301 A.3d 201
Md.2023Background
- The Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) permits custodians to charge reasonable fees to search/prepare records and to waive fees if doing so is "in the public interest" after considering ability to pay and other relevant factors (GP § 4-206(e)).
- Open Justice Baltimore (OJB), a nonprofit public-interest organization, requested thousands of Baltimore Police Department (BPD) use-of-force and SIRT investigation files; BPD estimated production costs at ≈ $245,000 for ~2,337 files and was asked to waive fees.
- BPD denied the fee-waiver request without explaining specific concerns to OJB; BPD cited redundancy, heavy redactions (clarity), cost, and staffing burdens among its rationales.
- OJB sued in circuit court; the circuit court upheld BPD’s denial. The Appellate Court reversed, holding the denial arbitrary and capricious for failing to consider whether disclosure would shed light on public controversy.
- The Supreme Court of Maryland held that custodians have discretion to identify and weigh relevant factors (beyond ability to pay and public benefit), but if the custodian determines a (partial or full) waiver would be in the public interest, the custodian must grant it; judicial review of denial is for arbitrariness and caprice.
- Applying that standard, the Court found BPD’s denial arbitrary and capricious for failing to consider whether disclosure would illuminate a public controversy or whether denying the waiver would exacerbate perceptions of non‑transparency; it remanded for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of custodian discretion under GP § 4-206(e) | Custodian has little discretion; if disclosure is in public interest, waiver must follow | Custodian has broad discretion: choose relevant factors, balance them, and may still deny after finding public benefit | Custodian may pick and weigh relevant factors (including ability to pay and public benefit); but once custodian determines waiver (full/partial) would be in public interest, it must grant it (no further discretion to deny) |
| Standard of review for denial of fee waiver | De novo review (court should independently decide public‑interest question) | Arbitrary and capricious (deferential review) | Arbitrary and capricious standard applies to MPIA fee‑waiver denials |
| Whether BPD’s denial of OJB’s fee waiver was lawful | Denial was arbitrary; records clearly serve public interest and OJB cannot pay | Denial was reasonable: considered cost, staffing, redundancy, clarity, and OJB’s vague purpose | Denial was arbitrary and capricious: BPD misapplied/missed factors (failed to consider whether disclosure would shed light on public controversy or whether denial would worsen perception of secrecy) |
| Remedy for arbitrary denial | Order agency to waive fees | Remand to agency to reconsider | Remand for BPD to reconsider public‑interest determination, weigh all relevant factors, and provide written explanation; encourage collaboration and Ombudsman assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Baltimore Action Legal Team v. Office of State’s Attorney of Baltimore City, 253 Md. App. 360 (Md. App. 2021) (App. Ct. held fee‑waiver denial arbitrary where agency failed to consider whether disclosure would shed light on a public controversy)
- Action Committee for Transit, Inc. v. Town of Chevy Chase, 229 Md. App. 540 (Md. App. 2016) (discussed relevant factors for public‑interest fee waivers, including public controversy and effect of imposing fees)
- Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Burke, 67 Md. App. 147 (Md. App. 1986) (agency’s denial arbitrary where it considered only production expense and not public benefit)
- Maryland Small MS4 Coalition v. Maryland Dep’t of the Env’t, 479 Md. 1 (Md. 2022) (describing arbitrary and capricious standard as deferential for matters committed to agency discretion)
- Washington Suburban Sanitary Comm’n v. LaFarge, 443 Md. 265 (Md. 2015) (framework for remand and limits on courts substituting de novo administrative judgments)
- Glass v. Anne Arundel County, 453 Md. 201 (Md. 2017) (advising collaborative refinement between requestors and custodians under the PIA)