Title: Lamson v. Montgomery County, Md.

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Bernadette Fowler Lamson v. Montgomery County, Md., No. 67, September Term 2017,   
Opinion by Hotten, J.  
 
 
CIVIL LITIGATION – MARYLAND PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT – 
DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT – The Court of Appeals held that where there 
has been a denial of a Maryland Public Information Request, the proponent of the request 
is entitled to judicial review.  Upon review, the trial court must evaluate the sufficiency of 
the denial by employing one of three methods of review.  The method employed is subject 
to the discretion of the reviewing court but must be sufficient to demonstrate that the 
agency has asserted an exception that is applicable to the disputed documents.   
 
 
CIVIL LITIGATION – MARYLAND PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT – METHODS 
OF REVIEW - The Court of Appeals held that when reviewing the denial of a Maryland 
Public Information Request, the trial court may require the presentation of evidence such 
as testimony or affidavits, order a Vaughn index, or conduct an in camera review to 
determine whether the agency has offered an applicable exception.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Circuit Court for Montgomery County 
Case No. 415227   
Argued: May 7, 2018  
 
 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
No. 67 
 
September Term, 2017 
 
__________________________________ 
 
BERNADETTE FOWLER LAMSON  
v. 
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD 
__________________________________ 
 
Barbera, C.J., 
Greene, 
Adkins, 
McDonald, 
Watts, 
Hotten, 
Getty, 
 
JJ. 
__________________________________ 
 
Opinion by Hotten, J. 
Watts, J., concurs. 
__________________________________ 
 
Filed: July 31, 2018 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act  
(§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document 
is authentic.
Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk  
2019-01-03 
11:29-05:00
The issue before us is a request for the release of notes containing possible personnel 
information, relating to the performance of Bernadette Fowler Lamson (“Petitioner”) as an 
employee of the Montgomery County Attorney’s office.  Petitioner filed a Maryland Public 
Information Act (“MPIA”)1 request relative to her personnel file, seeking the disclosure of 
supervisory notes that were withheld by her employer, Montgomery County 
(“Respondent”) and her supervisor, Silvia Kinch (“Ms. Kinch”).  The disputed notes are 
divisible into two separate categories.  The first consists of three pages of notes that were 
removed from Petitioner’s personnel folder prior to its disclosure and the second set 
consists of notes that are contained in a personal journal in the exclusive possession and 
control of Ms. Kinch.  With regard to both, Petitioner asserts that Respondent improperly 
withheld the notes when responding to her MPIA request.  In response, Respondent 
contends that the notes are privileged, non-public information.  Petitioner now seeks review 
of the grant of summary judgment in Respondent’s favor, to determine whether the 
disputed notes were subject to disclosure under the MPIA.  For the reasons discussed infra, 
we shall vacate the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remand with instructions.  
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
Petitioner was an employee of the Office of the Montgomery County Attorney for 
over twenty years.  During that time, she received “highly successful” reviews and top 
performance ratings.  In 2015, Ms. Kinch downgraded Petitioner’s performance rating 
from “highly successful” to “successful,” which prevented her from receiving a 20-year, 
                                              
