468 P.3d 980
Or. Ct. App.2020Background
- Bartlett requested four public records from the City of Portland: three city-attorney opinions and one memorandum, all created more than 25 years earlier.
- The City withheld the records claiming attorney–client privilege under OEC 503 and exemption under ORS 192.355(9)(a).
- The Multnomah County District Attorney ordered disclosure, interpreting ORS 192.390 to require release of public records older than 25 years notwithstanding exemptions.
- The City sued for a declaratory judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment to the City, holding the documents remained privileged.
- On appeal the court considered whether ORS 192.390’s 25‑year disclosure requirement overrides attorney–client privilege, and whether that statute conflicts with Portland’s city code privilege or the Constitutionally protected home‑rule authority.
- The court reversed the trial court: it held ORS 192.390 requires disclosure of privileged public records older than 25 years; it does not violate home‑rule nor preempt PCC 3.10.060.
Issues
| Issue | City’s Argument | Bartlett’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 192.390 requires disclosure of public records >25 years old despite attorney–client privilege | ORS 192.390 was not intended to abrogate the attorney–client privilege; privilege under OEC 503 bars disclosure | ORS 192.390’s plain text (“notwithstanding … ORS 192.355”) mandates disclosure of records older than 25 years even if privileged | ORS 192.390 unambiguously requires disclosure of public records older than 25 years notwithstanding ORS 192.355(9)(a) and OEC 503 (disclosure ordered) |
| Whether OEC 503 (attorney–client privilege) controls over ORS 192.390 | The specific statutory privilege (OEC 503) should control over the general 25‑year sunset | The public‑records statute and evidence code can coexist; OEC 503(7) contemplates ordered disclosure under public‑records law | No irreconcilable conflict; ORS 192.390 and OEC 503 are reconcilable (privilege may remain for evidentiary purposes per OEC 503(7)) |
| Whether ORS 192.390 violates municipal home‑rule (Art. IV §1(5); Art. XI §2) by impairing city governance (PCC 3.10.060) | Requiring disclosure of privileged city legal advice after 25 years intrudes on city structure and charter powers | ORS 192.390 is a general state law aimed at public access, not local structure; it can be harmonized with PCC 3.10.060 | ORS 192.390 does not impermissibly intrude on home‑rule and does not preempt PCC 3.10.060 |
| Whether PCC 3.10.060 creates an independent, preemptive municipal privilege | City code creates a separate city privilege that excludes disclosure | PCC primarily identifies relationships covered by state privilege; it does not create an irreconcilable conflict | PCC 3.10.060 does not preempt ORS 192.390 and may be construed consistently with state law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (Or. 2009) (statutory‑interpretation framework; legislative intent and text paramount)
- Doyle v. City of Medford, 356 Or 336 (Or. 2014) (ordinary meaning of “shall” imposes mandatory duty)
- Guard Publishing Co. v. Lane County School Dist., 310 Or 32 (Or. 1990) (disclosure is the rule; exemptions narrowly construed)
- State v. Riddle, 330 Or 471 (Or. 2000) (OEC 503 as statutory embodiment of attorney–client privilege)
- LaGrande/Astoria v. PERB, 281 Or 137 (Or. 1978) (home‑rule preemption principles and conflict analysis)
- Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland, 275 Or App 874 (Or. App. 2015) (municipal/state‑law preemption interplay)