{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f169\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f170\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}
{\f172\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f173\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f174\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f175\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}
{\f176\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f177\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;
\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}
{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1140825
\rsid5983243\rsid8617447\rsid9508377\rsid15729991}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min3}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy14\hr14\min12}{\version4}
{\edmins2}{\nofpages7}{\nofwords2900}{\nofchars16535}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws19397}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440 
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3
\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot1140825 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1140825 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1140825 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1140825 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid1140825 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid1140825\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\i\fs20\insrsid1140825 Guam Radio Services, Inc. vs. Guam Economic Development Authority}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 , Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid1140825 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid5983243 7}}}{
\fs20\insrsid1140825  of 13
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid5983243 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}
{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid1140825 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\b\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid5983243\charrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 GUAM RADIO SERVICES, INC.
\par }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 d/b/a }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 KOKU-FM HIT RADIO 100,
\par }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 vs.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 GUAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
\par }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Defendant-Appellee}{\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 OPINION}{\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Filed:}{\b\insrsid5983243  }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 August 1, 2000
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Cite as: 2000 Guam 23}{\b\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid5983243\charrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Supreme Court Case No. CVA99-039
\par Superior Court Case No. CV2003-98}{\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on March 7, 2000
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid5983243 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
\par }{\ul\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellant:}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
\par Phillip D. Isaac, Esq.
\par Carlsmith Ball
\par Suite 401, Bank of Hawaii Bldg.
\par 134 W. Soledad Ave.
\par P. O. Box BF
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96932\cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Appearing for the Defendant-Appellee:}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
\par Lawrence J. Teker, Esq.
\par Gayle & Teker
\par Suite 200, Gayle & Teker Bldg.
\par 330 Hernan Cortez Ave.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow 
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid5983243 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt
\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid5983243 
\par }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 BEFORE: BENJAMIN J.F. CRUZ, Chief Justice; PETER C. SIGUENZA, Associate Justice; ALBERTO C. LAMORENA III, Designated Justice
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 SIGUENZA, J.:}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
\par }{\b\insrsid5983243 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [1]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab The following case discusses the granting of attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees under the Sunshine Act, Title 5 GCA }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  10101 }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 et seq.}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 , (1993).}{
\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 The appellant argues that the lower court incorrectly applied the four-factor analysis used in determining attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees.}{
\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 The appellees, on the other hand, claim that the trial court had discretion to refuse an award and that there is no valid reason for reversal.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
Based upon the following analysis, we affirm the lower court}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s decision and find that no abuse of discretion occurred.}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND}{\b\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid5983243\charrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [2]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab On June 23, and August 18, 1998, Guam Radio Services, Inc. d/b/a KOKU-FM Hit Radio 100 (hereinafter }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 KOKU}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 ) twice requested that the Guam Economic Development Authority (hereinafter }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 GEDA}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 ) provide it 
with information regarding delinquent loans from January 1998 to the present, including the names of those individuals and companies in default as well as the length of time in which the named parties were in default.}{\insrsid5983243  }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 GEDA refused to deliver the materials.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
Consequently, on August 24, 1998, KOKU filed a complaint with the trial court seeking an order that GEDA produce the relevant materials under the rules of the Sunshine Act.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
The trial court held in favor of KOKU.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Guam Radio Services, Inc. v. Guam Economic Development Authority, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 CV2003-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Dec. 9, 1998).}{\insrsid5983243  }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 On January 12, 2000, a majority of this court affirmed the lower court}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s holding that GEDA must deliver documents in accordance with the Act.}{
\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Guam Radio Services, Inc. v. Guam Economic Development Authority, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 2000 Guam 1, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  25.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Chief Justice Cruz dissented.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Id.}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  at }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  26-35.}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [3]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab Before this court heard the case on its primary issue, KOKU filed a suit with the Superior Court seeking attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees for their original case.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 First, the trial court ruled that KOKU had substantially prevailed in its suit, a threshold requirement for consideration in granting atto
