Terrence E. Pinkham v. Department of Transportation, 139 A.3d 904

MDOT exercised eminent domain to take a 17-foot strip and drainage easements from Terrence Pinkham’s Route 1A property for a road-widening project; MDOT’s appraiser was Michael Moniz.
MDOT provided Pinkham only the portions of Moniz’s appraisal that addressed Pinkham’s parcel and paid $13,609; Pinkham rejected the offer and sought de novo review in Superior Court, then a jury trial.
Pinkham requested Moniz’s complete appraisal reports for all parcels taken in the same project; MDOT refused citing 23 M.R.S. § 63 (confidentiality) and the trial court ordered nonproduction while the project remained incomplete.
At trial Moniz testified for MDOT that Pinkham’s loss was about $13,000; the jury awarded $41,500, and the court entered judgment (offset for prior payment). Pinkham appealed the discovery ruling.
The Supreme Judicial Court held § 63 creates confidentiality for FOAA purposes but does not, by its language, create a discovery privilege that bars production to a litigant; discovery is governed by relevance and privilege rules.
Because appraisals for other parcels in the same project were relevant to assessing methodology and comparables, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for new proceedings with discovery access (subject to protective orders to prevent public disclosure).

Issue	Pinkham's Argument	MDOT's Argument	Held
Whether 23 M.R.S. § 63 makes MDOT appraisal reports privileged and nondiscoverable	§63 does not create a privilege; confidentiality under §63 is limited to FOAA and does not bar discovery	§63’s “may not be disclosed” language bars disclosure, so reports are exempt from discovery	§63 creates FOAA confidentiality but does not by its text create a discovery privilege; reports are discoverable if relevant
Whether Moniz’s appraisals of other parcels are relevant to just compensation for Pinkham	Appraisals of other parcels in the same project are relevant to the appraiser’s methods, comparables, and valuation reliability	Parcel distinctiveness makes other appraisals irrelevant; prices for condemned parcels are unreliable comparables	Appraisals of other parcels are relevant for discovery; distinctions can be tested at trial or by protective order; prices paid for condemnations may be problematic but appraisals themselves are helpful
Whether exclusion of the other appraisals deprived Pinkham of a fair trial	Denial of discoverable, relevant appraisal material prevented effective challenge to MDOT’s valuation and cross-examination of its expert	Exclusion was proper under §63 confidentiality and irrelevant evidence rules; trial evidence sufficed	The discovery rulings impeded Pinkham’s right to a fair trial; remand for further proceedings with appropriate protective measures

Caruso v. Jackson Lab., 98 A.3d 221 (Me. 2014) (standard for viewing evidence in favor of prevailing party on appeal)
Semian v. Ledgemere Transp., Inc., 106 A.3d 405 (Me. 2014) (statutory interpretation starts with plain language)
Davric Me. Corp. v. Me. Dep’t of Transp., 606 A.2d 201 (Me. 1992) (discussing §63’s purpose to protect MDOT bargaining position)
McTeague v. Dep’t of Transp., 760 A.2d 619 (Me. 2000) (measure of just compensation in partial takings)
Curtis v. Me. State Highway Comm’n, 203 A.2d 451 (Me. 1964) (definition of fair market value for takings)
Timberlands, Inc. v. Maine State Highway Comm’n, 284 A.2d 894 (Me. 1971) (relevance of valuation evidence to jury)
Bajwa v. Sunoco, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 726 (E.D. Va. 2004) (sales to condemnor may be unreliable comparables)
Hoover v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 611 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1980) (appraisals are relevant in condemnation proceedings)