Ark. Dep't of Corr. v. Shults, 541 S.W.3d 410

In early 2017, Steven Shults requested under FOIA the ADC's package inserts and labels for potassium chloride (a drug in Arkansas's execution protocol); ADC refused, citing confidentiality under the Method of Execution Act (MEA), Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-617.
ADC produced records confirming acquisition of 100 vials but withheld unredacted labels/inserts, arguing they would identify sellers/suppliers; ADC also submitted an affidavit claiming redacted labels could still reveal manufacturers due to unique formatting.
Circuit court ordered disclosure of unredacted potassium chloride labels and inserts; ADC appealed and obtained an emergency stay.
This appeal follows a companion case about midazolam (Ark. Dep't of Corr. v. Shults, 2017 Ark. 300, 529 S.W.3d 628), where this Court held manufacturers are not protected by MEA confidentiality but remanded to identify required redactions (e.g., lot/batch numbers).
The present Court applies Shults I, affirming that manufacturers are not protected entities under § 5-4-617, but reverses the order to disclose unredacted labels and remands to identify information (e.g., lot/batch/control numbers) that must be redacted to protect sellers/suppliers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the MEA protects the identity of drug manufacturers from FOIA disclosure	Shults: MEA does not shield manufacturers; FOIA access should be allowed	ADC: Labels/inserts identify manufacturers and thus are confidential under MEA	Court: Manufacturers are not covered by MEA confidentiality (affirms Shults I)
Whether ADC must redact information (lot/batch/control numbers) that could identify sellers/suppliers before disclosure	Shults: Seeks unredacted labels/inserts	ADC: Lot/batch/control numbers could identify sellers/suppliers and must be kept confidential	Court: ADC must redact information that could lead to identifying sellers/suppliers (reverse part of circuit court order; remand to specify redactions)
Scope of required disclosure under FOIA given MEA's confidentiality carve-outs	Shults: FOIA favors disclosure; exemptions construed narrowly	ADC: MEA permits withholding to protect chain-of-distribution confidentiality; unredacted disclosure risks identifying suppliers	Court: FOIA disclosure permitted except for information that could identify sellers/suppliers; apply narrow exemptions and redact accordingly

Ark. Dep't of Corr. v. Shults, 2017 Ark. 300, 529 S.W.3d 628 (Ark. 2017) (held manufacturers not protected by MEA; remanded to determine redactions)
Dep't of Ark. State Police v. Keech Law Firm, P.A., 2017 Ark. 143, 516 S.W.3d 265 (Ark. 2017) (statutory interpretation and liberal construction of FOIA)
Keep Our Dollars in Independence Cty. v. Mitchell, 2017 Ark. 154, 518 S.W.3d 64 (Ark. 2017) (do not read omitted language into statute; reconcile statutory text)
Ark. State Police v. Wren, 2016 Ark. 188, 491 S.W.3d 124 (Ark. 2016) (exemptions to FOIA construed narrowly)
Scoggins v. Medlock, 2011 Ark. 194, 381 S.W.3d 781 (Ark. 2011) (statutory construction principles)
Potter v. City of Tontitown, 371 Ark. 200, 264 S.W.3d 473 (Ark. 2007) (courts will not add language to statutes)