Lamson v. Montgomery Cnty.
190 A.3d 316
Md.2018Background
- Lamson, a long‑time Montgomery County attorney, requested supervisory notes and other personnel‑related records after a downgraded performance rating and redaction of three pages from her personnel file.
- Montgomery County withheld three pages removed from Lamson’s personnel file and additional notes from her supervisor Kinch’s personal journal, asserting they were supervisory notes, privileged, or otherwise exempt from MPIA disclosure.
- The Circuit Court granted the county’s motion to dismiss without in camera review, relying on a Montgomery County personnel regulation excluding supervisory notes from official personnel records.
- The Court of Special Appeals held the county regulation could not preempt the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) and found the trial court erred by not conducting in camera review of the notes removed from the file; it treated journal notes as nonpublic without further inquiry.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the judgments and remanded, holding that when an MPIA request is denied the trial court must review the agency’s claim using one of three methods (testimony/affidavits, a Vaughn index, or in camera review) to ensure the asserted exception actually applies; local regulations cannot defeat the MPIA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Montgomery County’s personnel regulation can exempt supervisory notes from MPIA disclosure | Lamson: County regulation cannot preempt state MPIA; notes may be personnel records and subject to disclosure to the person of interest | County: Regulation §4‑8 classifies supervisory notes as nonofficial and non‑reviewable, so notes need not be disclosed | Held: County regulation is preempted by MPIA; local rules cannot defeat state disclosure law |
| Whether the withheld notes are "public records" or personnel records under MPIA | Lamson: Notes removed from file and journal entries relate to employment/performance and may be personnel records subject to disclosure | County: Notes are informal supervisory impressions or private journal entries and thus not public records | Held: Whether notes are public/personnel records requires judicial fact inquiry; physical location alone is not dispositive; remand for factual review |
| Proper method for judicial review of an MPIA denial | Lamson: Trial court must meaningfully review agency claims (in camera, Vaughn index, or affidavits/testimony) rather than accept conclusory assertions | County: Trial court may rely on regulation and need not conduct in camera review; suggested in camera if necessary | Held: Trial courts have discretion to choose among three prescribed methods (testimonial/affidavits, Vaughn index, in camera) but must ensure agency meets burden to justify withholding; in camera likely appropriate here |
| Whether trial court’s dismissal was legally correct without evaluating asserted exemptions | Lamson: Dismissal was erroneous because trial court did not assess whether claimed exceptions (attorney‑client, work product, executive privilege) applied | County: Claimed privileges and supervisory‑notes rule justified non‑disclosure | Held: Dismissal was erroneous; record lacks evaluation of asserted exceptions; remand for further proceedings consistent with required review methods |
Key Cases Cited
- Cranford v. Montgomery County, 300 Md. 759 (1984) (sets methods and standards for trial‑court review of MPIA withholdings, including in camera review)
- Kirwan v. The Diamondback, 352 Md. 74 (1998) (defines personnel records as documents directly pertaining to employment and job performance)
- Police Patrol Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Prince George’s County, 378 Md. 702 (2003) (local ordinances/charters are subordinate to state public general laws and cannot conflict with them)
- Glenn v. Maryland Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 446 Md. 378 (2016) (articulates MPIA’s purpose and presumption in favor of disclosure subject to statutory exceptions)
- Glass v. Anne Arundel County, 453 Md. 201 (2017) (classifies MPIA exceptions into categories and explains mandatory vs. discretionary withholding)