Fortson, Bentley and Griffin, P.A.

ELBERT N. WHITMIRE, III, C.P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHRISTOPHER W. COLLINS

G. MARCUS HODGE (GA & SC) 2500 DANIELL'S BRIDGE ROAD EMILY K. ESCOE
BUILDING 200, SUITE 3A
DAVID K. LINDER LINDSEY B. WOODARD
ATHENS, GEORGIA 30606
ROY E. MANOLL III ABBEY J. DUH6

WALTER W. HAYS, JR. (706) 548-1 151 JOHNELLE SIMPSON, II

MICHAEL J. MCCLEARY

UPSHAW C. BENTLEY, JR.

V. KEVIN LANG
(1924 - 2013)
TREVOR T. JONES (GA & AL) EDWIN B. FORTSON

BRICKER S. DAUGHTRY (1913-2007)

JOHN E. GRIFFIN
DAVID F. ELLISON (1 923-2002)

WADE A. SCHUENEMAN HERBERT T. HUTTO

(1 933-1998)
GREGORY O. DEBACKER February 22, 2023
PARKER C. MORGAN

ELINORE R. YOUNG

VIA e-mail; dburkoff@huntermaclean.com

and First Class U.S. Mail
David M. Burkoff
Hunter MacLean
200 East Sant Julian Street
Savannah, Georgia 3141 2-0048

RE: Georgia Open Records Act Request

Dear Mr. Burkoff:

I am in receipt of your letter of February 13, 2023 in which you indicate that Camden
County Board of Commissioners are refusing to provide any of the records that I requested. In
your letter, you indicate that Camden County continues to take the position that the requested
records are exempt from disclosure under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(9) (the exception for pending
real estate transactions). You have also indicated that “certain” of the records may be exempt from
disclosure under O.C.G.A § 50-18-72(a)(l) (the exception from records that are protected from
disclosure under federal statute) and O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(25)(A) (exception for records that
must be kept confidential due to risks to national security, etc.). You also seem to indicate in your
letter that Camden County’s obligation to respond to my Georgia Open Record Act request is
somehow tied to the resolution of One Hundred Miles pending lawsuit against your client for
breach of the Georgia Open Record Act. I will address each of your arguments in turn:

1. Argument that Records are Exempt under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(9). The

basis for this exemption is that the County is either pursuing or has under contract a piece of real
estate. As you are aware, citizens in Camden County voted on March 8, 2022 by a 72% to 28%
margin to strip Camden County of its legal authority to purchase the Union Carbide property. The
County challenged the results of the special election all the way to the Georgia Supreme Court.
The Georgia Supreme unanimously upheld the results of the referendum. In other words, Camden
County is legally prohibited from purchasing the piece of real estate that you indicate serves as the
basis for their continued refusal to release records related to spaceport. Moreover, even if there
was still a pending real estate transaction, you and your client have abused this exception by
claiming that it applies to each and every record that in any way relates to the spaceport project.

01345258.1/011670-000004
Fortson, Bentley and Griffin
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

As I believe you know, this exception is only meant to protect information that, if disclosed, would
put Camden County in a competitively disadvantaged position to a private buyer.

2. Argument that Records are Exempt under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(l). You

indicate in your letter that “certain” of the records that I have requested are exempt from disclosure
under O.C.G.A. § 50-1 8-72(a)(l), which protects records that are specifically required to be kept
confidential by federal statute or regulation. First, it is worth noting that your client has the burden
of specifically identifying the records that they assert fall within this exception. Instead, you and
your client have categorially denied open records requests, indicating that you are doing so because
“certain” of the records may be exempt. This approach does not comply with the clear
requirements of the Georgia Open Records Act, which favors disclosure and does not provide for
such categorical denials. Second, the FAA has released thousands of pages of documents in
response to requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act. The records include
copies of Camden County’s application for a Launch Site Operator’s License (and all relevant
amendments thereto), letters exchanged between the FAA and Camden County and thousands of
emails exchanged between the FAA and representatives of Camden County and consultants
working for Camden County. The FAA made very precise redactions to some of these documents
to protect information that might be considered proprietary to commercial rocket companies. I am
very confident that none of the records that I have requested contain information that is protected
from disclosure by any federal statute or regulation. If I am wrong and some of the emails and
text messages contain material that is specifically protected from disclosure under federal statute
or regulation, your client has an obligation to redact that information and release all records that
do not contain such information.

At the February 21, 2023 meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Camden County, the
Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, Mr. Ben Casey, indicated in his remarks that the records
are protected from disclosure under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”). Do
you or your client really expect the public to believe that someone communicated to Camden
County information that is protected from further disclosure under ITAR? Camden County based
its application for a Launch Site Operator’s License on a “notional” rocket that does not exist. The
FAA has released every single submittal that Camden County provided to the FAA with very
limited redactions. I trust attorneys at United States Department of Justice to correctly apply ITAR
in responding to Freedom of Information Act Requests. Again, I doubt any of the correspondence
that I have requested even arguably contains information that could be protected by ITAR.

3. Argument that Records are Exempt under O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(a)(25)(A). I

assume the basis for this objection is that “certain” of the records that Camden County has in its
possession are protected by ITAR. For the reasons set about above, I believe that this objection is
made in bad faith.

4. Argument that One Hundred Miles Lawsuit Precludes Disclosure. If I

understand your letter correctly, you seem to say that the fact that One Hundred Miles has sued
Camden County for breach of the Georgia Open Records Act somehow impacts Camden County’s
obligation to respond to my Georgia Open Records Act request. Just to be clear, my request has
nothing to do with the requests that Camden County has received from One Hundred Miles. I am
not a party to that pending lawsuit. I am not certain how One Hundred Miles’ open records act

01345258.1/011670-000004
Fortson, Bentley and Griffin
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

requests or their pending lawsuit against Camden County for breaching the Georgia Open Records
Act has any relevance or applicability to Camden County’s obligation to produce records in
response to my request.

Please be advised I insist on strict compliance by Camden County with the requirements
of the Georgia Open Records Act. If there are particular records (specific text messages or emails)
that your client claims are exempt, your client has the burden of identifying those specific text
messages or emails and creating a log of such text messages or emails that includes the reason they
are exempt from disclosure. Your categorical denial of my request violates the clear terms of the
Georgia Open Records Act, and is indicative of a desperate attempt by Camden County to keep
these records out of the public domain. If I am forced to initiate a lawsuit against Camden County
to obtain these records, please be advised that I intend to seek costs and attorney’s fees incurred in
engaging local counsel to handle the matter.

Respectfully yours,

V. Kevin Lang

cc: Jennifer Colangelo

01345258.1/011670-000004