1 The MPIA is codified as Md. Code, (2014), § 4-101 et seq. of the General 
Provisions Article, (“Gen. Prov.”).   
 
2 
 
2% performance bonus.  Prompted by the negative rating, Petitioner requested access to 
her personnel file on September 1, 2015, which was provided after three pages of 
supervisory notes were redacted.  On October 8, 2015, after receiving this response, 
Petitioner filed a MPIA request specifying 16 categories of public records, including the 
missing notes.  Specifically, Petitioner requested the following categories of information:  
1. Any and all supervisory notes or other materials written, authored or 
prepared by Silvia Kinch, John Markvos and Marc Hansen; 
2. Supervisory notes removed from Ms. Lamson’s supervisory file by Ms. 
Kinch on or about September l, 2015, including all notes removed by Ms. 
Kinch prior to providing Ms. Lamson a copy of her supervisory file; 
3. Any and all investigatory files, inquiries, negative statements, or complaints 
in which Ms. Lamson is the subject and/or is discussed therein; 
4. Ms. Lamson’s proposed transfer from full time status to part time status; 
5. Ms. Lamson’s move from her 4th floor office to a 3rd floor office in the 
Executive Office Building (“EOB”); 
6. Ms. Lamson’s transfer from the Office of the County Attorney (“OCA”) 
Division of Human Resources to the Division of Finance and Procurement 
or any other OCA division; 
7. Ms. Lamson’s removal as counsel to the Montgomery County Fire and 
Rescue Service (“MCFRS”); 
8. Placement of Jodi Schultz or other OCA staff attorney assigned to MCFRS 
matters - except workers’ compensation cases; 
9. Ms. Lamson’s proposed change in duty assignment from MCFRS to the 
Animal Matters Hearing Board; 
10.  Ms. Lamson’s FY 2015 performance appraisal; 
11. Copy of statement from William “Bill” Scott complaining about Ms. Lamson 
and all records discussing Mr. Scott’s complaints about Ms. Lamson; 
12. Any and all e-mails or documents discussing Ms. Lamson between and/or 
among Marc Hansen, John Markvos, Silvia Kinch, Karen Federman-Henry 
and Ed Lattner from February 1, 2015 to the present; 
13.  Any and all e-mails or documents between and/or among Marc Hansen, John 
Markvos, Silvia Kinch, Ed Lattner, and Assistant Chief Ed Radcliff related 
to Ms. Lamson’s MCFRS representation and/ or agency assignment, duties, 
and/ or responsibilities; 
14. Requests, discussions and/ or inquiries to conduct electronic surveillance 
and/or tracking on Lamson or other OCA staff members; 
15. Any and all data gathered as a result of conducting electronic surveillance 
and/or tracking of Lamson or other OCA staff members; and 
 
3 
 
16. Communications with any other agency concerning Bernadette Lamson or 
any person including, but not limited to, the Board of Investment Trustees, 
Montgomery County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 
Montgomery County Revenue Authority, Montgomery County Fire and 
Rescue Service, Montgomery County Office of Human Resources, and 
retirement agency. 
On January 27, 2016, Respondent provided several responses to the MPIA request.  
Regarding request number one, Respondent asserted that:  
First, while an employee such as Ms. Lamson may review her own personnel 
file under [Gen. Prov.] § 4-311[2], supervisory notes are not a part of an 
employee’s personnel file under the County’s personnel regulations.  MCPR 
§ 4-8[3] (“Supervisory notes are not considered official employee records and 
are not subject to review by the employee or others.”). 
 
Second, supervisory notes constitute “interagency or intra-agency letters or 
memoranda” under [Gen. Prov.] § 4-344 and are also shielded from 
disclosure by executive privilege and the Morgan doctrine.[ ] These notes 
contain the mental impressions and reveal the internal deliberations of the 
writer, Ms. Lamson’s supervisor.  Inquiry into the mental processes of an 
                                              
2  Gen. Prov. § 4-311 provides:  
(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, a custodian shall deny 
inspection of a personnel record of an individual, including an 
application, a performance rating, or scholastic achievement 
information. 
* * * 
(b) A custodian shall allow inspection by: 
(1) the person in interest; or 
(2) an elected or appointed official who supervises the work of the 
individual. 
 
3 The Montgomery County Personnel Regulations provide:  
 
A supervisor may maintain informal notes regarding performance or other 
information about an employee under the supervision of that supervisor.  
Supervisory notes are not considered official employee records and are not 
subject to review by the employee or others. 
 
Montgomery County, Md.  Personnel Regulation § 4-8 (2001).   
 
 
4 
 
administrative decision maker would be contrary to the public interest and 
inimical to the integrity of the supervisory process. 
 
Respondent concluded by stating that the supervisory notes constitute attorney work 
product.  Regarding the second request, Respondent reiterated the rationale advanced in 
request one.  Regarding the remaining requests, Respondent either provided the 
documentation or denied the existence of the document.  
Thereafter, Petitioner filed a Complaint on February 24, 2016 in the Circuit Court 
for Montgomery County, alleging that Respondent violated the MPIA, and requested that 
the court order the disclosure of all relevant documents.  In response, Respondent asserted 
that both sets of notes were not personnel records and were privileged or confidential by 
law, privileged attorney-client documents, attorney work product, or not subject to 
disclosure because of executive privilege.  Thereafter, Respondent filed a Motion to 
Dismiss, or alternatively, a Motion for Summary Judgment.  On May 10, 2016, Petitioner 
filed a Motion for a Vaughn index,4 seeking judicial review of the requested documents.  
Respondent proposed instead that the court conduct an in camera review, contending that 
a Vaughn index was only appropriate when the documents are voluminous and suggested 
that an in camera review was more practical.  On June 22, 2016, the trial court considered 
                                              
4 The term “Vaughn index” originates from the case of Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 
820 (D.C. Cir. 1973).  This process requires the party in possession of a disputed document 
to submit a list of documents in possession, setting forth the date, author, general subject 
matter and claim of privilege for each document claimed to be exempt from discovery.  A 
discussion of this term occurs in detail, infra.  
 
