214 So. 3d 208
Miss.2017Background
- In 2006 BellSouth obtained a chancery-court protective order shielding from disclosure an August 2005 proposal to the Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services (ITS), the resulting November 2005 Telecommunications Products and Service Agreement, related correspondence, and marketing materials.
- In 2015 the Legislature amended the Mississippi Public Records Act: §25-61-9(7) made certain procurement-contract terms (commodities/services, price, term) non-confidential; §25-1-100(5) declared contracts for personal and professional services executed by state agencies not exempt from the Public Records Act.
- CellularSouth filed a petition to revoke the 2006 protective order and compel production under the amended Public Records Act.
- BellSouth argued §25-61-11 (which bars construing the chapter to conflict with or supersede any judicial decision that declares a record confidential) shields the 2006 order from the 2015 statutory amendments.
- The chancery court agreed with BellSouth and denied revocation; the Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed whether §25-61-11 precludes application of the 2015 amendments and whether the amendments apply to the contract/proposal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §25-61-11 prevents the 2015 amendments from overriding the 2006 protective order | CellularSouth: §25-61-11 protects only laws/orders in existence when the Public Records Act was enacted (1983); does not immunize later court orders from subsequent statutory change | BellSouth: §25-61-11 means the chapter cannot be construed to conflict with or repeal any court decision "at the time of this chapter or thereafter," so the 2006 order is immune from later statutory amendments | Court: §25-61-11 does not shelter the 2006 order from the 2015 amendments; CellularSouth reading harmonizes the Act and avoids a conflict with legislative intent |
| Whether §25-61-9(7) (2015) renders procurement-contract terms subject to public disclosure | CellularSouth: §25-61-9(7) removes trade-secret/confidential status from specified procurement-contract terms, making them producible | BellSouth: The protective order and §25-61-11 bar §25-61-9(7) from applying | Court: §25-61-9(7) may apply; trial court must examine documents on remand to determine if they fall within §25-61-9(7)’s scope |
| Whether §25-1-100(5) (2015) makes ITS contracts for personal/professional services non-exempt | CellularSouth: The amended §25-1-100(5) plainly makes such contracts subject to the Public Records Act | BellSouth: The amendment is prospective only or otherwise does not reach this contract | Court: Whether the contract is for "personal and professional services" is a factual question the trial court must decide on remand; if it is, §25-1-100(5) applies |
| Whether the 2015 amendments apply retroactively to defeat the 2006 protective order | BellSouth: Statutes presumptively prospective; the amendments should not be applied retroactively to an existing protective order | CellularSouth: Where rights at issue are created solely by statute (the Public Records Act), a modifying statute governs absent a saving clause or vested right | Court: The amendments apply; the Public Records Act creates the public’s right to access, and no saving clause or vested right protects the 2006 order here |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Indep. Linen Serv. Co., 55 So.2d 165 (Miss. 1951) (amendment of statute governing rights created solely by that statute operates as if the statute always read as amended absent a saving clause)
- Boston v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 822 So.2d 239 (Miss. 2002) (presumption statutes operate prospectively unless legislature clearly indicates retroactive intent)
- Hudson v. Moon, 732 So.2d 927 (Miss. 1999) (application of amended statutes may be limited where vested rights exist)
- Tellus Operating Group, LLC v. Maxwell Energy, Inc., 156 So.3d 255 (Miss. 2015) (statute is ambiguous when open to two or more reasonable interpretations)
- Owens Corning v. Miss. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 947 So.2d 944 (Miss. 2007) (statutes within an act should be harmonized)
- Crow v. Cartledge, 54 So. 947 (Miss. 1911) (repealing statute abrogates prior statute as if it never existed, except for suits commenced and concluded while in force)