Title: Kade v. Smith

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Kade v. Smith (2004-344); 180 Vt. 554; 904 A.2d 1080

2006 VT 44

[Filed 05-Jun-2006] 

[Motion for Reargument Denied 10-Jul-2006]
     

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 44

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-344

                              MARCH TERM, 2005

  Barry Kade, Esq.                    }          APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
       v.                             }          Washington Superior Court
                                      }  
  Charles Smith, Secretary,           }
  Agency of Human Services            }          DOCKET NO. 443-8-03 Wncv

                                                 Trial Judge: Alan W. Cook

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Plaintiff Barry Kade appeals from a superior court judgment
  denying his request under the Public Records Act to compel disclosure of
  four performance evaluations pertaining to the Superintendent of the
  Northern State Correctional Facility in the City of Newport.  Plaintiff
  contends the court erred in: (1) refusing to examine the requested
  documents in camera; (2) ruling that the records contain personal
  information exempt from disclosure; (3) failing to balance the competing
  interests in privacy and disclosure; and (4) declining to redact those
  portions of the records determined to be confidential and releasing the
  balance.  For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the judgment and
  remand for further proceedings.
        
       ¶  2.  In June 2003, plaintiff submitted a Public Records Act (PRA)
  request to the Department of Corrections (DOC) to provide the performance
  evaluation reports relating to Kathleen Lanman, Superintendent of the
  Northern State Correctional Facility, for the years 1999 through 2003.
  (FN1)    The DOC, and later the Secretary of the Agency of Human Services
  (Agency), denied the request, claiming that the evaluations were exempt
  from disclosure under the "personal documents" exception of the PRA, 1
  V.S.A. § 317(c)(7). (FN2)  Plaintiff then filed a complaint in superior
  court, seeking to compel production of the documents in question.  Id. §
  319(a). The State moved to dismiss and later moved for summary judgment,
  but the court denied both motions for failure to make a specific, factual
  showing that the records contained personal information exempt from
  disclosure under the statute and our decisions in Trombley v. Bellows Falls
  Union High School District No. 27, 160 Vt. 101,