215 A.3d 812
Me.2019Background
- Blue Sky West owns a wind power project in Somerset County; Maine Revenue Services (MRS) requested valuation information under 36 M.R.S. § 706 in 2016 and 2017.
- In June 2016 SunEdison (Blue Sky’s then-parent) provided an itemized list of project costs to MRS (the “2016 records”) but did not label them confidential.
- In early 2017 Blue Sky provided additional, similar valuation records to MRS and clearly marked that submission “Confidential pursuant to 36 M.R.S. § 706” (the “2017 records”).
- Somerset County submitted FOAA requests to the Department of Administrative and Financial Services (DAFS) seeking MRS valuation records in Dec. 2016 and Oct. 2017; DAFS decided the 2016 records were disclosable but denied access to the 2017 records as statutorily confidential.
- Superior Court, on a stipulated record, found neither set were trade secrets but ruled (like DAFS) that the 2016 records were public (no statutory label at submission) and the 2017 records were confidential under § 706 (they were clearly labeled and constitute proprietary commercial/financial information).
- County appealed denial for the 2017 records; Blue Sky cross-appealed the grant as to the 2016 records. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 706 confidentiality protects records not labeled confidential at time of submission (2016 records) | Blue Sky: post-submission labeling to DAFS satisfies § 706; thus records confidential | DAFS/County: § 706 requires the taxpayer to "clearly label" information at time submitted to assessor; no retroactive labeling | Held: § 706 requires clear labeling when provided to assessor; failure to label at submission forecloses § 706 protection for 2016 records |
| Whether the 2016 records are protected as trade secrets | Blue Sky: itemized negotiated vendor pricing are trade secrets under UTSA/Spottiswoode factors | County/DAFS: records are general, limited, and lack necessary independent economic value/secrecy | Held: Not trade secrets; Blue Sky failed to meet burden to show independent economic value and sufficient secrecy |
| Whether the 2017 records qualify as "proprietary information" under § 706 (commercial/financial category) | County: Even if labeled, info is not "proprietary" because disclosure would not necessarily impair competitive position | Blue Sky/DAFS: itemized negotiated costs are commercial/financial and disclosure would impair competitive position and are not publicly available | Held: 2017 records are proprietary (production/commercial/financial) and disclosure would impair competitive position; thus confidential under § 706 |
| Whether redacted versions of the 2017 records should be provided | County: Request redacted copies so non-confidential portions are available | Blue Sky: Entire records fall within § 706 protection; redaction would remove all substantive content | Held: Section 706 protection covers all information in the 2017 records; redaction would yield no remaining information, so court did not order redacted production |
Key Cases Cited
- Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP v. State Tax Assessor, 86 A.3d 30 (Me. 2014) (statutory exceptions to FOAA construed strictly against nondisclosure)
- Anastos v. Town of Brunswick, 15 A.3d 1279 (Me. 2011) (interpretation of confidentiality statutes and labeling requirements distinguished)
- Bernier v. Merrill Air Eng’rs, 770 A.2d 97 (Me. 2001) (trade-secret definition is legal; factual determination required)
- Med. Mut. Ins. Co. of Me. v. Bureau of Ins., 866 A.2d 117 (Me. 2005) (use of UTSA factors in privilege/confidentiality contexts)
- Spottiswoode v. Levine, 730 A.2d 166 (Me. 1999) (factors for evaluating trade-secret/protective-order claims)
- Rose v. Parsons, 118 A.3d 220 (Me. 2015) (when stipulated record allows de novo factfinding by trial court)
- Warnquist v. State Tax Assessor, 201 A.3d 602 (Me. 2019) (standards for judicial review of tax-assessment-related agency action)
- Town of Burlington v. Hosp. Admin. Dist. No. 1, 769 A.2d 857 (Me. 2001) (trade-secret analysis guidance)
- Cates v. Donohue, 916 A.2d 941 (Me. 2007) (appellate review standard for factual findings)