JOHN COFFELT
Editor

In a Complaint for Injunctive Relief submitted to the Coffee County Circuit Court on July 16, the City of Manchester asks the courts to prohibit a county resident from making public records request for one year based on allegations of excessive and intentional misuse of the Public Records Act 

Details in the suit against Sarah Bradley, of the Baker Heights subdivision in the county UGB, accuse her of willfully using record request to disrupt governmental operations despite multiple warnings that she was “significantly disrupting governmental operations and that her requests are running afoul of Tennessee law.”   

The document claims that Bradley has shown a pattern of submitting voluminous record requests across multiple departments for records that far exceed the requirements listed under the Tennessee public records act.

The city asserts that the requests were not isolated requests that seek a single identifiable public record. Rather, the requests were for broad, multipart requests, some of which sought documents that were found not to exist.

One specific request from Nov. 17, 2023 contained 26 separate requests that spanned items from each of the city’s departments. Many of the departmental requests would have exceeded the allowable number of requests granted by state statute. 

According to the suit, Water and Sewer requests from Nov. 17, 2023 included six items: monthly operation reports, inventory procedure and capital improvement plan and maintenance plans for the West End Industrial Park pump station.

Also in that request were requests to the planning department for eight documents: planning commission packets, training records, written statements of attendance, planning subcommittee members’ interest disclosers, staff reports and minutes, and proposed plan records for multiple parcels.

Also in that request, Bradley requested from the mayor’s office eight requests, including separate sewer letters signed by property owners for specific parcels.

Also in that request, under the recorders’s office/BOMA heading, she requested four separate items including planning commission certification records, BOMA meeting minutes and minutes for the (now defunct) Greater Economic Development Board.

The city advised Bradley that the cost to cover the man hours spent obtaining the records would be $235.

“Instead of simply proceeding with or declining the request, the Defendant continued to send follow-up communications seeking clarification, conformation of non-existence, grounds for denial, explanations and additional information regarding the records,” the suit said.  

Similar requests were submitted to the city in August 2023, January 2024, March 2024, June 2024, August 24, September 2024, December 2024, January 2025, March 2025, November 2025, June 2026 and July 2026.  

“The city has repeatedly exhausted significant staff time and resources attempting to respond the Defendant’s public records requests and follow-up communications in good faith, pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act,” the suit said.

“The public records act does not require the city to sort through files to compile information into a new record, to create or recreate a record that does not exist, to provide legal analysis or to engage in debate with the requester,” the suit said. 

The suit further alleges that Bradley ignored warnings sent advising her that she had exceeded her annual five requests to the city.

Former Finance Director Lisa Myers sent the first request in December of 2023. In it Myers advised that the requests were not specific, sought information with no basis for her specific inquiries and that after employees spent hours searching for “ambiguous requests” she would then change her mind and withdraw or alter the request.       

The city sent a second warning identified six requests in 2024 and two in the spring of 2025. In that warning, after stating similar concerns about the nature of the requests, this letter alleged that Bradley intended to use the requests in an effort to disrupt city operations.

The suit says that following her receiving the second warning letter, Bradley submitted a request form on Nov. 17, 2025 that contained 50 separate categories of requested records across five different departments.

In June of this year, Bradley submitted a request with 45 separate categories of requests, with 17 directed at the Water and Sewer Department, nine at codes, eight at the Finance Department.

On July 6, Bradley submitted an additional request for six categories of records, including video of an interaction between her and the City’s Administrative Assistant on July 3, and any and all emails or texts regarding the incident.

The city alleges that these request that it characterized as being exceptionally broad and often requesting explanations rather than identifiable records and repeatedly abandoning requests “collectively demonstrates an intent to disrupt governmental operations” … (when also taking into account Bradley’s) disruptive and aggressive behavior at governmental institutions and public organizations… and hostile and disruptive conduct toward city officials … including a verbally abusive conduct directed at a former Mayor.”

The city requests the courts to enjoin Bradley from making public records requests for one year but suggests that she still be able to petition the courts for public records if she can show the courts that they are not being made to disrupt city operations.

The city also asks the courts to order Bradley to reimburse the records custodian for labor costs incurred in producing records during that time.      

Bradley responded that she needed to coordinate with legal counsel before giving detailed answers due to the pending litigation and “the City’s refusal to engage in complementary mediation through the Comptroller’s Office of Open Records Counsel which I believe they would have pursued if acting in good faith.”

“Unfortunately, I still have not been served so I do not know the specific allegations being made against me and have not seen any of the evidence or sworn statements that may have been submitted to support those allegations,” Bradley said in an email, noting that she reached out to “all parties involved” with her contact info and offered to meet to “expedite proper and prompt service.“

“At this point all I can say is that my intent is not now nor has it ever been to disrupt government operations and that no citizen should ever feel the need to request specific agendas for meetings that have already been held or specific minutes that have already been approved,” Bradley said.

“I hope to provide you with clearer answers in the future as our community navigates the first case brought in the state under this relatively new statute,” she said.  

Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 10-7-503(a)(7), was amended in 2021 amended to add a subdivision C to address persons makes a request to view or copy a public record with the intent to disrupt government operations. This provision allows the records custodian charged with fulfilling the request to petition the court for an order to enjoin the person from making records requests for up to one year.