rney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Guam Radio Services, Inc. v. Guam Economic Development Authority, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
CV2003-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Sept. 8, 1999).}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Next, the trial court stated that it must consider four factors to determine whether KOKU deserved attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees: 1) benefit to the public, if any, from the release of the documents; 2) commercial benefit to the complainant; 3) the nature of the complainant}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
s interest in the records sought; and 4) whether the government}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s withholding of the records had a reasonable basis in law.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Id.}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  (citing }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Guam Contractors Ass}{\i\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 n v. U.S. Dep}{\i\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{
\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 t of Labor, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 570 F.Supp. 163, 167 (N.D. Cal. 1983)).}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
Regarding the first factor, the trial court ruled that the public received a benefit from having the documents released and ensuring that GEDA obeys the law.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
It held that KOKU received a commercial benefit from the receipt of the documents, thus suggesting that KOKU is not worthy of an award when its motives lacked altruism.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
The trial court stated that KOKU had no direct interest in the materials, thus failing the third prong.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Finally, the trial court decided that GEDA had a reasonable basis for withholding the documents.}{
\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Having decided that KOKU only met the first of the four factors, the trial court denied the radio station any attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees.}{
\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Id.}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [4]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab KOKU appealed these findings in a timely manner in accordance with Guam R. App. P. 4(a).}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 DISCUSSION}{\b\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid5983243\charrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [5]\tab }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 This court has jurisdiction according to Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  3101, (1994).}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Both parties agree that this court should review the trial court}{
\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s decision for an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 See Parkland Dev., Inc. v. Anderson, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 2000 Guam 8, }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  5; }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Midsea Indus., Inc., v. HK Eng}{
\i\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 g, Ltd., }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 1998 Guam 14, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  14 (evaluating a trial court}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s motion to set aside a default judgment).}{\cs15\super\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1140825 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 Neither }{\i\fs20\insrsid1140825 Parkland Development}{\fs20\insrsid1140825  nor 
}{\i\fs20\insrsid1140825 Midsea }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 involved attorney}{\fs20\insrsid15729991 '}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 s fees.  However, the cases on attorney}{\fs20\insrsid15729991 '}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 
s fees that this court has written were reviewed }{\i\fs20\insrsid1140825 de novo}{\fs20\insrsid1140825  as they addressed sanctions pursuant to Guam R. Civ. P. 11}{\i\fs20\insrsid1140825 .  See Seafood Grotto v. Leonardi, }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 
1999 Guam 30, }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1140825  6; }{\i\fs20\insrsid1140825 Taijeron v. Kim, }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 1999 Guam 16, }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1140825  6; }{\i\fs20\insrsid1140825 People v. Manibusan, }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 1998 Guam 22, }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1140825  6; }{\i\fs20\insrsid1140825 Sumitomo Constr. Co., Ltd., v. Zhong Ye., Inc., }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 1997 Guam 8, }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1140825  9.}}}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [6]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab This court has consistently defined an abuse of discretion as a trial court decision }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
exercised to an end not justified by the evidence, a judgment that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts as are found.}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 People v. Quinata, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 1999 Guam 6, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  17;}{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  People v. Tuncap, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 1998 Guam 13, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  12 (quoting }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Int}{\i\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
l Jensen, Inc., v. Metrosound U.S.A., Inc., }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 4 F.3d 819, 822 (9}{\super\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 th}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  Cir. 1993)).}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
A lower court abuses its discretion when it fails to apply the correct law or if it rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of material fact. }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Tuncap,}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  1998 Guam 13 at }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  13.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
Most importantly, under this standard, we cannot reverse a decision unless it has a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant facts.}{\insrsid5983243 
 }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Quinata, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 1999 Guam 6 at }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  17; }{
\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Tuncap, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 1998 Guam 13 at }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
 12 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 The abuse of discretion standard is meant to insulate a trial court}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s decisions from any second-gue
ssing by an appellate court. 1 }{\scaps\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Steven Alan Childress & Martha S. Davis, Federal Standards of Review}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  4.21 (3}{\super\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 rd}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  ed. 1999).}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
