from University faculty, among others,” since its inception.

“Between February 2023 to the spring of 2025, both the faculty as a whole and specific individual faculty members raised concerns regarding SCiLL’s creation, the recruitment and retention of faculty, and other issues,” the memorandum explained. “Those concerns included allegations that, if true, could give rise to claims against the University.”

“In response, the University adopted the only prudent course of action it retained outside counsel at K&L Gates to conduct a comprehensive, independent, and privileged investigation into alleged issues related to SCiLL and provide legal advice to the University,” UNC-CH’s lawyers wrote. “Once that work was complete, the University asked K&L Gates to prepare a report memorializing their legal analysis based on their investigation (the ‘Report’).”

The university did not release the report “because its contents fall within the scope of a number of exemptions to the Public Records Act,” the memorandum added. “[T]he Report prepared by the law firm that the University hired to investigate allegations and analyze potential claims against the University is not subject to production pursuant to the Public Records Act because its contents from cover to cover are filled with attorney client privileged communications, attorney work product in the form of trial preparation materials, confidential personnel information, and confidential information about University donors.”

“Plaintiffs are correct that the General Assembly enacted the Public Records Act to provide a vehicle for the public to obtain copies of the records created by the North Carolina government because they are the property of the people,” the UNC-CH memo concluded. “But, that same General Assembly also enacted specific exceptions to that right to access for attorney client privileged communications, attorney work product, confidential personnel information, and confidential donor information.”

UNC-CH filed its motion for summary judgment more than a week after the parties reached an impasse during a July 16 mediation session.

Two weeks earlier, Orange County Superior Court Judge Alyson Grine rejected the media outlets’ request to force the university to release the report before the mediation.

Lawyers for the media groups had argued to Grine 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.”

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.

“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 student-run Daily Tar Heel, the media coalition features WRAL-TV, the News and Observer, NC Newsline, The Assembly, and Carolina Public Press.

“Legal battle over UNC’s $1.2M SCiLL report returns to court Tuesday” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.