Noel Chua appeals from an order of the Camden County Superior Court dismissing with prejudice Chua’s complaint against Jackie Johnson, in her capacity as the District Attorney for the Brunswick Judicial Circuit the District Attorney or the District Attorney’s office. That complaint, which alleged a violation of Georgia’s Open Records Act, OCGA § 50-18-70, et seq. ORA, sought to require the District Attorney’s office to provide Chua with a copy of a specific document contained in the District Attorney’s files related to that office’s criminal prosecution of Chua. On appeal, Chua contends that the trial court erred in refusing to order the District Attorney to provide him with the document at issue. Specifically, Chua asserts that the District Attorney’s office failed to provide him with the timely and detailed written notice required by ORA, setting forth the reasons for the office’s refusal to produce the document at issue, and that this failure, without more, entitles him to that document. Chua also claims that the trial court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the document in question falls within the attorney work-product exception to ORA. We agree with Chua that the District Attorney’s response to Chua’s document request failed to meet all of the requirements set forth in OCGA § 50-18-71 d. We find, however, that such a failure does not automatically entitle Chua to the relief he seeks – i.e., the production of the document. We further find that we cannot determine from the current record whether the document in question falls within an exception to ORA. The trial court, therefore, erred when it refused to hold an evidentiary hearing on this issue.1 Accordingly, we vacate the order of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
A trial court is vested with discretion in determining whether to allow or prohibit inspection of documents under the Open Records Act Fulton DeKalb Hosp. Auth. v. Miller Billips, 293 Ga. App. 601, 602 1 667 SE2d 455 2008, and we therefore review a trial court’s ruling on that issue for an abuse of discretion, which occurs where the trial court’s ruling is unsupported by any evidence of record or where that ruling misstates or misapplies the relevant law. Mathis v. BellSouth Telecommunications, 301 Ga. App. 881, 881 690 SE2d 210 2010 citation and footnote omitted.
