Amster v. Baker
453 Md. 68
Md.2017Background
- Calvert Tract, a private developer, voluntarily provided a redacted Whole Foods lease to Prince George’s County during zoning review for a mixed-use project; petitioner Amster requested the lease under the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA).
- County and Calvert Tract refused disclosure, claiming the MPIA’s confidential commercial information exemption; Calvert Tract submitted a conclusory affidavit asserting confidentiality and that it does not customarily disclose leases.
- The circuit court applied the D.C. Circuit’s Critical Mass test and granted summary judgment for respondents; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
- Petitioner appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals, arguing Critical Mass was inapplicable and that the trial court failed to determine what portions (if any) of the lease were nonconfidential.
- The Court of Appeals adopted the Critical Mass voluntary-submission test for the MPIA, but held respondents failed to carry their burden to show the entire lease was exempt and remanded for further factual inquiry (Vaughn index, in camera review, or similar).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Amster) | Defendant's Argument (County/Calvert Tract) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Critical Mass test governs confidentiality under MPIA when information was voluntarily provided to government | Critical Mass should not apply; MPIA differs from FOIA and court should assess confidentiality without focusing on whether source customarily releases the information | Critical Mass applies to voluntary submissions and supports withholding | Court adopted Critical Mass: information is confidential if the source "would customarily not be released to the public" |
| Whether respondents met their burden to show the entire lease is exempt | Requested that nonconfidential portions be disclosed; argued summary judgment inappropriate absent detailed review | Argued no material factual dispute and no need for detailed inquiry or in camera review | Court held respondents failed their burden; remanded for further factual findings and directed methods (Vaughn index, in camera review, or detailed affidavits) |
| Whether prior public disclosures by the submitter defeat confidentiality | Amster argued portions already public (e.g., timeline statements) and therefore not exempt | Respondents contended public disclosures by submitter don’t necessarily waive exemption | Court held if information is already in the public domain by the submitter, it cannot be claimed confidential under Critical Mass/MPIA |
| Standard of appellate review for summary judgment in MPIA cases | Amster urged de novo review | Respondents favored more limited, deferential review | Court adopted de novo review for summary judgment in MPIA cases |
Key Cases Cited
- Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 975 F.2d 871 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (adopted test: volunteered information is confidential if the source "would customarily not be released to the public")
- National Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (two-part test for compelled submissions: government impact or competitive harm)
- Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (FOIA protects information, not whole documents; reasonably segregable nonexempt portions must be disclosed)
- Cranford v. Montgomery County, 300 Md. 759 (1984) (trial court must either conduct in camera review or require detailed descriptions/Vaughn-style index when custodian withholds records)
- Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (agency must provide sufficiently detailed index or descriptions to justify withholding; prompted use of Vaughn index)
- CNA Fin. Corp. v. Donovan, 830 F.2d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (information already in public domain cannot be claimed confidential under FOIA)