5 
 
arguments and issued an oral ruling granting the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.  The 
court stated:  
I find that all of these notes kept by Ms. Kinch that have been, the way it’s 
been argued to me and briefed to me, are not public records and that they’re 
supervisory notes.  And they are not included in a personnel file.  And they 
are exempted under the Montgomery County Code, which talks about 
supervisory notes that are excluded.  And they’re not governmental. 
I don’t want to get to the slope that you guys keep talking about being 
slippery.  I just don’t think that, I think a supervisor should be able to keep 
private notes under the law, and that’s what we have here, and not explain to 
the whole world every time he or she does as to what’s in them.  And I use 
the example that if, in fact, she confides in someone, whether it be a friend 
or whether it be a relative or even whether it be another employee, does that 
have to be disclosed?  In other words, if the [Petitioner] says under Freedom 
of Information, have you ever made any derogatory statements to any 
personnel members for the Montgomery County?  If she had to reveal that or 
he at any time, that[sic], I believe, would be an abomination of this rule.  I 
don’t believe the Legislature intended it to be that way.  I think the 
Legislature intended that what’s in your personnel file, and we all know what 
that means, don’t put that in my personnel file or put that in my personnel 
file, things that are going to go with you, be used to evaluate you, and that 
work product or mental impressions or discussions or thought processes or 
even discussions among other supervisors are not intended under this act the 
way I see it. 
As a result, the trial court concluded that an in camera review was not required, because 
the notes were not considered personnel records pursuant to Montgomery County 
Personnel Regulation § 4-8 (2001).  Thereafter, Petitioner noted a timely appeal to the 
Court of Special Appeals.  
 
The Court of Special Appeals issued its unreported opinion on August 25, 2017.  
See Lamson v. Montgomery Cty., No. 892, Sept. Term 2016, (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 25, 
2017), 2017 WL 3668171, cert. granted, 456 Md. 523, 175 A.3d 151 (2017).  The Court 
rephrased the questions presented by Petitioner and addressed two primary issues.  The 
 
6 
 
first issue addressed arguments relating to the trial court’s review of the responses to her 
MPIA request.  The second issue related to the finding that the personnel notes fell outside 
the parameters of an MPIA request.  The Court began by outlining the purpose of the 
MPIA, noting that the Act was created to grant access to sensitive information pursuant to 
several statutory limitations, such as where federal or state law prohibits it, or where the 
disclosure of information runs contrary to the public interest.  See Glenn v. Maryland Dep’t 
of Health & Mental Hygiene, 446 Md. 378, 384, 132 A.3d 245, 249 (2016).  Next, the 
Court observed that the MPIA generally allows individuals to obtain private records about 
themselves, including personnel records and that such records should be provided, in the 
absence an adequate justification.   
 
Turning to the merits of the appeal, the Court of Special Appeals determined that 
Respondent sufficiently responded to requests three through sixteen, and that Petitioner did 
not allege sufficient facts to support challenges to those responses.  Regarding requests one 
and two, the Court found that the “supervisory notes do not fit within the definition of 
excludable ‘supervisory notes’ under the Montgomery County Personnel Regulations, and 
that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to review them in camera to determine 
whether non-disclosure was justified on other grounds.”  Lamson, 2017 WL 3668171, at 
*5.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that the MPIA preempts any county 
regulation imposed under Montgomery County Personnel Regulations and determined that 
county regulations could not preclude disclosure of Petitioner’s personnel records.  As 
such, county regulations could not be used to justify the denial of an MPIA request.  
 