The abuse of discretion standard acts as a dispositive underpinning to our decision in this case.}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [7]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab The relevant law in this dispute, Title 5 GCA }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  10107(d), (1993), states: }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
The court may assess against the government of Guam reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this Section in which the complainant has substantially prevailed.}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Because the attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
s fees provision in the federal Freedom of Information Act (hereinafter }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 FOIA}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 ), found at 5 U.S.C. }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  552(a)(4)(E) (1996), is nearly identical to the Sunshine Act, cases concerning the federal rule provide guidance to the court.}{
\cs15\super\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1140825 \chftn }{\insrsid1140825  }{
\fs20\insrsid1140825 5 U.S.C. }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1140825  552(a)(4)(E) states:  }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 
The court may assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this section in which the complainant has substantially prevailed.}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}}}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Legislators included the attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
s fees provision in order to encourage plaintiffs to file claims in cases that would otherwise be too costly for them to pursue.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Guam Contractors, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 570 F.Supp. at 169.}
{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Nevertheless, the legislators wanted courts to be thoughtful and cautious in granting this award.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
Thus, they listed four factors that courts could consider in making their decisions on attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
See Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council, Inc. v. Usery, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 546 F.2d 509, 513 (2}{\super\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 nd}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  Cir. 1976) [hereinafter }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 VLIAC}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 ].}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 The trial court used these four factors in determining that it would not award KOKU attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
s fees.}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [8]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab In this appeal, KOKU asserts that the news media has no special ability to make governmental agencies adhere to the Sunshine Act and that relevant ca
se law includes news sources under the list of plaintiffs not considered to be seeking a commercial benefit.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
Thus it argues that the trial court grossly erred in its analysis of the second and third factors, respectively.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 On the final factor, it claims t
hat GEDA was obdurate and acted in bad faith, thus lacking a reasonable basis for withholding documents.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
GEDA, however, states that judges have broad discretion in awarding these fees and argues that no clear violation has occurred that would necessitate a reversal by this court.}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [9]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab Traditionally, a court did not have the power to grant the prevailing party attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
s fees unless lawmakers specifically provided them with such authority in a statute.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Alyeska Pipline Co. v. Wilderness Soc}{\i\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 y, }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 421 U.S. 240, 247, 95 S. Ct. 1612,1616 (1975).}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 In some types of litigation, those involving antitrust or civil rights matters for example, granting attorney}{
\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees has been a mandatory award for successful plaintiffs.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Id. }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 at 260-62, 95 S. Ct. at 1624.}{
\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Contrarily, in both the Sunshine Act and the FOIA, the laws declare that a judge }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 may}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  award attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 
'}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees to the plaintiff, thus indicating that such an award was intended to be permissive, rather than mandatory.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 See}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  Title 1 GCA }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  715(9), (1995).}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
In both civil rights and FOIA cases, legislators intended to compensate plaintiffs who ended up forfeiting valuable time and monetary resources in courts trying to get agencies to adhere to the law.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
However, unlike in civil rights cases, the creators of the FOIA purposely chose not to require a mandatory attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees award under the FOIA.}{\insrsid5983243  }{
\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Lovell v. Alderete, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 630 F.2d 428, 431 (5}{\super\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 th}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  Cir. 1980); }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
Blue v. Bureau of Prisons, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 570 F.2d 529, 533 (5}{\super\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 th}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  Cir. 1978).}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 In each of the legislators}{
\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  multiple drafts of the FOIA}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s section on attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees, lawmakers noted that judges have discretion on the matter and warned that granting fees to successful plaintiffs should never be an automatic gesture.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
See VLIAC, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 546 F.2d at 512-13.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Since its enactment, most FOIA attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
s fees cases clearly emphasize that such awards are discretionary.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 United Ass}{\i\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
n of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus., Local 598 v. Dep}{\i\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 t of Army Corps of Eng}{\i\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{
\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 rs, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 841 F.2d 1459, 1461 (9}{\super\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 th}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  Cir. 1988) [hereinafter }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Local 598}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 ]; }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Church of Scientology v. U.S. Postal Serv., }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 700 F.2d 486, 489 (9}{\super\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 th}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
 Cir. 1983); }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Ginter v. IRS, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 648 F.2d 469, 471 (8}{\super\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 th}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  Cir. 1981); }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Lovell, }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 630 F.2d at 434; }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Nationwide Bldg. Maintenance, Inc., v. Sampson,}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  559 F.2d 704, 705-06 (D.C. Cir. 1977); }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 VLIAC,}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  546 F.2d at 513. KOKU contends that the trial court}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s discretion is not absolute.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
Nevertheless, we maintain that a trial court}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s discretion on awarding attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
s fees under the Sunshine Act is quite broad and substantial.}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [10]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab Deciding whether a trial court abused its discretion in granting or denying attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees under}{
\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 FOIA depends upon determining whether and how the trial court conducted the four-factor analysis.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 In the early stages of the fee provision}{
\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s drafting, lawmakers altered the four-factor analysis from a requirement into a recommendation because the Senate thought a mandatory analysis would be }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 too delimiting.}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 VLIAC,}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  546 F.2d at 513.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
The flexibility of the guidelines does not signify that a judge can avoid the four-factor analysis.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Instead, lawmakers made the analysis flexible in order to permit judges to consider additional matters
 specific to individual cases.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 See Church of Scientology, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 700 F.2d at 492; }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Exner v. Federal Bureau of Investigation,}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  443 F.Supp. 1349, 1352 (S.D. Cal. 1978), }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 judgment aff}{\i\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 d, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 612 F.2d 1202 (9}{
\super\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 th}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  Cir. 1980).}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Since the time of the provision}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
s enactment, more courts have stated that the judges must conduct an examination of the four factors before awarding fees.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 See Local 598, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 841 F.2d at 1461; }{
\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Lovell, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 630 F.2d at 431; }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Blue, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 570 F.2d at 533.}{\insrsid5983243  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [11]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab Courts have disagreed about whether the analysis is a balancing act or whether a plaintiff must meet each of the four factors.}{\insrsid5983243  }{
\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Compare Ginter, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 648 F.2d at 470 (promoting balancing), }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 and}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Lovell, }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 630 F.2d at 433 (promote balancing), }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 with Republic of New Afrika v. FBI, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 645 F.Supp. 117, 120 (D.D.C. 1986) (opining that }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 a court should not regard any one factor as conclusive.}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 ), }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 and}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Blue, }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 570 F.2d at 534 (holding that }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
it was an abuse of discretion to neglect the three remaining factors entirely [in not granting the fees].}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 ); }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 but see Cotton v. Heyman, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 63 F.3d 1115, 1120-21 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (holding both that too much weight was
 given to the public interest prong and that the court erred in not discussing the reasonable basis prong at all).}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
Nonetheless, complete failure to conduct the four-factor analysis or to consider any single factor thereof have constituted the only situations in which appellate courts have reversed a lower court}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s decision on attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees. }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc., v. U.S. Dep}{\i\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{
\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 t of Agric., }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 11 F.3d 211, 216 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (reversed for failure to consider the fourth factor); }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Local 598,}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
 841 F.2d at 1464 (reversed for failure to consider the second and third factors); }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Church of Scientology,}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
 700 F.2d at 495 (reversed for failure to mention any of the four factors in its decision); }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Blue, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 570 F.2d at 534 (reversed for failure to include three of the four f
actors in its analysis).}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Even when a reversal is granted, it is usually accompanied with a remand.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 See, e.g., Church of Scientology, }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 700 F.2d at 494;}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Nationwide Bldg., }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 559 F.2d at 716.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
No court has reversed a decision merely because it disagreed with part of the lower court}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s four-factor analysis.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
