David K. Taylor v. School Administrative Unit 55
170 N.H. 322
N.H.2017Background
- SAU #55 Board met May 12, 2016, went into nonpublic session to discuss the superintendent’s evaluation and "emergency functions," and voted (improperly, in nonpublic) to seal the minutes.
- Plaintiff David K. Taylor requested copies and an email forward of certain nonpublic-session materials; SAU refused, pointing to its Right-to-Know procedure requiring requestors to provide a sealed thumb drive or buy one from SAU for $7.49.
- Plaintiff sued under RSA chapter 91-A seeking invalidation of the sealing vote, release of minutes, a declaration that the thumb-drive policy violates RSA 91-A, email delivery of records, injunctive relief, and costs.
- SAU conceded the sealing vote violated RSA 91-A:3, III; in public session it later sealed only the emergency-functions portion and released the superintendent-evaluation minutes with one sentence redacted.
- Trial court upheld the thumb-drive policy as compliant with RSA 91-A:4 IV–V, awarded litigation costs to Taylor, found Taylor lacked standing to challenge paper-copy per-page fees, reviewed the single redaction in camera, and denied broader injunctive relief; Taylor appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SAU's thumb-drive requirement and charge violates RSA 91-A:4 IV ("no fee for delivery") | Taylor: requiring purchase/provision of a thumb drive imposes a prohibited delivery fee; electronic delivery should be free | SAU: thumb drive is an "other device" used to copy records; statute permits charging actual cost of copying | Held: thumb-drive charge for actual cost is allowed because copying to electronic media is "copying" under RSA 91-A:4 IV; not a banned delivery fee |
| Whether RSA 91-A IV–V requires SAU to email records in the format requested | Taylor: statute and IV–V require production in the electronic format requested (e.g., forwarded email) | SAU: statute does not mandate particular electronic format; copying to thumb drive satisfies request and guards against email reliability/security problems | Held: No absolute duty to deliver in requester’s chosen electronic format; copying onto thumb drive complies with IV–V and Green when format does not reduce access |
| Whether SAU’s policy is unreasonable or violates constitutional public-access guarantees given cybersecurity and usability concerns | Taylor: policy is unreasonable and limits access; PDF/thumb-drive may omit metadata making records less useful | SAU: policy is reasonable, advances important cybersecurity and documentation interests, and does not impair access or searchability | Held: Policy is reasonable, serves legitimate cybersecurity and administrative interests, and does not violate RSA chapter 91-A or the state constitution |
| Whether plaintiff preserved the metadata/PDF-versus-email usability claim and whether legislative history supports free electronic delivery | Taylor: PDFs omit metadata; 2016 legislative history shows intent for free electronic delivery | SAU: argument not raised at trial; legislative history unnecessary because statute unambiguous | Held: Court declined to consider the metadata argument as it was raised only on reconsideration; statute is unambiguous so legislative history is not consulted |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Sch. Admin. Unit #55, 168 N.H. 796 (N.H. 2016) (when records are maintained electronically and no valid reason prevents it, defendants must provide electronic copies)
- 38 Endicott St. N. v. State Fire Marshal, 163 N.H. 656 (N.H. 2012) (Right-to-Know Law construed broadly to maximize disclosure; exemptions narrowly)
- New Hampshire Resident Ltd. Partners of Lyme Timber Co. v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Revenue Admin., 162 N.H. 98 (N.H. 2011) (de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- Favazza v. Braley, 160 N.H. 349 (N.H. 2010) (legislative history consulted only when statute ambiguous)
- Mt. Valley Mall Assocs. v. Municipality of Conway, 144 N.H. 642 (N.H. 2000) (standard for reviewing trial court denial of motion for reconsideration)