Virginia Appeals Court Remands FOIA Dispute Over UVA Shooting Reports for Clarification

RICHMOND (LN) — The Court of Appeals of Virginia remanded the case to the Albemarle County Circuit Court on Tuesday, saying it cannot determine whether the dispute is moot, whether the newspaper substantially prevailed for purposes of attorney fees, or how to resolve UVA’s cross-appeal because the trial court’s ruling is ambiguous.

The newspaper publisher Lee BHM Corp. and reporter Jason Armesto sued under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act seeking two investigative reports that UVA obtained from outside counsel appointed through the state Attorney General’s Office following a November 2022 shooting that left five students dead.

UVA declined the requests, citing attorney-client, work-product, and scholastic-record exemptions. After BHM and UVA completed presenting evidence, the Commonwealth’s Attorney for Albemarle County intervened and argued the reports were exempt as criminal investigative files. The circuit court denied BHM’s petition on that basis.

While the appeal was pending, the Commonwealth withdrew its objection after the shooter pleaded guilty in November 2024 and was sentenced in November 2025. UVA also released redacted versions of the reports.

The appellate court said those developments raise a mootness question but that the record does not clearly establish whether the circuit court adjudicated UVA’s asserted exemptions or simply found the criminal-investigative-files exemption dispositive. The court noted that when BHM asked the circuit court whether it was ruling that UVA failed to prove its other exemptions, the court answered “Yes” — but that answer is equally consistent with a ruling that UVA failed to prove its exemptions and with a ruling that the criminal-investigative-files exemption rendered those exemptions unnecessary to decide.

“Because the criminal-investigative-files exemption was raised only after BHM and UVA completed their presentation of the evidence, and because the Commonwealth has since withdrawn its objection, the unclear status of UVA’s asserted exemptions may bear on whether BHM substantially prevailed,” Judge Vernida R. Chaney wrote for the panel.

The court said it cannot decide mootness, determine whether BHM substantially prevailed, assess the effect of the redacted production, or resolve UVA’s cross-appeal on the present record. It remanded for the circuit court to clarify whether it ruled on UVA’s attorney-client, work-product, and scholastic-record exemptions, and if not, to determine the applicability of those exemptions and whether BHM is entitled to attorney fees.

The court expressly declined to rule on whether any VFOIA exemption applies, whether BHM is entitled to further disclosure, whether any issue is moot on remand, or whether attorney fees should be awarded.