This summary is based on publicly filed court orders in Civil Action No. 23CV9529, DeKalb County Superior Court, and is intended for general informational purposes only. It is not legal advice.
Georgia's cities are committed to transparency, and open government laws play a vital role in holding local officials accountable. But transparency is a two-way street — and every so often, a records requester's conduct pushes past reasonable oversight into something closer to harassment. A recent DeKalb County Superior Court case, Hirsch v. City of Dunwoody, illustrates what that can look like, and what remedies exist when it happens.
Background
Resident Joseph Michael Hirsch sued the City of Dunwoody and four city employees in their personal capacities over a series of Open Records Act (ORA) requests. The case grew far beyond a typical records dispute: Hirsch filed 12 amended complaints (over 3,400 pages, 6,000+ paragraphs) and served 72 sets of written discovery totaling more than 4,400 individual requests.
His claims included demands to produce text messages the City no longer possessed, unredacted data he later admitted he never actually wanted, a declaratory judgment on his own statutory duties, and mandamus relief compelling the City to expand its records-management disclosures.
The Rulings
On December 2, 2025, Senior Judge David B. Irwin granted summary judgment to the City and all individual defendants on every count. Key findings included:
- The City cannot be compelled to produce records it doesn't have, and transitory records with no ongoing use don't need to be retained.
- The individual employees were entitled to official immunity — their decisions were discretionary, and Hirsch showed no evidence of actual malice.
- Hirsch's declaratory judgment claim failed for lack of any real controversy, since the statute at issue was unambiguous.
- Mandamus cannot be used to micromanage a city's discretionary compliance choices or to generally compel officials to "obey the law."
- The City's existing website disclosure of its records officer satisfied statutory requirements.
Fee Award and Final Judgment
On May 22, 2026, the court granted defendants' motion for attorney's fees under awarding $182,478.10, based on the amount of legal worked incurred by the city because of the litigation. The court pointed to Hirsch's own public statements — at Council meetings, in emails, and on social media — expressing intent to drive up the City's legal costs, along with his admission that he pursued records he never actually wanted. The court was clear that the award was compensatory, not punitive: its purpose was to reimburse the City for costs incurred defending against claims that lacked substantial justification.
Final Judgment in the case was issued in early June with the inclusion of post-judgment interest. The judgment remains enforceable through standard collection remedies under the law. While the underlying case is under appeal, this result may provide guidance on potential avenues relating to abusive open records requests.
Why It Matters
For cities committed to responsive, good-faith records handling, this case illustrates how courts have addressed situations where litigation and records requests extend well beyond the scope of routine oversight. Georgia law includes fee-shifting provisions that courts may apply in such circumstances. Documented, good-faith efforts to respond to requests, and staying within the actual scope of what's requested, remain a city's best defense.