7 
 
Regarding the notes contained in Ms. Kinch’s private journal, the Court determined that 
they were not subject to disclosure because they were made by Ms. Kinch in an unofficial 
capacity and kept outside of Petitioner’s personnel folder.  As such, the Court determined 
that they were not public in nature and thus, not subject to disclosure.  Following this 
decision, Petitioner filed for certiorari, which we granted.  456 Md. 523, 175 A.3d 151 
(2017).   
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
“Judicial review of an agency’s decision on MPIA requests is authorized by Gen. 
Prov. § 4-362, which permits a person who is denied inspection of a public record to 
challenge the denial by filing a complaint in the circuit court.”  Action Comm. for Transit, 
Inc. v. Town of Chevy Chase, 229 Md. App. 540, 558, 145 A.3d 640, 650 (2016).  “The 
standard of review for a trial court’s decision on a government’s response to an MPIA 
request is ‘whether that court had an adequate factual basis for the decision it rendered and 
whether the decision the court reached was clearly erroneous.’”  Id.  We have defined the 
clearly erroneous standard by stating, “[i]f any competent material evidence exists in 
support of the trial court’s factual findings, those findings cannot be held to be clearly 
erroneous.”  Webb v. Nowak, 433 Md. 666, 678, 72 A.3d 587, 594 (2013).  However, “[t]o 
the extent the [c]ircuit [c]ourt’s exercise of discretion is based on an interpretation of law, 
that aspect of the ruling below is reviewed de novo….”  Lamone v. Schlakman, 451 Md. 
468, 479, 153 A.3d 144, 151 (2017).  Moreover, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County 
granted Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.  “We review the grant of a [M]otion to [D]ismiss 
 
8 
 
de novo.”  Reichs Ford Rd. Joint Venture v. State Roads Commission  of the State Highway 
Administration, 388 Md. 500, 509, 880 A.2d 307, 312 (2005).  In determining whether the 
decision of a lower court was legally correct, we give no deference to the trial court findings 
and review the decision under a de novo standard of review.  See Walter v. Gunter, 367 
Md. 386, 392, 788 A.2d 609, 612 (2002).  See also Breslin v. Powell, 421 Md. 266, 277, 
26 A.3d 878, 885 (2011).  As a result, we shall review the merits of this matter de novo to 
determine whether the MPIA was properly interpreted and the grant of the motion to 
dismiss was legally correct.  
DISCUSSION 
The Purpose of the MPIA  
The MPIA creates an affirmative right for all persons granting “access to 
information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and 
employees.” Gen. Prov. § 4-103.  See also Glass v. Anne Arundel Cty., 453 Md. 201, 207-
08, 160 A.3d 658, 661-62 (2017).  We have explained this right, stating that the MPIA 
“was created to ‘provide the public the right to inspect the records of the State government 
or of a political subdivision within the State.’”  Glenn, 446 Md. at 384, 132 A.3d at 249.  
Additionally, we noted that public policy creates “a general presumption in favor of 
disclosure of government or public documents.”  Id. at 385, 132 A.3d at 249.  See also 
Maryland Dep’t of State Police v. Maryland State Conference of NAACP Branches, 430 
Md. 179, 190, 59 A.3d 1037, 1043 (2013).  However, in Glass, we outlined the numerous 
exceptions to disclosure contained in the MPIA and classified them into four categories.  
 
9 
 
The first category prevents the disclosure of documents controlled by other laws.  Glass, 
453 Md. at 209, 160 A.3d at 662.  Where a law controls disclosure of a particular document, 
Gen. Prov. § 4-301 prevents disclosure of the document.  Id.  The second category identifies 
documents or information that an agency may not disclose, also known as “mandatory 
exceptions.”  Id.  The mandatory exceptions prevent the disclosure of documents or 
information and require the custodian of records to deny a request for those records or 
information outright.  Moreover, “the statute forbids an agency from disclosing certain 
types of information that may appear in a record, even if other parts of the record are open 
to inspection.”  Id. at 209, 160 A.3d at 662–63.  See also Gen. Prov. § 4–328 et seq.  The 
third category of exceptions consists of “discretionary exceptions.”  Id.  This category 
describes the exceptions in the MPIA that require a custodian of record to decide whether 
disclosure of the record or information would be contrary to the public interest.  The 
discretionary exceptions “are ‘discretionary’ not in the sense that the agency may withhold 
or disclose as it pleases, but in the sense that the agency must make a judgment whether 
the statutory standard for withholding a record—that is, disclosure ‘would be contrary to 
the public interest’—is met.  Id. at 210, 160 A.3d at 663.  Finally, the MPIA permits an 
agency to refuse disclosure subject to several enumerated limits.  This “catch-all exception” 
permits the temporary denial of inspection of records not otherwise exempt from 
disclosure, if the custodian believes that inspection would cause substantial injury to the 
public interest and the agency obtains a court order within 10 days.  Id.      
 
