176 A.3d 472
R.I.2018Background
- In April 2015 Pontarelli requested "all records related to the private law practice" of a RIDE employee that were created, stored, or maintained on RIDE property, including emails and files.
- RIDE denied the request, explaining such records were not "public records" under APRA because they were not "made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by [the] agency."
- Pontarelli administratively appealed; two commissioners (Gist and Wagner) upheld the denial. RIDE’s network policy stated network transactions are state property and email may be public, but RIDE treated employee misuse as a personnel matter.
- Pontarelli sued in Superior Court for a declaratory judgment under APRA; RIDE moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing the requested records were not public records.
- The motion justice reviewed Pontarelli’s underlying APRA request (attached to RIDE’s filings) without formally converting the motion to summary judgment, and granted dismissal, concluding the records related to private legal practice and thus were not APRA public records.
- Pontarelli appealed, arguing (inter alia) that RIDE waived defenses by not specifying statutory exceptions in the denial and that the motion should have been converted to summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the requested employee files stored on RIDE property are "public records" under APRA | Pontarelli: §38-2-3(a) makes all records maintained by a public body public; his requested documents are maintained on RIDE property and thus public | RIDE: APRA defines public records as those "made or received pursuant to law or in connection with the transaction of official business"; purely private attorney-client files are not within that definition | Held: Not public records — documents related to the employee’s private law practice are not "made or received" for official agency business and thus fall outside APRA’s definition |
| Whether the motion justice improperly considered the actual APRA request (an extrinsic document) without converting the motion to summary judgment | Pontarelli: The complaint did not incorporate or attach the request; considering it required conversion to summary judgment and notice | RIDE: The request was integral to the complaint and necessary to test its sufficiency; fairness and efficiency supported consideration without conversion | Held: Permissible in these narrow circumstances — the request was so intertwined with the complaint that the court could examine it on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion |
| Whether RIDE waived reliance on statutory exceptions by not specifying them in its initial denial | Pontarelli: RIDE failed to specify exceptions in the denial and thus waived them under §38-2-7(a) | RIDE: No need to invoke statutory exceptions because the documents do not meet APRA’s foundational definition of "public records" in the first instance | Held: Waiver issue not reached — court concluded records never satisfied APRA’s definition, so RIDE had no obligation to invoke exceptions |
| Whether RIDE’s internal network policy (stating network transactions are state property and emails are public) creates APRA disclosure obligations | Pontarelli: RIDE’s policy indicates such stored items are public and should be disclosed | RIDE: Internal policy cannot override statutory definitions; personnel handling of violations is separate | Held: Policy irrelevant — statutory law controls and trumps contrary internal practices |
Key Cases Cited
- Providence Journal Co. v. Sundlun, 616 A.2d 1131 (R.I. 1992) (construing §§ 38-2-2 and 38-2-3 together to define "public records" under APRA)
- Hydron Laboratories, Inc. v. Department of Attorney General, 492 A.2d 135 (R.I. 1985) (recognizing definitional limitations on what constitutes a public record under APRA)
- Bowen Court Associates v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 818 A.2d 721 (R.I. 2003) (documents mentioned but not incorporated in complaint, and consideration of outside materials, converts a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to summary judgment)
- Bellevue-Ochre Point Neighborhood Ass'n v. Preservation Soc. of Newport County, 151 A.3d 1223 (R.I. 2017) (conversion to summary judgment where outside materials were considered and merits fully addressed)
- Beddall v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 137 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1998) (document integral to complaint may be considered on a motion to dismiss without conversion)
- Leone v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, 101 A.3d 869 (R.I. 2014) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals test sufficiency of complaint and procedural standards for conversion)