People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Department of Agricultural Resources
477 Mass. 280
| Mass. | 2017Background
- PETA requested interstate animal health certificates and related records for nonhuman primates held by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (the department). The department produced certificates but redacted names, addresses, phone numbers, and certain license/registration numbers.
- The department withheld the information invoking G. L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty‑sixth (n) (public safety exemption) and later (c) (privacy exemption); it relied in part on a VA FOIA memorandum and prior supervisor of public records decisions.
- The supervisor of public records upheld the department's redactions; PETA sued in Superior Court seeking unredacted records under G. L. c. 66, § 10. The Superior Court granted judgment for the department, applying deference to the custodian’s "reasonable judgment" under exemption (n) and finding exemption (c) protected personal contact information.
- On appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court (transferred from the Appeals Court), the central questions were statutory construction of exemptions (n) and (c) and the appropriate standard of review for a custodian’s judgment.
- The SJC vacated the Superior Court judgment and remanded for further proceedings, articulating a two‑prong test for exemption (n) and guidance for applying exemption (c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of exemption (n): whether health certificates fall within "any other records" relating to security/safety | PETA: Certificates are ordinary public records; exemption (n) should be read narrowly and does not encompass routine contact/business info | Dept.: "Any other records" is broad; names/locations could aid attackers and fit exemption (n) | Court: "Any other records" is open but must be limited by noscitur a sociis/ejusdem generis; apply a resemblance test to listed examples (terrorism/security‑useful records) |
| Standard for reviewing custodian's "reasonable judgment" under (n) | PETA: Custodian must meet a fact‑specific showing; no special deference | Dept.: Language warrants heightened deference to custodian's judgment | Court: No heightened deference; review is de novo—custodian must provide sufficient factual support such that a reasonable person would agree; burden varies inversely with resemblance to listed examples |
| Application of exemption (c) to names/addresses/phones | PETA: Business contact info (not intimate) carries little/no privacy interest; burden should not shift to PETA without claimant privacy showing | Dept.: Personal information (even business contact) can implicate privacy and safety risks warranting withholding | Court: Apply established balancing test; consider home vs business addresses, public availability of the same info, and specific evidence of safety risk; privacy may be small for business contact but can be augmented by safety evidence |
| Need for further factual development/discovery | PETA: Court should allow discovery because exemptions require fact‑intensive inquiry | Dept.: Relied on limited documents; discovery unnecessary | Court: Vacated judgment and remanded; court should consider whether additional discovery or in camera review is needed under the clarified standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Hull Mun. Lighting Plant v. Massachusetts Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 414 Mass. 609 (statutory exemptions to public records are to be strictly construed)
- Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. v. Chief of Police of Worcester, 436 Mass. 378 (public records law favors disclosure; case‑by‑case review)
- Kenney v. Building Comm'r of Melrose, 315 Mass. 291 (noscitur a sociis canon described)
- Banushi v. Dorfman, 438 Mass. 242 (ejusdem generis canon applied)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 419 Mass. 852 (privacy balancing test and relevant factors)
- Cape Cod Times v. Sheriff of Barnstable County, 443 Mass. 587 (names and addresses not inherently intimate)
- Champa v. Weston Pub. Sch., 473 Mass. 86 (de novo review of public records exemption application)
- Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649 (remand for reconsideration in light of statutory interpretation)