Well, not really.
Although a judge dismissed a suit the Capital Times brought against the Doyle administration for the governor's refusal to release records in a timely matter, nobody disputed the idea that the governor is obligated to provide records to the press as soon as possible. It seems the Times lost on a technicality. The state argued the paper did not have standing to sue because they brought the suit after the governor had finally released the records, rather than before.
I'm no lawyer, but I am familiar enough with U.S. law to know that plaintiffs must have standing (have an interest, be a victim etc.) to sue. The Times should have sued while the governor's office was still stonewalling. That way, the judge could have ruled in their favor and forced the governor to give them the records. After the fact the judge can't do anything to punish the governor could he issue him a "strongly-worded reprimand"?
Lawyerly reasoning aside, it's troubling that there aren't legal clear incentives for governors to release records as the law requires they do. The Doyle administration made the cynical decision to withhold until as late as possible, to invest time and money into a legal battle.
Can the courts do anything to prevent such antics? It doesn't appear so. I wish the legislature would get more involved. It would be great if lawmakers pushed to censure the administration, but you can count the Democrats out on that one. It would be thoroughly amusing if the Republicans were the ones to come out on the Cap Times.