10 
 
 
One of the mandatory exceptions is set forth in Gen. Prov. § 4-311 and controls the 
disclosure of personnel records and requires that the custodian of personnel records “deny 
inspection of a personnel record of an individual, including an application, a performance 
rating, or scholastic achievement information.”  The provision also contains a requirement 
that the custodian permit inspection of the record when requested by the “person of 
interest” or a supervisor of the person in interest.  Id.  A “person of interest” is defined as 
“a person or governmental unit that is the subject of a public record or a designee of the 
person or governmental unit[.]”  Gen. Prov. § 4-101(g).  A “person of interest” may have 
a broader right of access to a record than other persons that may pursue the right to inspect 
a record.  This provision is in contrast to the provisions governing general records subject 
to disclosure and explicitly mandates that the records be kept private, unless requested by 
the person in interest or a supervisor of such a person.  To be clear, while personnel records 
are a sub-category of “public records,” they are largely exempt from disclosure.  See Gen. 
Prov. § 4-304 (stating, “a custodian shall deny inspection of a public record, as provided 
in this part”).  As such, where there is an assertion that the records at issue may constitute 
personnel records there must be an inquiry into the nature of the records to determine which 
rules govern their disclosure.  To pursue that examination we must first define both types 
of records.  
The MPIA broadly defines a “public record” as any document that “is made by a 
unit or an instrumentality of the State or of a political subdivision or received by the unit 
or instrumentality in connection with the transaction of public business[.]”  Gen. Prov. § 
 
11 
 
4-101(j)(1)(i).  It includes any copy of a public record, including written documents, 
photographs, and drawings in both printed and electronically stored formats.  This 
definition is in line with the purpose of the MPIA generally.  Because the MPIA is designed 
to grant access to documents regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of 
public officials, it follows that the definition of a public record should be broad enough to 
cover a wide range of document types.  One type of public record is a personnel record.  
These records, which are not explicitly defined by the MPIA, have been addressed by the 
Court in Kirwan v. The Diamondback, which discussed the definition of a personnel record 
in some detail.  352 Md. 74, 721 A.2d 196 (1998).  The Kirwan Court noted that Gen. Prov. 
§ 4-311 provides examples of the types of records that constitute personnel records.  Gen. 
Prov. § 4-311(a) states, “[s]ubject to subsection (b) of this section, a custodian shall deny 
inspection of a personnel record of an individual, including an application, a performance 
rating, or scholastic achievement information.  (Emphasis added).  Gen. Prov. § 4-311.  
The Kirwan Court then explained that this enumerated list describes what the General 
Assembly intended to constitute a personnel record.  Kirwan, 352 Md. at 82, 721 A.2d at 
200.  The Court went on to state that a personnel record consists of “those documents that 
directly pertain to employment and an employee’s ability to perform a job.”  Id. at 83, 721 
A.2d at 200.  Further, the Kirwan Court indicated: 
In light of this policy, we do not believe that the General Assembly intended 
that any record identifying an employee would be exempt from disclosure as 
a personnel record.  Instead, the General Assembly likely intended that the 
term ‘personnel records’ retain its common sense meaning.  This is indicated 
by the list following the prohibition on the release of the personnel records.   
 
12 
 
Id. at 84, 721 A.2d at 200.  (Emphasis in original).  With these definitions in mind, we must 
now determine how they influence the review of a denied MPIA request.  
Review of a denied MPIA request  
Judicial review of a denied MPIA request is authorized by Gen. Prov. § 4-362.  The 
provision states that, “whenever a person or governmental unit is denied inspection of a 
public record or is not provided with a copy, printout, or photograph of a public record as 
requested, the person or governmental unit may file a complaint with the circuit court.”  
Gen. Prov. § 4-362(a)(1).  This subtitle also contains several prescriptions that govern the 
review of a denied request.  Specifically, the provision instructs an aggrieved party on the 
proper venue for filing a complaint, articulates the limits of the reviewing court, and most 
importantly describes the methods that a court may use in evaluating the sufficiency of a 
denial of an MPIA.  See Gen. Prov. § 4-362(c)(1), (2) and (3).   
In reviewing the Motion to Dismiss, we first examine the procedure employed by 
the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.  The trial court determined that the notes were 
not subject to review because such disclosure was precluded by Montgomery County 
Personnel Regulation § 4-8.  We agree with the finding of the Court of Special Appeals 
and determine that Montgomery County Regulations cannot be invoked to prevent 
disclosure of records.  In reaching this conclusion, we are reminded of our decision in 
Police Patrol Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Prince George’s Cty., 378 Md. 702, 711, 838 A.2d 1191, 
1196 (2003) (hereinafter “Police Patrol”).  In Police Patrol, we considered the relationship 
between local ordinances and the prescriptions of the MPIA and determined that “a county 
 
