Background
Bryan Smith requested copies of judgments and certificates of service in 169 Bonneville County small-claims cases. The clerk charged him $352 under a 2017 local administrative order, including a $1-per-page digital-transmission charge and a $10 digital-media fee. Smith paid after his request for a reduction was denied.
Smith then sued the Bonneville County Clerk in the clerk’s official capacity, seeking a declaration that the charge violated Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32 and Idaho Code section 74-102(10), as well as damages. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the clerk had absolute quasi-judicial immunity and dismissed both claims without reaching whether the fee was proper.
The Court’s Holding
The Idaho Supreme Court reversed. Quasi-judicial immunity is a personal-liability defense available to officials sued in their individual capacities; it does not bar this official-capacity action against the county clerk. The district court therefore erred by dismissing the case on immunity grounds.
On the merits, the Court held that the 2017 administrative order conflicted with Rule 32(k)(6), which requires fees for non-paper copying to conform to Idaho Code section 74-102. The statute permits recovery of actual qualifying labor costs after the first two hours and direct electronic-copying costs. Based on the undisputed record, Smith should have paid $15.33 for 54 chargeable minutes of labor plus $6 for the USB drive, or $21.33 total. The Court directed the clerk to refund the $330.67 overcharge.
Key Takeaways
- Quasi-judicial immunity does not protect a clerk sued solely in an official capacity.
- Local court-record fee orders must conform to Idaho Code section 74-102 when Rule 32 requires it.
- A flat per-page digital fee cannot displace the statute’s actual-cost limits for electronic records.
Why It Matters
The decision establishes that Idaho court clerks cannot rely on outdated local administrative fee schedules that conflict with Rule 32 and the Public Records Act’s cost-based framework. It also confirms that official-capacity challenges to court-administration practices are not defeated by an official’s personal quasi-judicial immunity.