PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES & another.
SJC-12216
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
June 14, 2017
477 Mass. 280 (2017)
GANTS, C.J., LENK, GAZIANO, LOWY, & BUDD, JJ.
Suffolk. February 6, 2017. - June 14, 2017. Commissioner of the Department of Agricultural Resources.
This court concluded that application of the public safety exemption in
This court vacated the determination made in a civil action seeking information contained in animal health certificates in the custody of the Department of Agricultural Resources, that the privacy exemption in
CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on October 14, 2014.
The case was heard by Christopher J. Muse, J.
The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court.
David Milton for the plaintiff.
Laura Rótolo & Jessie Rossman, for American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.
Jessica White, for Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.
LENK, J. This case concerns the scope of two exemptions from the statutory definition of “public records.” Specifically, it probes whether information, such as names, addresses, telephone numbers, and other information, contained on animal health certificates in the custody of the Department of Agricultural Resources, is subject to disclosure in response to a public records request. A Superior Court judge determined that such information is protected from disclosure under statutory exemptions
Background. 1. Public records framework. At all times relevant to this case, two statutes governed access to public records:
The term “public records,” in turn, is defined by
Together, these statutes, and our cases interpreting them, favor disclosure of public records in two primary ways. First,
The two statutory exemptions at issue in this case are found in subsections (n) (exemption [n]) and (c) (exemption [c]) of
Exemption (c) concerns records related to privacy. It permits a records custodian to withhold an otherwise public record if it is a personnel or medical file, or if it relates to a specifically named individual and its disclosure may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
These two exemptions share a common characteristic in that they both require consideration of the likely consequences of releasing the record sought. Exemption (n), however, is unique among the statutory public records exemptions in including the “reasonable judgment of the record custodian” as part of the calculation. See generally
2. Facts. In February, 2014, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. (PETA), submitted two requests under
The department responded in April, 2014. With respect to the first request, the department provided copies of eleven pages of interstate health certificates for nonhuman primates. The department redacted from the certificates three categories of information: (1) the names and addresses of consignors and consignees, (2) United States Department of Agriculture license or registration numbers, and (3) the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and license numbers of all veterinarians whose information appeared on the health certificates.4 The department expressed its view that disclosing such information “could compromise the security of locations housing non-human primates, thus increasing the risk to public safety of the animals as well as the people and buildings involved with housing and transporting the animals.” As a result, the department believed the information was exempt from the definition of “public records” pursuant to exemption (n).
The department‘s response also referenced, and provided a copy of, a 2013 memorandum from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA memorandum). In the VA memorandum, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Office of the Veterans Health Administration advised its FOIA field officers “not to release any personal information” about “personnel engaged in any way in animal research in response to requests for that information.”
With respect to PETA‘s second request, the department stated that it did not have any records regarding alleged or claimed safety risks posed to animals, people, or buildings involved with the housing and transport of nonhuman primates.
PETA appealed from the department‘s response to the supervisor of public records, pursuant to
3. Procedural history. In October, 2014, PETA filed a complaint in the Superior Court challenging the department‘s redactions and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, per
After answering the complaint, the department filed an emergency motion for a protective order to stay discovery. The department argued that discovery was unnecessary because it had relied on only three documents in determining that exemption (n) applied: (1) the VA memorandum, discussed supra; (2) a 2013 decision of the supervisor of public records applying exemption (n) to an earlier, similar public records request from PETA; and (3) a 2013 memorandum from the department‘s legal division explaining its view that exemption (n), as well as the privacy exemption under FOIA,
The department then filed a memorandum in support of its motion. In it, the department argued that it properly relied on exemption (n) in redacting the information described above. It also argued, for the first time, that exemption (c) authorized the redaction of names, addresses, and telephone numbers pertaining to individuals (as opposed to facilities), which also appeared on the health certificates. PETA argued in opposition that neither
After another hearing, the judge ruled largely in the department‘s favor. He determined that because exemption (n) includes such “deferential language” as “reasonable judgment” and “likely to jeopardize public safety,” it required the court to give “a heightened level of deference to the keeper and supervisor of public records.” Thus, based on the VA memorandum and other documents submitted by the department, the judge concluded that the department had demonstrated with sufficient specificity that, in the department‘s reasonable judgment, release of information on the health certificates pertaining to “persons and facilities located in the Commonwealth” was likely to jeopardize public safety, and therefore was protected under exemption (n).6 Further, the judge concluded that the names, addresses, and telephone numbers identifying individual persons as consignees, consignors, or veterinarians are protected from disclosure under exemption (c).7
PETA appealed, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion.
