Human Rights Defense Center v. Maine County Commissioners Association Self-Funded RIsk Management Pool, 301 A.3d 782

HRDC (a nonprofit) requested on June 18, 2021 “any documents showing payments” related to a reported $30,000 settlement in Afanador v. Kennebec County, including payment documentation held by the Maine County Commissioners Association Self-Funded Risk Management Pool (Risk Pool).
Risk Pool’s director (Ulmer) replied with the press article and said the settlement was $30,000 but did not produce claim-file payment documents; HRDC asked repeatedly for documentation showing the amount.
The ACLU of Maine (counsel for HRDC) sent a July 2 letter identifying missing payment documents and warning that failure to produce would be treated as a denial; Risk Pool continued to say the signed release was the only settlement document and did not produce payment records.
HRDC filed a FOAA appeal in Superior Court; at trial Ulmer admitted the Risk Pool had claim-file financial records showing payment but testified he had not produced them because HRDC had not specifically requested those itemized payment documents.
The Superior Court found the Risk Pool knowingly withheld responsive documents, ordered disclosure, and awarded HRDC attorney fees under FOAA § 409(4) as a bad‑faith refusal; the Risk Pool appealed.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding the Risk Pool’s mischaracterization of the request and deliberate withholding amounted to bad faith, and that HRDC’s appeal was timely (relation back of amended complaint).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of HRDC’s appeal	HRDC argued its original July 27 complaint was timely and addition of the Risk Pool related back to the original filing under M.R. Civ. P. 15(c)	Risk Pool argued HRDC’s appeal was untimely because Risk Pool’s June 21 response was a final response and HRDC failed to timely name the Risk Pool	Court held HRDC’s appeal was timely: the triggering response was Risk Pool’s July 6 letter and the joinder of the Risk Pool related back because the Risk Pool had notice and HRDC’s failure to name it was a mistake
Award of attorney fees under FOAA for bad faith	HRDC argued it substantially prevailed and Risk Pool’s deceptive, obstructive responses constituted FOAA “bad faith” warranting fees under 1 M.R.S. § 409(4)	Risk Pool argued the court erred in finding bad faith and in awarding fees because it never explicitly refused and its interpretations justified withholding	Court held FOAA bad faith includes dishonest or deliberately obstructive responses; Risk Pool’s mischaracterization and deliberate withholding were bad faith and fee award upheld

Dubois v. Dep’t of Agric., Conservation & Forestry, 185 A.3d 743 (Me. 2018) (trial-court factual findings supported by record)
Palmer v. Portland Sch. Comm., 652 A.2d 86 (Me. 1995) (FOAA appeal period runs from discovering a possible violation)
Frame v. Millinocket Reg’l Hosp., 82 A.3d 137 (Me. 2013) (relation-back standard for amended pleadings under Rule 15)
Linscott v. Foy, 716 A.2d 1017 (Me. 1998) (attorney-fee sanctions require significant bad faith such as obstinate refusal to comply)
Cimenian v. Lumb, 951 A.2d 817 (Me. 2008) (bad faith includes bringing meritless claims and untruthful testimony)
Blue Sky W., LLC v. Me. Revenue Servs., 215 A.3d 812 (Me. 2019) (FOAA appeals are tried de novo; agency bears burden to justify nondisclosure)
Maynard v. Cent. Intel. Agency, 986 F.2d 547 (1st Cir. 1993) (substantially prevailing plaintiff standard for fee awards requires causative effect of litigation on disclosure)
Campbell v. Town of Machias, 661 A.2d 1133 (Me. 1995) (failure to respond is treated as a denial but does not constitute automatic waiver of withholding)