Case Title: Doyle v. Town of Falmouth

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2014 ME 151

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2014-12-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2014 ME 151 
Docket: 
Cum-14-227 
Submitted 
On Briefs: December 1, 2014 
 
Decided: 
December 23, 2014 
 
Panel: 
ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HJELM, JJ. 
 
 
MICHAEL A. DOYLE 
 
v. 
 
TOWN OF FALMOUTH et al. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
[¶1]  Michael A. Doyle appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court 
(Cumberland County, Warren, J.) entered in favor of the Town of Falmouth and 
the Falmouth School Department, following the partial denial of Doyle’s request 
pursuant to the Freedom of Access Act (FOAA), 1 M.R.S. §§ 400-414 (2014),1 for 
the unredacted cellular telephone records of the former Superintendent of Schools.  
Doyle contends that the court erred in permitting the School Department to redact 
from the records certain line telephone and cellular telephone numbers.2  We 
affirm. 
                                         
1  Title 1 M.R.S. § 402 (2013), which was in effect at the time of the events underlying this case, has 
since been amended.  P.L. 2013 c. 518, §§ 1-3 (effective Aug. 1, 2014) (codified at 1 M.R.S. § 402 
(2014)).  The amendment in no way affects our analysis.   
2  Doyle also contends that the court erred in denying his request to review the redacted information 
when it was submitted to the court for in camera inspection.  However, as his request could not be 
 
2 
I.  CASE HISTORY 
[¶2]  The relevant facts are not in dispute.  On or about October 30, 2013, 
Doyle submitted a FOAA request to the Town seeking to inspect and copy the 
July, August, and September 2013 cellular telephone bills of the School 
Department’s former Superintendent.  The Superintendent and other Falmouth 
School Department employees are provided with school-issued cellular telephones, 
paid for by the School Department.  There is no rule or policy preventing 
employees from using their school-issued cellular telephones for personal 
purposes. 
[¶3]  In response to Doyle’s FOAA request, the former Superintendent 
provided the Town with copies of her cellular telephone records for July, August, 
and September 2013, redacting the information she considered nonpublic and 
confidential, exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Act, or beyond the scope of 
Doyle’s FOAA request.  The Town then made copies of those redacted records 
available to Doyle.   
[¶4]  Doyle appealed from the Town’s and School Department’s actions to 
the Superior Court pursuant to 1 M.R.S. § 409(1).  Doyle alleged that the Town 
                                                                                                                                   
granted without disclosing the information that the School Department was entitled to withhold, there was 
no error in the court’s denial of the request.   
 
3 
and the School Department failed to comply with his FOAA request, and that he 
was entitled to receive unredacted copies of the cellular telephone records. 
[¶5]  The court directed the Town and School Department to submit 
unredacted records for the court’s in camera review and provide a copy of all such 
supporting papers to Doyle, “except for those that would disclose the records or 
information or portions thereof that the [Town and School Department] contend 
are not public records subject to disclosure.”  The Town and School Department 
complied with the court’s order and filed a memorandum of law outlining the legal 
basis for each redaction, together with an affidavit by the former Superintendent, a 
spreadsheet identifying the nature of the call for each telephone number that was 
redacted, and the unredacted cellular telephone records for in camera review only.  
Doyle was provided with the same bills and supporting documentation except with 
the subject telephone numbers redacted.3  The redacted copies of the cellular 
telephone records indicate the date, time, and duration of all calls placed or 
received by the former Superintendent, as well as the total amount charged to the 
School Department for the Superintendent’s use of the telephone. 
[¶6]  After full briefing by the parties regarding the legal bases for redaction, 
the Superior Court entered judgment in favor of the Town and School Department.  
                                         
3  In the course of preparing the filing, the School Department discovered that several telephone 
numbers had originally been redacted in error.  Thereafter, the School Department provided Doyle and 
the court with corrected redacted copies. 
 
4 
The court concluded that (1) the cellular telephone numbers of School Department 
employees, including the former Superintendent, are exempt from the definition of 
“public records” pursuant to 1 M.R.S. § 402(3)(O); (2) records of personal 
telephone calls—those made or received in connection with a school official’s 
personal matters—are not public records pursuant to the Act; and (3) the telephone 
numbers of Falmouth students’ parents are confidential pursuant to the federal 
Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and are therefore exempt from 
the definition of public records.  See 20 U.S.C.A. § 1232g (West, Westlaw through 
P.L. 113-185 approved 10-6-14); 20-A M.R.S. § 6001(1) (2014); 1 M.R.S. 
§ 402(3)(A).   
[¶7]  Doyle filed this timely appeal pursuant to 14 M.R.S. § 1851 (2014), 
M.R. Civ. P. 80B(n), and M.R. App. P. 2(b)(3). 
II.  LEGAL ANALYSIS 
[¶8]  Maine’s Freedom of Access Act establishes a general right of the 
public to inspect and copy public records.  1 M.R.S. § 408-A.  The term “public 
records” is defined by the Act to include records that are in the “possession or 
custody of an agency or public official of this [s]tate or any of its political 
subdivisions” that have “been received or prepared for use in connection with the 
transaction of public or governmental business or [that] contain[] information 
relating to the transaction of public or governmental business.”  1 M.R.S. § 402(3).  
 
