Donna M. Green v. School Administrative Unit 55 & a., 168 N.H. 796

Donna M. Green, a Timberlane Regional School Board member, requested budget-related documents from School Administrative Unit (SAU) #55 on Jan 21, 2015 and later specified the request under the Right-to-Know Law (RSA ch. 91-A).
SAU responded that the documents were available for inspection and cited a policy charging $.50/page and stating "only hardcopies will be produced; no electronic copies will be provided."
Green repeatedly requested electronic copies; SAU refused, saying paper inspection satisfied RSA 91-A obligations.
Green sued in superior court seeking an order requiring SAU to provide the records in electronic format; the trial court ruled for the defendants, interpreting RSA 91-A:4, V as permissive ("may") for electronic production.
On appeal the Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo, found RSA 91-A:4, V ambiguous, and construed the statute in light of the Right-to-Know Law’s purpose favoring maximum public access.
The Court held Green was entitled to the requested records in electronic format because (1) the record did not show paper copies were the "original records," (2) it was not shown that electronic copying was not reasonably practicable, and (3) Green ultimately sought only electronic delivery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RSA 91-A:4, V requires a public body to provide records in the electronic format requested when records are maintained electronically	Green: "may" is not unfettered; statute allows producing originals or copying to electronic media — originals here are electronic, so SAU must provide electronic copies	SAU: "may" is permissive; statute gives option to produce electronic copies but does not compel them; making paper records available for inspection satisfies RSA 91-A	Court: RSA 91-A:4, V ambiguous; construed in light of disclosure purpose to require electronic production where records are maintained electronically, copying is reasonably practicable, and no confidentiality or creation of new records is required

Prof’l Firefighters of N.H. v. Local Gov’t Ctr., 159 N.H. 699 (broad construction of Right-to-Know Law to maximize access)
CaremarkPCS Health v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin. Servs., 167 N.H. 583 (statutory construction principles; interpret Right-to-Know Law in context)
City of Rochester v. Corpening, 153 N.H. 571 (distinguishing "may" vs "shall")
Menge v. Manchester, 113 N.H. 533 (entitlement to computerized tapes under prior Right-to-Know Law)
Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266 (modern computer technology capabilities)
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (advantages of electronic production for searching and review)
Mechling v. City of Monroe, 222 P.3d 808 (electronic records can be cheaper and easier than paper)