13 
 
charter is subordinate to the public general laws of Maryland.”  Id. at 712, 838 A.2d at 
1197.  We went on to state that “[a] local government ordinance or charter that conflicts 
with a public general law enacted by the General Assembly is preempted and thus is 
invalid.”  Id.  In the case at bar, the trial court permitted the invocation of Montgomery 
County Personnel Regulation § 4-8 to prevent the disclosure of Petitioner’s personnel 
records in contravention of the MPIA.  Montgomery County Personnel Regulation § 4-8 
categorially precludes the disclosure of records that are permitted under the MPIA.  As 
such, the regulation conflicts with the express language of the MPIA.  Pursuant to Police 
Patrol, we must find the regulation invalid as it impermissibly limits the application of a 
state law enacted by General Assembly.   
Thereafter, the Court of Special Appeals made two determinations relative to the 
notes at issue.  Regarding the notes that were removed from Petitioner’s physical personnel 
file, the Court determined that an additional review of the notes was required so that the 
trial court could properly evaluate Respondent’s denial of the MPIA request.  Specifically, 
the Court noted that the trial court’s reliance on Montgomery County regulations left “no 
independent basis for the court to review the notes in camera or to require an index.”  
Lamson, 2017 WL 3668171, at *6.  The Court went on to determine that its analysis of the 
records reopened the question and required further proceedings.  We agree.  However, 
regarding the second set of notes, i.e., the notes contained in Ms. Kinch’s personal journal, 
we reach a different conclusion.  The Court of Special Appeals determined that the second 
set of notes were outside the definition of a personnel record because they were contained 
 
14 
 
in a personal journal that was never a part of Petitioner’s personnel file and were intended 
to be private.  However, the mere physical location of a record is not necessarily dispositive 
of its characterization.  It is equally possible that the notes contain entries that relate to 
Petitioner’s employment and or the devaluation of her performance rating.  In either 
instance, there is uncertainty regarding the nature of the records at issue and must be 
resolved by closely examining the notes at issue, as well as the exceptions offered thereto.   
The plain language of Gen. Prov. § 4-362 permits the trial court to conduct an in 
camera review of disputed materials to determine whether they are subject to disclosure.  
The subtitle provides “[t]he court may examine the public record in camera to determine 
whether any part of the public record may be withheld under this title.”  Gen. Prov. § 4-
362(c)(2).  In order for a trial court to accomplish this goal, they must be satisfied that the 
agency rationale offered in denying a MPIA request is fully supported.  With this idea in 
mind, we turn to our discussion in Cranford v. Montgomery Cty., 300 Md. 759, 481 A.2d 
221 (1984).  In Cranford, we examined a trial court’s ability to conduct an inquiry into the 
denial of an MPIA request and evaluated what is necessary for the proper denial of a MPIA 
request.  This case also provides an apt summation of the methods of evaluation and 
informs our decision today.  At issue in Cranford was a Sentinel Newspaper request for 
documents relating to a construction project in Montgomery County Government Center.  
Id. at 763, 481 A.2d at 223.  In reviewing the merits of the request, we articulated several 
holdings that are relevant to the instant dispute.  The Court noted competing interests that 
are inherent in a MPIA request, which place at issue one party’s statutory right to disclosure 
 
15 
 
and another party’s assertion of an exception that prevents disclosure.  Id. at 777, 481 A.2d 
at 230.  In addressing this tension, the Court noted that  
The [MPIA] imposes the burden on the records custodian to make a careful 
and thoughtful examination of each document which fairly falls within the 
scope of the request in order for the custodian initially to determine whether 
the document or any severable portion of the document meets all of the 
elements of an exemption. 
Id. at 777, 481 A.2d at 230.  The Court explained this requirement and stated that “[t]he 
General Assembly did not intend for custodians broadly to claim [exceptions] and thereby 
routinely to pass to the courts the task of performing in camera inspections.”  With this in 
mind, the Court established a rule that provides the trial court with discretion in reviewing 
disputed documents.  The Court determined that, “the ultimate standard under the [MPIA] 
for determining whether an in camera inspection is to be made is whether the trial judge 
believes that it is needed in order to make a responsible determination on claims of 
[exceptions].”  Id. at 779, 481 A.2d at 231.   
To make a “responsible determination” the trial court must make two initial 
findings.  First, the court must determine whether the documents at issue are a public 
“record.”  This requires that the court examine whether the notes “were made in connection 
with public business” as required by Gen. Prov. § 4-101.  If the notes are not public 
“record,” then the MPIA does not apply and the records are not required to be disclosed 
under the MPIA.  If the notes are a public record then the trial court must determine what 
type of public records are at issue.  This second level of inquiry seeks to classify the records 
in a manner that permits the court to apply the appropriate MPIA provisions while 
 