5 
The Act lists a number of exceptions to the definition of “public records.”  See 
1 M.R.S. § 402(3)(A)-(T).  “The burden of proof is on the agency or political 
subdivision from which the information is sought to establish just and proper cause 
for the denial of a FOAA request.”  MaineToday Media, Inc. v. State, 2013 ME 
100, ¶ 9, 82 A.3d 104. 
[¶9]  When a public record contains information that is not subject to 
disclosure under FOAA, the information may be redacted to prevent disclosure.  
See, e.g., Cyr v. Madawaska Sch. Dept., 2007 ME 28, ¶ 11, 916 A.2d 967; Wiggins 
v. McDevitt, 473 A.2d 420, 424 (Me. 1984).  Thus, redacting portions of cellular 
telephone records that are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the FOAA is 
permissible.  
A. 
Personal Telephone Numbers of Public Employees 
[¶10]  The exceptions to the Act’s disclosure requirement are strictly 
construed to promote the Act’s underlying policies and purposes.  Moffett v. City of 
Portland, 400 A.2d 340, 348 (Me. 1979); see 1 M.R.S. § 401.  The Act exempts 
from disclosure “personal contact information,” which is defined as a public 
employee’s “home address, home telephone number . . . personal cellular 
telephone number and personal pager.”  1 M.R.S. § 402(3)(O).  To interpret the 
scope of this exception, we look to the plain meaning of the statutory language to 
give effect to the legislative intent.  Hickson v. Vescom Corp., 2014 ME 27, ¶ 15, 
 
6 
87 A.3d 704.  “If the plain meaning of the text does not resolve an interpretive 
issue raised, we then consider the statute’s history, underlying policy, and other 
extrinsic factors to ascertain legislative intent.”  In re Wage Payment Litig., 
2000 ME 162, ¶ 4, 759 A.2d 217.   
[¶11]  In this case, the plain language of the Act does not establish whether a 
“personal cellular telephone number” must be exclusively personal in nature or 
whether a work-issued cellular telephone number that may be used for personal 
purposes falls within the ambit of the exception.  The legislative history of 
1 M.R.S. § 402(3)(O), however, indicates that the exception for personal contact 
information was enacted to protect the privacy rights of public employees.  See 
Final Report of the Committee to Study Compliance with Maine’s Freedom of 
Access Laws 2-3 (Nov. 2004).   
[¶12]  Those in favor of enacting the exception urged that disclosing 
personal information of public employees “does not contribute to the public’s 
understanding of how its government operates,” but rather “reduces the privacy 
rights of citizens who choose to work in public service.”  Testimony of the Maine 
Municipal Association In Support of LD 467 (122nd Legis. 2005).  Testimony was 
presented to the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary demonstrating that many 
victims of stalking are public employees and that “the privacy of personal contact 
information is critical to maintain [the] safety [of] any person who is [a] victim of 
 
7 
domestic or sexual abuse and stalking.”  Testimony of the Maine Coalition to End 
Domestic Violence In Support of LD 467 (122nd Legis. 2005). 
[¶13]  Reviewing section 402(3)(O) with this legislative history, we 
conclude that public employees’ work-issued cellular telephone numbers are 
exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Act.  The telephone numbers of 
individual public employees (including the former Superintendent) were properly 
redacted from the Town’s response to Doyle’s FOAA request, because they are 
exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Act.  
B. 
Telephone Numbers Relating to “Personal Use” 
[¶14]  Public records encompass those records “received or prepared for use 
in connection with the transaction of public or governmental business or 
contain[ing] information relating to the transaction of public or governmental 
business.”  1 M.R.S. § 402(3).  Although this is a “very broad, all-encompassing 
definition,” which is “subject only to specific exceptions,” Wiggins, 473 A.2d at 
422, its plain language demonstrates that records of personal telephone calls made 
by the former Superintendent that were unrelated to the transaction of public or 
government business do not fall within the definition.4  The Town and School 
Department did not prohibit the School Department employees who received 
                                         
4  According to the former Superintendent’s affidavit, this personal information included personal 
phone calls made to personal health care providers, grandchildren’s daycare, family members, and 
friends. 
 
8 
government-issued cellular telephones from using those phones in connection with 
their personal matters. That the Town and School Department provided some 
employees with cellular telephones does not convert all of the calls made on those 
telephones into public records pursuant to the Act.  Therefore, the court did not err 
in allowing the Town and School Department to redact information concerning 
calls, other than those related to the Town’s business, from the former 
Superintendent’s cellular telephone bills.   
C. 
Telephone Numbers of Falmouth Students’ Parents 
[¶15]  “Records that have been designated confidential by statute” are 
exempt from the definition of public records pursuant to the Act.  1 M.R.S. 
§ 402(3)(A).  Pursuant to the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 
1974, incorporated into Maine law by 20-A M.R.S. § 6001(1), school departments 
are prohibited from releasing any personally identifiable information contained in 
educational records without a parent’s written consent.  20 U.S.C.A. § 1232g(b)(1).  
A school is allowed to release “directory information,” which may include 
telephone numbers, but only if it has given parents advance notice of the 
information it intends to release.  20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1232g(a)(5), (b)(1).   
[¶16]  The Falmouth School Department has adopted a policy that does not 
include telephone numbers within its directory information.  Because the School 
Department has not given advance notice to parents that it may release parents’ and 
 
9 
students’ telephone numbers, it is prohibited from doing so by federal and Maine 
law.  Accordingly, any records containing such information are among those that 
have been made confidential by statute and were properly redacted as exempt from 
the definition of pubic records pursuant to the Act. 
The entry is: 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On the briefs: 
 
Michael A. Doyle, pro se appellant 
 
Peter C. Felmly, Esq., and Reade E. Wilson, Esq., Drummond Woodsum, 
Portland, for appellee Falmouth School Department 
 
Mark V. Franco, Esq., Thompson & Bowie, LLP, Portland, for appellee 
Town of Falmouth 
 
 
 
Cumberland County Superior Court docket number CV-2014-17 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY