I don't seek to give an opinion, this is pure curiosity. Are they just fishing to see what they find or do they have something specific they are trying to prove and get compensation or policy change through the courts?
The article doesn't get into enough specifics to indicate what type of argument S&W is trying to make leaving the reader only to guess at whether there is a solid case or just trying to make things difficult.
it's not that complicated:
1. The state makes restrictive laws re: guns
2. Anyone wanting to challenge these gun laws requires documentation that only the state can provide
3. The state gives you an outrageous bill for providing said documents
4. If there's no way to directly recoup the cost of that document request, it can discourage people who can barely afford a lawyer from bringing lawsuits pertaining to bad gun laws.
It's a financial firewall against lawsuits. WHY S&W is requesting the documents should not enter into the inflated cost estimate for producing the information. It should be the same for a high school social science project as it is for a gun manufacturer seeking the same data.
In today's electronic data world of miracles performed by computers, I find it unimaginable that they need lawyers charging $27K for information that is "publicly available."
The AG’s office wanted as much as $27,000 for the records requested by the gun
manufacturer and said it would take attorneys hundreds of hours to complete the
request, the company says in a civil lawsuit filed Monday. The lawsuit says Smith &
Wesson filed similar records requests in other states, but has not faced the same
barriers to access.
“It appears to the client and it appears to us that the amount of time the state is
claiming, and therefore the amount of fees, is an effort to discourage the public
records request,” attorney Jeff Portnoy, who is representing Smith & Wesson, said.
Sounds pretty cut and dried to me.