175 A.3d 660
Me.2017Background
- In Sept. 2015 Anctil requested, under Maine FOAA, records concerning complaints/charges that resulted in disciplinary action for ~30 DOC employees. The Department produced 16 documents with redactions.
- Anctil challenged redactions to several produced documents (0001, 0005, 0006, 0007, 0012) in Superior Court; the court upheld the redactions after in camera review.
- Anctil appealed to the Law Court contesting the propriety of the redactions. The appeal addressed statutory confidentiality exceptions in 5 M.R.S. § 7070 (personnel records) and 34‑A M.R.S. § 1216 (confidential department records).
- The Law Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and strict construction of FOAA exceptions. Factual findings reviewed for clear error.
- The Court found some redactions proper and some improper: it affirmed redactions in documents 0005, 0006, and 0012, and vacated as to document 0007 and specified portions of 0001, remanding for disclosure of those parts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether redactions in document 0001 (final written decision) were permitted under 5 M.R.S. § 7070(2)(E) | Anctil: Entire redaction improper; final written decision that imposes/upholds discipline is public, so most content must be disclosed | DOC: Redaction necessary to hide names/allegations about other employees not subject to discipline | Partial disclosure required: redaction exceeded statute. Names of non‑disciplined employees may be redacted, but the remainder of the decision describing disciplinary basis must be disclosed |
| Whether redaction in document 0007 (accuser/victim name) was permitted under 5 M.R.S. § 7070(2)(E) | Anctil: Victim/accuser name must be disclosed absent statutory confidentiality | DOC: Permitted to redact the officer’s name as the person making the accusation or victim | Held improper: § 7070(2)(E) does not authorize redacting the victim/accuser name; disclosure ordered |
| Whether redaction in document 0012 (portion of a final decision) was permitted under § 7070(2)(E) | Anctil: Claimed redaction was improper | DOC: Redacted portion did not impose/uphold discipline and thus remained confidential | Affirmed: redaction permissible because the redacted portion of the final decision did not impose or uphold discipline |
| Whether redaction in document 0005 (report naming a person receiving services) was authorized by 34‑A M.R.S. § 1216 | Anctil: Name should be public under FOAA | DOC: § 1216(1) requires confidentiality for facts in reports pertaining to persons receiving services | Affirmed: redaction permissible because it contained the name/facts of a person receiving services and thus is confidential under § 1216(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes Bros. v. Town of Eddington, 130 A.3d 978 (Me. 2016) (standard of review and plain‑meaning statutory interpretation)
- Doyle v. Town of Falmouth, 106 A.3d 1145 (Me. 2014) (exceptions to FOAA strictly construed)
- Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP v. State Tax Assessor, 86 A.3d 30 (Me. 2014) (agency bears burden to show just and proper cause for denial)
- McGettigan v. Town of Freeport, 39 A.3d 48 (Me. 2012) (mootness where no real and substantial controversy)