OpenAI Data Center Plaintiffs Ask Judge to Void Land Deal

SPRINGFIELD, Ga. — A group opposing the proposed OpenAI data center in Effingham County is asking Superior Court Judge Michael Muldrew to rule in its favor without a trial. The group says the Effingham County Industrial Development Authority broke state laws that require government meetings and records to be open to the public.

In a motion filed Oct. 27 in Effingham County Superior Court, the plaintiffs ask the judge to cancel agreements connected to the project. They say the authority did not give the public enough notice of a meeting, discussed an agreement in a closed meeting and failed to provide land-sale agreements in response to requests for public records.

The motion asks for a summary judgment. This allows a judge to decide a case without a trial if the legal requirements are met. The motion presents the plaintiffs' arguments; it is not a court ruling.

The Herald asked the Effingham County Industrial Development Authority and Oliver Maner LLP for comment. Oliver Maner LLP represents Octans GA LLC, an OpenAI affiliate named as a defendant in the case. Neither had responded by the time this story was published. The story will be updated if they respond.

William Snow, a lawyer with the Southern Environmental Law Center who represents the plaintiffs, said the motion gives more details and evidence to support arguments they had already made in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs are One Hundred Miles Inc., Amy Collins, Robert Collins, Elizabeth Fisher, Crystal Hayes and Manjusha Sheobaran. They say the authority broke Georgia's Open Meetings Act and Open Records Act. They want the judge to rule that the agreements connected to the land sale and data center project are not legally valid.

If the judge agrees, the ruling could cancel agreements connected to the land sale. However, the motion alone does not stop the data center project or cancel other approvals.

Questions about public notice

The plaintiffs say the authority broke Georgia's Open Meetings Act in connection with a meeting held July 21.

According to their legal filing, the authority first scheduled its regular meeting for July 16, then moved it to July 21. Georgia law requires the schedules for regular meetings to be posted at least one week in advance. For other meetings, the law generally requires at least 24 hours' notice to the county's legal newspaper or another newspaper that meets the law's requirements.

The plaintiffs say the Effingham Herald was told about the change on July 16, and the updated meeting notice was posted only five days before the meeting. They also say the authority did not update its website to show the new date.

Snow said the law's seven-day notice rule is clear.

“The Georgia Open Meetings Act sets very clear requirements for the amount of time that must be provided for notice before a public meeting,” Snow said. “There are no great secrets about the requirements the development authority had to adhere to. And it’s also no secret that they did not meet those requirements.”

Snow said a judge should be able to decide the notice issue without much difficulty.

The plaintiffs also argue that the meeting agenda did not clearly tell the public that the authority would discuss the proposed OpenAI data center. According to the filing, the project was listed under the code name “Project Gateway.”

The plaintiffs' legal filing says the authority discussed the agreement behind closed doors for more than an hour. The agreement set out the terms of the proposed data center project.

The plaintiffs say the law allowing some private discussions about real estate did not apply because the agreement was not itself a contract to buy, sell or lease property.

According to the plaintiffs' filing, the agreement included nearly $900 million in tax breaks in exchange for promises to invest money and create jobs.

Challenges to the land agreements

The plaintiffs also challenge how agreements involving about 1,440 acres of land for the project were handled.

According to the legal filing, land-sale agreements were signed on May 14 and July 7 through Savannah Industrial Development LLC, which acted on behalf of the authority.

Snow said Savannah Industrial Development has acted as the authority's representative under an agreement dating back to 2016. That agreement allows the private company to sign documents and conduct business on the authority's behalf.

The plaintiffs argue that using a private representative did not free the authority from state laws requiring open government.

The plaintiffs say that at the July 21 meeting, the authority gave its chief executive officer permission to sign documents transferring the land. They say the authority did this without publicly identifying the property or explaining the sale's terms.

According to the filing, the land was transferred on July 24.

The plaintiffs argue that the authority broke the Open Meetings Act because the public was not given a chance to learn about or observe the decisions related to the sale.

Dispute over public records

The lawsuit also claims that the authority violated Georgia's Open Records Act.

The plaintiffs say their lawyers requested copies of the land-sale agreements on Aug. 18, Aug. 26 and Aug. 31. According to the legal filing, the authority said the documents were held by its private representative, which refused to provide them.

The plaintiffs argue that the authority was still responsible for getting and releasing public records about its work, even if its representative held those records. They are asking the court to order the authority to release the agreements.

“Really all that the plaintiffs are asking for is that the development authority be held accountable for not doing the public’s business out before the public’s eye,” Snow said.

What happens next

The plaintiffs are asking the court to decide their claims without a trial. They argue that the facts are not in dispute and that the law supports their position.

The authority and Octans GA LLC have a chance to respond to the plaintiffs' arguments.

Snow said the defendants' response to the request for summary judgment is separate from their response to the original lawsuit. The defendants received an extension until Nov. 12 to respond to the original complaint.

Asking a judge to rule without a trial does not mean the judge agrees with the plaintiffs. Depending on the evidence, the law and both sides' arguments, the court could approve or reject the request in full or in part.

This is the second lawsuit filed in Effingham County Superior Court over actions connected to Project Camellia. In September, three county residents sued to overturn a zoning rule approved on Aug. 4 that allows data centers in industrial areas. They say the county failed to hold public hearings required by its zoning rules and state law. The earlier lawsuit focuses on the county's zoning process. This case instead challenges how the Industrial Development Authority handled the land sale and related agreements.