Anastos v. Town of Brunswick
15 A.3d 1279
| Me. | 2011Background
- In January 2007, Brunswick entered a joint development agreement with JHR to develop a mixed-use project including a 54-room inn.
- JHR commissioned a feasibility study to assess inn viability and to aid private financing.
- In Jan 2010, Town requested a copy of the study from JHR for evaluating a tax increment financing (TIF) and JHR provided it.
- On Feb 19, 2010, Anastos requested the study; Town discussed it with JHR and decided not to disclose, citing confidentiality under 5 M.R.S. § 13119-A and trade-secret protection under 1 M.R.S. § 402(3)(B).
- Anastos filed suit seeking release of the study; Town submitted the study under seal; Superior Court granted summary judgment finding the study exempt under § 13119-A(1); Anastos appealed.
- Court affirmed, holding the study fell within the confidential, proprietary information exception and could not be redacted without undermining the integrated work product protected by the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the FOAA exemption apply to the JHR feasibility study? | Anastos contends the study is not proprietary information and should be released. | Town maintains the study is proprietary and exempt under 5 M.R.S. § 13119-A(1). | Yes; the study falls within the § 13119-A(1) exemption. |
| Is post-submission designation of confidentiality sufficient under § 13119-A(1)(A)? | JHR’s later designation should not suffice. | Designation need not occur at submission; later designation is sufficient. | Sufficient; designation at submission is not required. |
| Can the entire study be exempt or must it be redacted? | Only confidential portions should be withheld. | The document is an integrated work product; redaction is not feasible. | Entire document exempt; redaction unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Burlington v. Hosp. Admin. Dist. No. 1, 2001 ME 59 (Me. 2001) (agency bears burden to show proper FOAA denial; liberal construction of statute with narrow exceptions)
- Guy Gannett Publ'g Co. v. Univ. of Me., 555 A.2d 470 (Me. 1989) (strict construction of exceptions to disclosure)
- Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 2000 ME 126 (Me. 2000) (redaction rules when feasible; integrated work product may be exempt)
- Boyle v. Div. of Cmty. Servs., 592 A.2d 489 (Me. 1991) (in camera review; disclosure depends on nature of information as a whole)
- Town of Burlington v. Hosp. Admin. Dist. No. 1, 2001 ME 59 (Me. 2001) (reiterates burden and construction principles)