Page:Taylor-Travis v. Jackson State University (17-60856) (2021) Opinion.pdf/13

 institutions … having general … social or similar public interest … cannot complain when he is given publicity that he has sought.” Further, “publicity to information concerning either voluntary or involuntary public figures is not limited to the particular events that arouse the interest of the public.” That interest can extend “to further information concerning the individual and to facts about him, which are not public and which, in the case of one who had not become a public figure, would be regarded as an invasion of his purely private life.” This case fits clearly within that realm. Taylor admitted that as a head coach at a major public university, she was in the public eye. The public’s interest extends to the reason for her termination.

The Second Restatement also provides that “matters of the kind customarily regarded as ‘news’” are within the scope of legitimate public concern. Once again, Taylor admitted that the media had an interest in the events surrounding her termination. She stated that it is the media’s responsibility “to report [on] any sports or activities … going on” at Mississippi universities. When asked if her termination was a matter of public interest, she answered, “Correct.” We agree.

The district court determined that the information released by Jackson State was of interest to the public but was not a matter of legitimate concern. The court concluded that the documents fell within the Mississippi Public Records Act’s exception for “personnel records” and that Jackson State violated