175 A.3d 660
Me.2017Background
- In Sept. 2015 Anctil requested, under Maine FOAA, records concerning complaints/charges against ~30 Department of Corrections employees; the Department produced 16 documents with redactions.
- Anctil challenged redactions in documents labeled PRODUCED0001, 0005, 0006, 0007, and 0012; the Superior Court conducted in camera review and upheld the redactions as authorized by statute and "for just and proper cause."
- Anctil appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court arguing the redactions were improper; the appeal required statutory interpretation of FOAA exceptions (5 M.R.S. § 7070 and 34-A M.R.S. § 1216).
- The Court reviewed statutory exceptions de novo and applied the rule that FOAA exceptions are construed strictly to favor disclosure.
- The Court affirmed the redactions in documents 0005 and 0012, vacated and remanded as to portions of 0001 and all of 0007, and treated 0006 as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether redactions in disciplinary final written decision (0001) were lawful under personnel-records exception (5 M.R.S. § 7070(2)(E)) | Anctil: final written decision is public once it "imposes or upholds discipline," so most of 0001 must be disclosed | DOC: redactions allowed to protect names/allegations of other employees and confidential details | Court: Partially reversed — disclosure required for portions describing discipline and conduct leading to discipline; narrow redaction limited to names of non-disciplined employees only |
| Whether redaction of officer name in investigatory material (0007) fits personnel-records exception | Anctil: FOAA requires disclosure; no statutory exception for victim/accuser name here | DOC: argued §7070 permits redaction of victim/accuser and referenced other subsections | Court: Reversed — §7070(2)(E) does not authorize redaction of the officer’s name here; must disclose |
| Whether redaction in Department report (0005) is permitted under confidential-department-records exception (34-A M.R.S. § 1216(1)) | Anctil: FOAA favors disclosure; may challenge confidentiality | DOC: redaction protects name of person receiving services and facts in department report | Court: Affirmed — §1216(1) makes those names/facts confidential and redaction was proper |
| Whether any challenged redactions were moot (0006) | Anctil: challenged redaction | DOC: conceded moot because name appears elsewhere unredacted | Court: Moot — no need to address 0006 |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes Bros. v. Town of Eddington, 130 A.3d 978 (Me. 2016) (standard of review and statutory interpretation rules for FOAA)
- Doyle v. Town of Falmouth, 106 A.3d 1145 (Me. 2014) (FOAA exceptions are strictly construed to promote disclosure)
- Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP v. State Tax Assessor, 86 A.3d 30 (Me. 2014) (agency bears burden to justify denial of FOAA request)
- McGettigan v. Town of Freeport, 39 A.3d 48 (Me. 2012) (mootness doctrine where no real controversy)