A $250,000 suit filed against the City of Richmond by former employee Connie Clay is set to be heard in a jury trial next September, following a contentious hearing over the current state of the case Friday.

Clay, an ex-Freedom of Information Act officer and public information manager, is suing the city and former city spokesperson Petula Burks, alleging in her complaint a “chaotic and mismanaged” process for handling FOIA requests that violated state law.

Virginia’s FOIA law ensures public access to government records, requiring agencies to respond to information requests within five business days, with the option to request  a seven-day extension. Agencies may charge reasonable costs for processing these requests.

Clay alleges the city’s FOIA processes led to her being sued twice, citing city interference and instruction as primary causes of delayed or ignored records requests. She claims city officials disregarded her concerns about the FOIA process and office.

She was fired from her position on Jan. 19, allegedly for “retaliation for reporting and refusing to engage in illegal and unethical activities in violation of FOIA.”

A major focus during the hearing was how essential documents mentioned in the complaint, including texts messages between Clay and Burks and a memo from Clay on issues with the FOIA process, were to the suit.

Attorney Alicia Johnson, representing the City alongside Jimmy Robinson Jr., argued that the documents’ mention in Clay’s complaint meant they had to be added to the record before the suit could move forward.

“Because it is an integral part of the complaint, she should be required to tender that document,” Johnson said. Clay’s attorney, Sarah Robb, pushed back on this argument, pointing out that the city would already have access to these documents, and that they would have become part of the suit during the discovery period of the case.

“This is an attempt to have discovery prior to discovery,” Robb said.

Judge Claire Cardwell denied the motion that would require Robb to add the documents to the suit. Cardwell, however, was not satisfied with how either side handled the hearing and the disagreements that occurred throughout, including over when the trial would be held.

“This back and forth is not necessary,” Cardwell said. 

The trial is set for Sept. 23-25 of next year, following a hearing on a motion to dismiss the case on Jan. 29.