16 
 
reviewing the denied request.  This is particularly important in this case because Petitioner 
has asserted that the records are personnel records, which are generally subject to 
disclosure when requested by the person of interest.  See Gen. Prov. § 4-311(b).  In 
classifying the documents a second time, the trial court must determine whether the 
agency’s rationale for denying the request is sufficient.  See Cranford, 300 Md. at 780, 481 
A.2d at 231 (reaffirming that the burden rests with the agency to demonstrate that an 
exception justifies non-disclosure).  The second step in making a “reasonable 
determination” requires that the trial court review the exceptions made by the agency to 
determine whether they are justified.  With this step, the trial court must determine whether 
the exceptions offered by the agency sufficiently prevent the disclosure of the record.  
To make the required determinations, the trial court must apply one of the following 
methods in evaluating an MPIA request.  The first method is a Vaughn index, which 
originates from the case of Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973).  This method 
has also been described as “a system of itemizing and indexing that correlates each of the 
government’s justifications for its refusal to disclose the documents with the actual portions 
of the documents at issue.”  Lewis v. I.R.S., 823 F.2d 375, 377 n.3 (9th Cir. 1987).  We 
described this method in Office of State Prosecutor v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 356 Md. 118, 
121, 737 A.2d 592, 594 (1999).  There we indicated that a Vaughn index “required the 
responding party to provide a list of documents in possession, setting forth the date, author, 
general subject matter and claim of privilege for each document claimed to be exempt from 
 
17 
 
discovery.”  Id. n.1, 737 A.2d at 593 n.1 The Cranford Court addressed this method and 
determined that it is a viable alternative to an in camera review.   
The second method that can be employed is the submission of testimony or 
affidavits, which detail the nature of the denial and establish the basis for the denial.  See 
Maryland Gen. Prov. § 4-362.  In describing this method, the Cranford Court determined 
that the agency must demonstrate that the exception applies and may do so by offering 
evidence by way of testimony or affidavits from the custodian of record.  Cranford, 300 
Md. at 779, 481 A.2d at 231.   
The final method permits the trial court to conduct an in camera review to evaluate 
the merits of an agency denial of an MPIA request.  This method is enumerated in Maryland 
Gen. Prov. § 4-362 and is appropriate where the submission of other evidence is not 
sufficient to evaluate a denial of an MPIA request.  This method is also appropriate where 
the documents at issue are not voluminous.  See Cranford, 300 Md. at 779, 481 A.2d at 
231.  
Regarding the three methods, the Cranford Court determined that the agency carries 
the burden to justify disclosure because of the Court’s refusal to accept conclusory 
statements in support of “generalized allegations of [exceptions].”  Cranford, 300 Md. at 
778, 481 A.2d at 230.  The Court also stated that there is an “emphasis on an explanation 
which presents enough detail to make understandable the issues involved in the claim of 
[exception] without presenting so much detail as to compromise the privileged material…”  
Id., 481 A.2d at 230-31.  In reaching this conclusion, the Cranford Court reasoned that 
 