Discussion. It is uncontested that the animal health certificates that PETA requested fall within the general definition of “public records.” Thus, despite its unusual procedural background,8 this appeal turns on two questions of statutory construction: the scope of exemptions (n) and (c).9 We exercise de novo review of such
questions. See Monell v. Boston Pads, LLC, 471 Mass. 566, 569-570 (2015).
1. Exemption (n). Exemption (n) contemplates the withholding of
“records, including, but not limited to, blueprints, plans, policies, procedures and schematic drawings, which relate to internal layout and structural elements, security measures, emergency preparedness, threat or vulnerability assessments, or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings, structures, facilities, utilities, transportation or other infrastructure located within the commonwealth, the disclosure of which, in the reasonable judgment of the record custodian, subject to review by the supervisor of public records under [
G. L. c. 66, § 10 (b) ], is likely to jeopardize public safety.”
The parties essentially agree that applying this exemption requires a two-part analysis. First, it requires a threshold determination concerning the nature of the requested record. Id. Second, it requires the records custodian to exercise “reasonable judgment” in determining that disclosure of the requested record is “likely to jeopardize public safety.” Id.
That being said, however, the parties disagree as to precisely what these two components mean, the relationship between them, and whether they were satisfied in this case. In particular, they disagree about whether the animal health certificates that PETA requested are swept within the scope of the exemption by the “any other records” clause. Further, they disagree about what constitutes “reasonable judgment” in predicting “jeopard[y] [to] public safety,” terms that are not defined in the statute.
Construing the scope of exemption (n) appears to be a question of first impression for this court. “Our primary duty is to interpret a statute in accordance with the intent of the Legislature.” Pyle v. School Comm. of S. Hadley, 423 Mass. 283, 285 (1996). Discerning the intent of the Legislature with respect to exemption (n) requires us to examine the plain meaning of the statutory language, and to draw upon the canons of construction known as
We begin by examining the plain meaning of the statutory language, for if that language is “clear and unambiguous, it is conclusive as to the intent of the Legislature.” Deutsche Bank Nat‘l Trust Co. v. Fitchburg Capital, LLC, 471 Mass. 248, 253 (2015). Upon examining the language of exemption (n), however, it is immediately apparent that the language is neither clear nor unambiguous as to the scope of the exemption.
With respect to the first part of exemption (n), we confront a general term (“records“), followed by a nonexhaustive list of specific examples, followed by the general phrase “or any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings.”
When faced with a similar interpretive issue in the past, we have, on occasion, applied the canon of noscitur a sociis, which counsels that “ordinarily the coupling of words denotes an intention that they should be understood in the same general sense.” Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 459 Mass. 422, 432 (2011), quoting 2A N.J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47:16, at 352-353 (7th ed. 2007). In other words,
“[a] general term in a statute or ordinance takes meaning from the setting in which it is employed. The literal meaning of a general term in an enactment must be limited so as not
to include matters that, although within the letter of the enactment, do not fairly come within its spirit and intent.”
Kenney v. Building Comm‘r of Melrose, 315 Mass. 291, 295 (1943). We also have applied a close relative of this doctrine known as ejusdem generis. See Banushi v. Dorfman, 438 Mass. 242, 244 (2002). This canon counsels that “[w]here general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.” Id., quoting 2A N.J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47:17, at 273-274 (6th ed. 2000).