In obedience to the principles of the abuse of discretion standard, appellate courts purposely tend to avoid telling the lower courts what they should decide after discussing the four factors.}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [12]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab In the trial court}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s perception, KOKU is not the resource-deprived party that lawmakers imagined}{
\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 when they decided to compensate plaintiffs who would otherwise avoid filing FOIA/Sunshine Act suits due to their great costliness.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
In essence, the trial court assumed that KOKU was not substantially burdened by having to pay attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
s fees and that the expense of this litigation would not prevent KOKU from seeking such information or covering such newsworthy topics in the future.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 See Guam Radio Services, }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 CV2003-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Sept. 8, 1999).}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 The trial court met its duty by mentioning all of the four factors and explaining if it thought KOKU qualified under each one.}{
\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Even if we would have come to a different conclusion on some of the factors, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by deciding differently.}{\cs15\super\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
\chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid1140825 \chftn }{\insrsid1140825  }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 
In fact, we firmly disagree with the trial court}{\fs20\insrsid15729991 '}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 s ruling on the second and third factors of the FOIA attorney}{\fs20\insrsid15729991 '}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 
s fees provision.  Factors two and three of the four-pronged analysis are often considered together.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid1140825 Local 598,}{\fs20\insrsid1140825  841 F.2d at 1462; }{\i\fs20\insrsid1140825 Church of Scientology,}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 
 700 F.2d at 494; }{\i\fs20\insrsid1140825 see also Lovell, }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 630 F.2d at 432-33.  In the trial court}{\fs20\insrsid15729991 '}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 
s opinion, lawmakers did not have a news service like KOKU in mind when they determined who they wanted to reward for bringing claims under the Sunshine Act.  The trial court writes, }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 
Plaintiff herein is not an ordinary citizen. . .The Plaintiff also seeks the information for commercial gain. . . .It is not a watchdog group or similar type [of] non-profit organization.}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1140825   }{\i\fs20\insrsid1140825 Guam Radio Servs., Inc., }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 CV2003-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Sept. 8, 1999).  However, the }{\i\fs20\insrsid1140825 Local 598}{
\fs20\insrsid1140825  court stated:  }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 Inquiry into the }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 nature of interest}{\fs20\insrsid15729991 '}{\fs20\insrsid1140825  should lead the court to consider whether th
e claimant seeks to protect a private, purely commercial interest as opposed to a scholarly, }{\i\fs20\insrsid1140825 journalistic}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 , or public interest.}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1140825   }{\i\fs20\insrsid1140825 Local 598, }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 841 F.2d at 1462 (emphasis added) (citation omitted).  We believe a news radio program would fit under the journalistic exception.  In}{
\i\fs20\insrsid1140825  Nationwide Bldg., }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 the court specifically noted that when the Senate was defining these factors, it decided that }{\fs20\insrsid1140825 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 news interests should not be considered commercial interests.}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid1140825   }{\i\fs20\insrsid1140825 
Nationwide Bldg. ,}{\fs20\insrsid1140825 559 F.2d at 712.}}}{\insrsid5983243  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [13]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab Based upon the aforementioned discussion, we see no reason to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in determining attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees under the Sunshine Act.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Nothing in the trial court}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
s decision was completely wrong or obviously lacking as the abuse of discretion standard demands.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Nothing occurred in this case that was more egregious than in the comparable FOIA case
s which also usually uphold the trial court}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s findings.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 The trial court}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s reasoning does not reach the severely faulty terrain where we would reverse under this high standard.}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 CONCLUSION}{\b\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid5983243\charrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [14]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making its finding.}{\insrsid5983243  }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Therefore, the trial court}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s decision is}{\insrsid5983243  }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 AFFIRMED.}{\insrsid5983243  }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 The appellant shall receive no attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees for its suit despite having substantially prevailed in the outcome.}{\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 PETER C. SIGUENZA\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 BENJAMIN J.F. CRUZ}{\insrsid5983243 
\par }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Associate Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Chief Justice}{\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 LAMORENA, D.J.: CONCURRING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART:}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [15]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab I concur with the majority that the abuse of discretion standard protects lower court decisions from constant appellate oversight.}{\insrsid5983243  }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Trial court judges have broad discretion in determining whether plaintiffs deserve attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees under the Sunshine Act or FOIA.}{\insrsid5983243  }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Nevertheless, the trial court made a clear error in its judgment that even the abuse of discretion standard would not and should not allow this court to overlook.}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [16]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab The second factor in the fee provision analysis involves the commercial benefit to the complainant.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
The trial court asserted, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
[T]he Plaintiff herein is not an ordinary citizen. . . . The Plaintiff also seeks the information for commercial gain. . . .It is not a watchdog group or similar type [of] non-profit organization.}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Guam Radio Services v. Guam Economic Development Authority, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 CV2003-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Sept. 8, 1999).}{