18 
 
there may not always be a need to conduct in camera review.  As such, the Court 
enumerated factors for a trial court to consider when deciding which method to apply.  The 
factors include judicial economy, the conclusory nature of the agency affidavits, bad faith 
on the part of the agency, disputes concerning the contents of the document, whether the 
agency has proposed in camera inspection, and the strength of the public interest in 
disclosure.  Cranford, at 779, 481 A.2d at 231.   
In applying the Cranford factors to the case at bar, in camera review may be the 
preferable method to review the disputed notes.  The first factor, judicial economy, is best 
served by conducting in camera review because the documents at issue are not voluminous.  
The second factor, which examines the conclusory nature of the exceptions offered, 
requires the trial court to evaluate the exceptions and the rationale offered in support 
thereof.  Where the trial court determines that the exceptions offered are general in nature, 
Cranford requires additional inquiry into the exceptions offered.  Respondent’s primary 
assertion is that the journal notes are privileged attorney-client documents.  However, the 
trial court did not evaluate the veracity of the assertion.  Because the assertion is general in 
nature, the trial court must conduct a review that reflects an evaluation of the assertion.  
Finally, the last relevant factor considers the fact that the agency suggested in camera.  In 
the instant case, Respondent, in responding to Petitioner’s request for a Vaughn index, 
stated that an in camera review “is available” although Respondent disputed its necessity.  
Nonetheless, the trial court should consider Respondent’s statement when deciding the 
method of review for the disputed notes.    
 
19 
 
CONCLUSION 
Where there has been a denial of a proper MPIA request the proponent of the request 
is entitled to judicial review to evaluate the sufficiency of the denial.  Further, the trial court 
in reviewing the denial must be satisfied that the rationale offered by the agency supports 
the denial of the request.  To make this determination, the trial court may require the 
presentation of evidence such as testimony or affidavits, order a Vaughn index, or conduct 
an in camera review.  While the trial court is free to employ the method it deems 
appropriate under the circumstances there must be a showing that all the requirements of 
the asserted exception have been met.  Based on an application of the Cranford factors it 
appears that in camera review will likely be the appropriate method for review of the 
disputed notes.  However, regardless of the method applied, the trial court must not permit 
Respondent to make generalized allegations and must require that Respondent offer an 
explanation that reasonably demonstrates that the exceptions are applicable.  In the case at 
bar, the trial court granted Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss erroneously.  As discussed 
supra reliance on Montgomery County Regulations will not support the denial of a valid 
MPIA request.  Because the trial court ruled on these grounds, the record is devoid of any 
evidence that suggests an inquiry was made into the exceptions offered by Respondent.  As 
such, the trial court did not sufficiently review the denial of Petitioner’s MPIA request.  
Therefore, we must vacate the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remand the 
case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.   
 
 
20 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 
SPECIAL APPEALS IS VACATED.  
CASE 
REMANDED 
TO 
THAT 
COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO 
VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF THE 
CIRCUIT 
COURT 
FOR 
MONTGOMERY 
COUNTY 
AND 
REMAND TO THAT COURT FOR 
FURTHER 
PROCEEDINGS 
CONSISTENT 
WITH 
THIS 
OPINION.  COSTS TO BE PAID BY 
THE RESPONDENT. 
 
 
 
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
OF MARYLAND 
 
No. 67 
 
September Term, 2018 
______________________________________ 
 
BERNADETTE FOWLER LAMSON 
 
v. 
 
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND 
______________________________________ 
 
Barbera, C.J. 
Greene 
Adkins 
McDonald 
Watts 
Hotten 
Getty, 
 
JJ. 
______________________________________ 
 
Concurring Opinion by Watts, J. 
______________________________________ 
 
Filed: July 31, 2018 
 
Circuit Court for Montgomery County 
Case No. 415227-V 
 
Argued: May 7, 2018 
 
Respectfully, I concur.  I agree with the majority opinion’s holding remanding the 
case for further proceedings, but I would remand the case to the Court of Special Appeals 
with instructions to vacate the judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and 
order the circuit court to conduct an in camera review of the notes contained in Petitioner’s 
supervisor’s journal.  The majority opinion remands the case for the circuit court to choose 
the method of addressing potential disclosure of the notes in the supervisor’s journal, 
stating that “the [circuit] court may require the presentation of evidence such as testimony 
or affidavits, order a Vaughn index, or conduct an in camera review.”  Maj. Slip Op. at 19.  
Indeed, the majority opinion states that, although the circuit “court is free to employ the 
method it deems appropriate under the circumstances[,]” “it appears that in camera review 
will likely be the appropriate method for review of the disputed notes.”  Maj. Slip Op. at 
19.  In its opinion, the Court of Special Appeals authorized the in camera review of the 
supervisory notes contained in Petitioner’s supervisory file.  See Lamson v. Montgomery 
Cty., 2017 WL 3668171, at *6-*7 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 25, 2017).  And, I would 
expressly conclude that an in camera review is likewise warranted of the notes contained 
in Petitioner’s supervisor’s journal as well. 
For the above reasons, respectfully, I concur.