Applying those canons here suggests a narrow interpretation of exemption (n). In particular, they caution against interpreting the general language regarding “any other records relating to the security or safety of persons or buildings” as enlarging the scope of the statute beyond the legislative raison d‘être evinced by the enumerated list of examples. In other words, while the class of records that may qualify for exemption (n) is open, and not closed, we must interpret the “any other records” clause as embracing only those records that, when released, are “likely to jeopardize public safety” in a similar way to one of the examples listed in exemption (n).
Where, as here, the language of a statute itself is not conclusive as to the Legislature‘s intent, we also may seek guidance from the legislative history. ENGIE Gas & LNG LLC v. Department of Pub. Utils., 475 Mass. 191, 199-200 (2016). Much of that history further supports a narrow interpretation of exemption (n).
Exemption (n) was enacted as one of twelve sections in “An Act providing protections against terrorism” (act). See St. 2002, c. 313. That title speaks for itself in terms of the Legislature‘s thinking at the time it adopted exemption (n). Its thrust is reinforced by other contextual clues, including the timing of the enactment and contemporaneous media coverage. Specifically, the act was passed by the Legislature and signed into law in September, 2002 — the one-year anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. See Anti-Terror Bill Sent to [then Acting Governor Jane M.] Swift‘s Desk, State House News Service, Sept. 3, 2002; Swift Signs Anti-Terrorism Legislation, Executive Department Press Release, Sept. 10, 2002.
The preenactment history behind exemption (n) corroborates the notion that protecting the public from terrorist attacks in a
Given this legislative history and the canons of statutory construction operative here, we conclude that the following construction of exemption (n) strikes the appropriate balance.
The first prong of exemption (n) probes whether, and to what degree, the record sought resembles the records listed as examples in the statute. The touchstone of this inquiry is whether, and to what degree, the record is one a terrorist “would find useful to maximize damage,” EOPS Memorandum, and in that sense jeopardize public safety.11
These two prongs of exemption (n) must be analyzed together, because there is an inverse correlation between them. That is, the more the record sought resembles the records enumerated in exemption (n), the lower the custodian‘s burden in demonstrating “reasonable judgment” — and vice versa.
In some cases, the first prong of exemption (n) will yield a strong resemblance between the record sought and the types of records listed in the statute — for instance, when a requestor seeks access to exactly one of the types of records listed in exemption (n), such as a blueprint or emergency preparedness plan. In those cases, with respect to the second prong of exemption (n), the custodian still bears the burden of demonstrating that it exercised “reasonable judgment” in determining that disclosure of the record is “likely to jeopardize public safety,”
Conversely, as the resemblance between the record sought and the listed examples in exemption (n) decreases, the custodian‘s burden for demonstrating “reasonable judgment” increases. Thus, when the requested record bears little or no resemblance to the listed examples, the custodian‘s burden for demonstrating that it exercised “reasonable judgment” in determining that disclosure of the record is “likely to jeopardize public safety” will be at its
We recognize that the Superior Court judge did not have the benefit of our construction of exemption (n) when he granted judgment to the department. Therefore, we vacate the decision and remand the matter for consideration of PETA‘s request in light of this opinion. See Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649, 660, 666 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1189 (2003) (reversing and remanding for further consideration in light of court‘s interpretation of governing statute).
In this regard, it is well to note that exemption (n) is unique among the public records exemptions in its inclusion of the phrase “reasonable judgment of the record custodian.” See generally
2. Exemption (c). The judge also approved the department‘s redaction of the names, addresses, and telephone numbers identifying individual persons as consignees, consignors, or veterinarians. The judge concluded that exemption (c) protects such information from disclosure because the identified individuals “have a considerable privacy interest in their identities, addresses, and telephone numbers” that is not substantially outweighed by the public interest in releasing that information.
