Arkansas Department of Correction v. Shults
2017 Ark. 300
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Steven Shults submitted an AFOIA request seeking records about midazolam in ADC’s possession, including package inserts and labels; ADC disclosed acquisition but withheld labels/inserts.
- ADC refused disclosure claiming the Method of Execution Act (MEA) makes information that could identify sellers/suppliers (and thus manufacturers) confidential.
- ADC submitted an affidavit (Rory Griffin) asserting that redacted labels/inserts can still identify manufacturers by unique formatting and that lot/batch/control numbers allow tracing through the distribution chain.
- Circuit court denied ADC’s motion to dismiss and ordered production of unredacted labels/inserts, finding manufacturers’ identities are not protected and there was no evidence labels would identify sellers/suppliers.
- ADC appealed; this Court stayed the order, reviewed statutory interpretation de novo, and considered whether MEA protects manufacturers and whether lot/batch/control numbers must be redacted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shults) | Defendant's Argument (ADC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MEA confidentiality for entities who “compound, test, sell, or supply” includes manufacturers | MEA does not protect manufacturers; statute expressly references "manufacturer" elsewhere, so manufacturers are not within "seller"/"supplier" protections | Manufacturers are sellers/suppliers in ordinary meaning; excluding them conflicts with legislative purpose to protect supply chain | Court: Manufacturers are not protected by MEA confidentiality; affirm circuit court on this point |
| Whether ADC must redact information that could identify sellers/suppliers (e.g., lot, batch, control numbers) before disclosure under §5‑4‑617(j) | Shults argued ADC did not show labels/inserts would identify sellers/suppliers; circuit court found no facts proving identification risk | ADC provided unrefuted affidavit and FDA regulatory support that lot/batch numbers can trace distribution to sellers/suppliers; therefore such info must be redacted | Court: Lot/batch/control numbers (and other information that could lead to identifying sellers/suppliers) must be redacted; reversed portion ordering unredacted disclosure and remanded to determine specific redactions |
| Proper reading of §5‑4‑617(j)(1) requiring disclosure of package inserts/labels for FDA‑approved manufacturers | Public has right to verify ADC used FDA‑approved manufacturers; subsection mandates disclosure with redaction of identifying info | ADC argued practical impossibility of redaction because labels/inserts may uniquely identify manufacturers; thus nondisclosure complies with MEA confidentiality | Court: Subsection (j)(1) must be given effect; cannot read manufacturers into confidentiality clause so as to nullify mandated disclosure; but redaction required where info would identify protected sellers/suppliers |
| Standard of proof for exemption from AFOIA and circuit court’s treatment of affidavit evidence | Shults contended ADC failed to prove exemption and circuit court trusted that lack of compelling evidence | ADC argued affidavit evidence was unrebutted and justified redactions/nondisclosure of identifying data | Court: Affidavit evidence that lot/batch numbers can identify sellers/suppliers was unrebutted — circuit court erred in refusing redaction on that basis; remand to specify redactions |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Ark. State Police v. Keech Law Firm, P.A., 516 S.W.3d 265 (Ark. 2017) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Hendrix v. Alcoa, Inc., 506 S.W.3d 230 (Ark. 2016) (appellate acceptance of trial court interpretation absent showing of error)
- Keep Our Dollars in Independence Cnty. v. Mitchell, 518 S.W.3d 64 (Ark. 2017) (give effect to legislative intent; construe statute by ordinary meaning)
- Dickinson v. SunTrust Nat’l Mortg. Inc., 451 S.W.3d 576 (Ark. 2014) (ambiguous statutes construed by examining whole act and reconciling provisions)
- Scoggins v. Medlock, 381 S.W.3d 781 (Ark. 2011) (court will not read language into statute that legislature omitted)
- Young v. Bice, 826 S.W.2d 252 (Ark. 1992) (keeper of records bears burden to prove exemption from disclosure)