Title: Springfield Terminal Railway Co. v. Agency of Transportation

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Springfield Terminal Railway Co. v. Agency of Transportation (2001-447); 
174 Vt. 341; 816 A.2d 448

[Filed 01-Nov-2002]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                No. 2001-447

  Springfield Terminal Railway Company	         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Washington Superior Court


  Agency of Transportation, and Green            October Term, 2002
  Mountain Railroad Corp., Vermont 
  Railway, Inc.,  Northern Vermont 
  Railroad Company, Intervenors

  Matthew I. Katz, J.

  Christopher D. Roy of Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC, Burlington, for
    Plaintiff-Appellant.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Thomas R. Viall, Assistant
    Attorney General, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellee.

  Mark D. Oettinger of Lisman, Webster, Kirkpatrick & Leckerling,
    Burlington, for Intervenor-Appellee Northern Vermont Railroad Company.

  Eric R. Benson, Burlington, for Intervenors-Appellees Green Mountain
    Railroad Corporation and Vermont Railway, Inc.


  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

        
       SKOGLUND, J.   Plaintiff Springfield Terminal Railway Company ("STR")
  appeals from the superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of
  defendant Vermont Agency of Transportation ("VTrans").  STR argues that the
  superior court improperly granted summary judgment by incorrectly
  interpreting 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(9) (FN1) to exempt from mandated public

 

  disclosure under Vermont's Access to Public Records Act specific financial
  information submitted to VTrans in response to requests for proposals to
  provide rail freight service in the state. We find that § 317(c)(9) exempts
  from public disclosure the financial information submitted to VTrans and,
  therefore, affirm the superior court's grant of summary judgment.

       In February  2000, VTrans issued a request for proposals, seeking a
  rail freight operator to provide freight service over a railroad line
  running from White River Junction to Wells River.  The proposal request
  specifically required that each bidding operator submit detailed
  information regarding corporate finances, in addition to a general
  technical proposal.  In response to VTrans's request, intervenors Northern
  Vermont Railroad Company, Green Mountain Railroad Corporation, and Vermont
  Railway (collectively the "intervenors") submitted proposals containing the
  required financial information.  STR also submitted a proposal, but omitted
  the required financial information, stating that it did not "believe that
  the State of Vermont or the Agency of Transportation has the expertise
  necessary to accurately assess the requested information, nor does [STR]
  believe that its financial ability to operate this line should be open to
  question."  STR instead proposed to post a bond to ensure its ability to
  meet its operating and maintenance obligations to the line.  
   
       STR's proposal was initially deemed non-responsive and rejected by
  VTrans.  STR appealed the rejection of its proposal to the Secretary of
  Transportation, who reversed the initial decision and allowed STR's
  proposal to be considered by VTrans's selection committee.  The selection
  committee ultimately  chose a proposal submitted by intervenor Northern
  Vermont Railroad Company 

 

  ("NVR").  The Secretary of Transportation ratified the selection and the
  parties then negotiated a long-term operating agreement.  

       Prior to the selection of NVR's proposal, STR submitted by letter
  dated March 16, 2000, a request to inspect and/or copy public records
  relating to the selection, solicitation, and recruitment of entities to
  operate the rail line.  On April 6, 2000, VTrans responded by producing
  some of the requested documents, but withheld from disclosure other
  documents, claiming them as exempt from Vermont's Access to Public Records
  Act pursuant to 1 V.S.A. § 317.  VTrans wrote:

    Generally speaking, we consider copies of the proposals submitted
    to the Agency by potential operators in response to the [request
    for proposals] notice to be confidential under 1 V.S.A. §
    317(b)(15) (exemption from records relating to negotiation of
    contracts) until such time as the Secretary of Transportation has
    confirmed the selection committee's recommendation in favor of a
    particular operator.  Furthermore, we consider financial
    information submitted by potential operators to be confidential on
    an ongoing basis under 1 V.S.A. § 317(b)(6) (exemption for
    financial information submitted in connection with agency
    business), 317(b)(7) (exemption for information relating to
    finances of an individual or a private corporation), and §
    317(b)(9) (exemption for proprietary information known only to
    certain individuals within a commercial concern). 

  Most relevant to this appeal is VTrans's refusal to disclose specific
  financial information submitted by the intervenors.  This withheld
  financial information included balance sheets, income statements, profit
  and loss statements,  statements of retained earnings, statements of cash
  flows, and five or six year freight and passenger flow projections.  At the
  request of intervenor Green Mountain Railroad Corporation, VTrans also
  withheld information including the names of current and potential shippers,
  stockholder information, and employee information.  
   
       On May 17, 2000, STR again requested access to the intervenors'
  proposals.  On April 26, 2000, VTrans denied STR's request, again
  maintaining the information as exempt from disclosure.  

 

  STR responded by filing for an injunction in superior court on July 8,
  2000, seeking an order requiring VTrans to produce the withheld documents
  pursuant to 1 V.S.A. §§ 315-320, Vermont's Access to Public Records
  statutes.  On July 24, 2000, a hearing was held to address several issues,
  including previously filed motions to intervene.  At this hearing, STR's
  attorney admitted that STR sought disclosure of the financial information
  submitted to VTrans because it desired the "business and other information"
  of its competitors and that they were "being nosey."  

       In October 2000, VTrans and the intervenors filed motions for summary
  judgment.  STR responded by filing a cross-motion for summary judgment on
  November 15, 2000.  The superior court issued an order on January 31, 2001
  dismissing STR's complaint and finding that the financial information
  sought by STR was exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(9). 
  STR filed a motion for reconsideration on March 7, 2001, arguing that the
  intervenors' voluntary submission of the financial information to VTrans
  constituted a waiver of confidentiality.  The superior court denied
  reconsideration on August 24, 2001.  This appeal followed.   

       Our review of summary judgment is de novo.  This Court uses the same
  standard as the trial court.  We will affirm summary judgment "if there are
  no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
  judgment as a matter of law."  Granger v. Town of Woodford, 167 Vt. 610,
  611,