Unlike exemption (n), exemption (c) previously has been the subject of our consideration in a number of different contexts. Exemption (c) permits the withholding of “personnel and medical files or information,” as well as “any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
Exemption (c) requires a balancing test: where the public interest in obtaining the requested information substantially outweighs the seriousness of any invasion of privacy, the private
PETA argues that the judge erred by presuming that publicly available business contact information implicated a privacy interest, and thereby inappropriately shifted the burden to PETA to show that the public interest in disclosure substantially outweighed a nonexistent privacy interest. The department did not advance a privacy rationale until well after it made the redactions in question. Nevertheless, it now urges us to adopt the judge‘s reasoning that the information in question does implicate a measurable privacy interest (stemming from the purported safety risks associated with releasing such information), and that this privacy interest is not substantially outweighed by any public interest in the release of the information.
Exemption (c) requires a nuanced analysis. At the outset, the application of exemption (c) in this case must account for the difference between the privacy interest in one‘s home address and
We acknowledge that cases like Cape Cod Times and Pottle dealt with the home addresses of public employees, whereas this case appears to implicate the business addresses of nonpublic employees. See Georgiou v. Commissioner of the Dep‘t of Indus. Accs., 67 Mass. App. Ct. 428, 435-436 (2006) (recognizing public employees’ diminished expectation of privacy in certain information). But exemptions to the public records laws must be applied on a case-by-case basis, Worcester Tel. & Gazette Corp., 436 Mass. at 383-384, and “the same information about a person, such as his name and address, might be protected from disclosure as an unwarranted invasion of privacy in one context and not in another.” Torres v. Attorney Gen., 391 Mass. 1, 9 (1984). Accordingly, the exemption (c) balancing test in this case should account for the different privacy interests in a home address versus a business address, and held by a public employee versus a private
Relatedly, the exemption (c) balancing test must account for the fact that the gravity of any putative invasion of privacy resulting from disclosure of the records sought may be reduced if “substantially the same information is available from other sources.” Attorney Gen. v. Collector of Lynn, 377 Mass. 151, 157 (1979). Indeed, one reason that a person‘s business address normally will give rise to a lower privacy interest than her home address is that business addresses typically are widely shared with others and, in this case at least, may well be exposed to scrutiny by researchers, government agencies, shippers, and possibly others.16 See Brown v. Perez, 835 F.3d 1223, 1235 (10th Cir. 2016) (“It is not intuitive to us that the referee physicians possess a cognizable privacy interest in their business addresses — after all, it is in their economic interests to make their office locations generally available to the public, so that patients can visit for evaluation and treatment“).
Finally, the department raises the suggestion that risks to the personal safety of individuals from the release of certain requested information should be factored into the exemption (c) balancing calculus. Given the record and the briefs before us, it is a suggestion to be approached quite gingerly.
On the one hand, we have not located any cases of this court interpreting or applying exemption (c) in the way the department proposes. Indeed, our cases have cabined the scope of exemption (c) in a way that would seem to minimize the relevance of potential security concerns to the privacy calculus.17 See, e.g., Hastings & Sons Publ. Co., 374 Mass. at 817-818 (municipal
police officers’ names and addresses not protected by exemption [c]); Cape Cod Times, 443 Mass. at 594 (same regarding names and addresses of reserve deputy sheriffs). On the other hand, we have said that “the same information about a person, such as his name and address, might be protected from disclosure as an unwarranted invasion of privacy in one context and not in another.” Torres, 391 Mass. at 9. Accordingly, we are unwilling to eliminate wholly the possibility that, in very limited circumstances where the department can identify specific information demonstrating that a significant risk to an individual‘s personal safety is posed by the disclosure of a home address or telephone number, that non-dispositive factor can add weight to whatever privacy interest exists on that side of the balancing test.
In sum, the exemption (c) analysis should be tailored to the several “case-specific relevant factors,” Globe Newspaper Co., 419 Mass. at 858, that PETA‘s request presents. Among them are (1) whether the redacted information pertains to home or business addresses of public or private entities; (2) whether, and to what extent, that information is available from other sources; and (3) whether, and to what extent, the department can identify specific information demonstrating that a significant risk to an individual‘s personal safety is posed by the disclosure of a home address or telephone number that may be among the redacted information.
Conclusion. The entry of judgment for the defendant is vacated and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.