Title: Judicial Watch, Inc. v. State

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. State (2004-209); 179 Vt. 214; 892 A.2d 191

2005 VT  108

[Filed 04-Nov-2005]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 21-Dec-2005]


       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.


                                2005 VT  108

                                No. 2004-209


  Judicial Watch, Inc.	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Washington Superior Court


  State of Vermont,	                         March Term, 2005
  Deborah L. Markowitz, Secretary of State,  
  Gregory Sanford, State Archivist and 
  Howard Dean, M.D., Former Governor


  Alan W. Cook, J.

  Andrew D. Manitsky of Gravel and Shea, Burlington, and Paul J. Orfanedes,
    Judicial Watch, Inc.,  Washington, DC,  for Plaintiff-Appellee.	

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, William E. Griffin, Chief Assistant
    Attorney General and Mark J. Di Stefano, Assistant Attorney General,
    Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and 
            Gibson, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.   We accepted this interlocutory appeal to
  determine whether the Secretary of State may enter into an agreement with a
  retiring Governor to restrict public access to a portion of the Governor's
  official correspondence for a period of ten years after the Governor leaves
  office.  We conclude that the restriction is permissible under Vermont law,
  and therefore reverse the trial court judgment to the contrary.   

       ¶  2.  The material facts are largely undisputed.  In preparation for
  his impending retirement, Governor Howard Dean entered into a memorandum of
  understanding with the Secretary of State regarding the archival storage of
  his gubernatorial papers.  The memorandum, signed in early January 2003 by
  the Governor, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General, states that
  its purpose "is to establish clear guidelines to govern public access to
  'the official correspondence of the Governor' under 3 V.S.A. § 4(a), (FN1)
  and sets forth "special terms and conditions of restriction" for any
  official correspondence determined by the Governor to be covered by
  executive privilege, under provisions of the State Archives Act, formerly
  codified at 3 V.S.A. § 117(a)(2) (now codified at 3 V.S.A. § 117(g)(9)).
  (FN2)  The terms and conditions include the proviso that any correspondence
  determined by the Governor to be covered by executive privilege will be
  open to the public commencing on January 10, 2013, ten years hence.  Until
  that time, the privileged records will be sealed, and accessible in only a
  few limited circumstances, including written authorization from Governor
  Dean, or "[p]ursuant to a valid court order." 
     
       ¶  3.  Although the trial court made no specific findings on the
  volume of the records at issue, it was undisputed that the State archives
  acquired approximately 320 cubic feet of records from Governor Dean (one
  cubic foot is the equivalent of one standard-size storage box), of which
  approximately 150 cubic feet were designated as containing privileged
  material.  The Governor later reduced the number of sealed gubernatorial
  records to approximately 93 cubic feet.  
   
       ¶  4.  In August 2003, following Governor Dean's retirement,
  plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc., a self-described "watchdog" organization
  based in Washington, D.C., filed a request under the Public Records Act, 1
  V.S.A. §§ 315-320 (hereafter "PRA" or "Act"), to inspect and copy all of
  Governor Dean's gubernatorial papers.  The Secretary denied the request for
  access to the records that had been sealed pursuant to the memorandum of
  understanding, noting that they were governed by the provision of the State
  Archives Act applicable to archived records and the "special terms or 
  conditions" attached thereto, under 3 V.S.A. § 117(g)(9), rather than by
  the PRA.  Plaintiff then filed this action in superior court, seeking to
  compel the Secretary to comply with its PRA request.  The State answered
  and filed a counterclaim, seeking a declaration that the Governor's records
  were validly sealed under the memorandum of understanding and not subject
  to disclosure under the Act.
   
       ¶  5.  Plaintiff subsequently moved for judgment on the pleadings. 
  The State opposed the motion, arguing that plaintiff had failed to
  demonstrate as a matter of law that the memorandum of understanding was
  invalid, and asserting that the case should be decided on the basis of
  summary judgment following additional factual development.  The trial court
  issued an initial decision in February 2004, concluding that the Archives
  Act did not authorize the Secretary to restrict access to records deemed to
  be privileged by Governor Dean; that the records in question were governed
  by the PRA; and that, as this Court has recognized, a prima facie claim of
  executive privilege under the Act's exception for "common law privilege," 1
  V.S.A. § 317(c)(4), requires a showing specifically identifying the
  document in question and the basis for the privilege.  See New England
  Coalition v. Office of the Governor, 164 Vt. 337, 344,