\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 However, }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Nationwide Building Maintenance, Inc. v. Sampson }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
noted that when the Senate was defining these factors, it clearly decided that }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
news interests should not be considered commercial interests.}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
Nationwide Bldg. Maintenance, Inc. v. Sampson,}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 559 F.2d 704, 712 (D.C. Cir. 1977).}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [17]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab The third factor involves the nature of the complainant}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s interest in the records sought.}{\insrsid5983243 
 }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 The trial court maintained that: }{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [t]he Plaintiff possesses great bargaining power in its ability to shape the news it presents to the public.}{\insrsid5983243  }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Such power naturally would exert greater pressure on an agency than any threat of the payment of legal fees. . . .[KOKU] is in the business of gathering information and publicizing it for public consumption.}{
\insrsid5983243  
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid5983243 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Guam Radio Services}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 , CV2003-98 (Super. Ct. Guam Sept. 8, 1999).}{\insrsid5983243  }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Another court discussing FOIA}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fee provision stated:}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Inquiry into the }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
nature of interest}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  should lead the court to consider whether the claimant seeks to protect a private, purely commercial interest as opposed to a scholarly, }{
\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 journalistic}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 , or public interest.}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5983243  }{
\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 United Ass}{\i\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 n of Journeymen and Apprentices of}{\i\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus., Local 598 v. Dep}{\i\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 t of Army Corps of Eng}{\i\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 rs, }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 841 F.2d 1459, 1462 (9}{\super\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 th}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  Cir. 1988) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
A judge should consider the work of a news source as lying within the ambit of journalistic endeavors or the public interest, rather than having a private and commercial purpose.}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [18]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab Legislators included the aforementioned factors in the fees provision because they wanted judges to e
xclude those cases in which parties with definite pecuniary interests could have sought information without employing the Sunshine Act.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 See generally, Local 598, }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
841 F.2d at 1462.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Neither GEDA nor the trial court have pointed to anything to suggest that 
KOKU would receive some significant, financial gain from presenting this information on defaulted loans to the public.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
They do not explain how this news is more beneficial than any other newsworthy event.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 They do not show how coverage on this issue would
 place KOKU in a more advantageous position than its news-reporting peers or rivals.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
The trial court claimed that KOKU had great bargaining power to make agencies react, yet the facts in the case, and the fact that a case had to be filed at all, indicate that KOKU has no such exceptional influence.}{\insrsid5983243  }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 These important points should have been considered when the trial court conducted its analysis of the four factors.}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [19]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab While the majority chooses to mention this passively in a footnote, I believe these issues must be emphasized in this opinion.}{\insrsid5983243  }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Regardless of whether the four-factor analysis requires a balancing test or demands that all four factors be met, a trial court that misapplies two of the four factors has not conducted the analysis in 
a thorough and satisfactory manner.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Under the majority}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s decision, the appellate court would never reverse any trial court}{
\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s analysis which merely mentions all four factors. Through our review of this case, we should inform the parties and lower courts that the attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees provision requires a stricter analysis than that which the lower court conducted.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
By failing to make this conclusion, this court risks suggesting to the lower courts that they have absolute discretion with this section of the Sunshine Act.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 Therefore, I cannot join in with the majority
}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s unconditional affirmation of the trial court}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s decision.}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [20]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab In following several FOIA precedents, I believe that this court should remand this matter to the trial court.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
The court should order a reconsideration of the four factors with instructions that a news source would satisfy the second and third factors.}{\insrsid5983243  }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 
So long as the trial court follows our instructions on those two factors, it still has discretion on whether to grant KOKU attorney}{\insrsid15729991\charrsid5983243 '}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 s fees.}{\insrsid5983243  }{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 I would approve of any decision under the condition that the trial court apply each of the four factors }{\i\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 properly.}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 [21]}{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 \tab I, therefore, both }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 CONCUR IN PART }{\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 and }{\b\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 DISSENT IN PART}{
\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243  with the majority.}{\insrsid5983243 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5983243 {\insrsid1140825\charrsid5983243 ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III
\par Designated Justice
\par }}