Lynchburg City Council member Chris Faraldi has sued a fellow council member, Marty Misjuns, and the city over what he alleges was “an improper withholding of public records,” according to court documents.
The lawsuit, filed in Lynchburg Circuit Court on Thursday, petitions for a writ of mandamus — or a court order given to a government official to perform a mandatory, non-discretionary duty. In this case, the requested court order would compel Misjuns to comply with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.
The Freedom of Information Act mandates that all government meetings and records be open to the public unless they fall under specific exemptions.
Faraldi submitted a FOIA request on Dec. 9 that was not properly fulfilled, he says in the lawsuit. He asked for “any written record and audio recordings” created by council members Misjuns and Jacqueline Timmer and Vice Mayor Diemer relating to a Dec. 9 closed meeting of the city council, according to the suit.
Misjuns provided two records in response: a handwritten note “in fully redacted form” and an audio file that is “approximately one hour in length and consists of a continuous redaction tone for essentially its entire duration,” according to the suit. The redactions were applied by Misjuns, not City Attorney Matt Freedman or chief FOIA Officer Karla Johnson, according to the suit.
“The closed session involved protected attorney-client advice on potential liabilities; redactions comply with VAFOIA exemptions,” Misjuns wrote in a Monday statement to Cardinal News.
Redactions are permitted in various situations to protect confidential information, according to the state code that governs FOIA, as long as “only those portions of the public record containing information subject to an exclusion” are withheld, and “all portions of the public record that are not so excluded” are disclosed.
Faraldi’s lawsuit asks the court to declare that Misjuns violated the Virginia Freedom of Information Act “by improperly withholding public records and failing to release reasonably segregable, non-exempt portions of responsive records after ample opportunity to do so.”
Faraldi is also asking the court to order Misjuns to release the audio recording and handwritten note with only the narrow redactions deemed lawful and/or order Misjuns to submit unredacted records for the court to inspect and determine what can be disclosed.
Faraldi is requesting no monetary damages but asks the court to award him reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, as outlined in state code.
“This is solely about ensuring transparency obligations are applied correctly,” Faraldi wrote in a statement to Cardinal News on Monday.
The lawsuit comes on the heels of earlier public disagreements between Misjuns and Faraldi, including a social media war in 2024 and an argument that prompted a council recess in May.
“Councilmember Faraldi’s lawsuit escalates ongoing council tensions into court — unsurprising given our history,” Misjuns wrote in his Monday statement. “Filed early in an election year, the timing raises questions about motives and isn’t good governance.”
The records that Faraldi requested relate to a closed session, a form of meeting that is exempt from FOIA when it is properly certified by a majority vote. Closed sessions are often called to discuss sensitive matters such as personnel issues and economic development deals.
The Dec. 9 closed session was not certified, according to Faraldi’s suit, making portions of its discussion subject to FOIA.
City council members can vote against certification if they feel that matters discussed during the session were not lawfully exempt from open meeting requirements or properly identified in the motion to call the closed session, according to state code. The Dec. 9 closed session was advertised in the meeting agenda as an opportunity to consult with legal counsel “regarding specific legal matters that require the provision of legal advice.” The legal guidance related to a council member’s “involvement in personnel matters,” “inappropriate treatment of City staff” and other matters “applicable to Councilmember conduct,” as described in the agenda.
Misjuns, Timmer and Diemer voted against the certification. Faraldi joined the closed session but left early and was absent from the vote to certify it, according to draft minutes posted in an agenda packet for the Jan. 13 city council meeting.
The city of Lynchburg is named as a respondent in Faraldi’s lawsuit “solely to ensure that the Court may issue effective relief and enforce compliance with any order entered,” according to court documents.
The city was served with the lawsuit Monday, said city spokesperson Anna Bentson. “Because it is pending litigation, we prefer not to comment on the matter at this time,” she wrote in a statement to Cardinal News.
No hearings or mediations have been scheduled yet, according to the circuit court database.