Title: Norman v. VT Office of Court Administrator

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Norman v. VT Office of Court Administrator (2003-146); 176 Vt. 593;
844 A.2d 769

2004 VT 13

[Filed 29-Jan-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 13

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-146

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2003

  Stephen Norman	                }	APPEALED FROM:
                                        }
                                        }
       v.	                        }	Chittenden Superior Court
                                        }	
  Vermont Office of Court Administrator	}
                                        }	DOCKET NO. S0289-00 Cnc

                                                Trial Judge: David A. Jenkins

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Plaintiff Stephen Norman appeals from a superior court order
  denying his Public Records Act request for certain documents in the custody
  of defendant Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).  Plaintiff contends
  the court erroneously concluded that the records were exempt from
  disclosure under the Act's exception for "records which by law are
  designated confidential."  1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(1).  We reverse and remand.

       ¶  2.  In March 2000, plaintiff filed a complaint against the City
  of Burlington and the OCA, seeking access under the Public Records Act, 1
  V.S.A. §§ 315-320, to the "nonexempt records of employment"of Darryl K.
  Graham, a former employee of the Burlington Police Department between 1978
  and 1981, and a former investigator with the OCA from 1995 to 1999.
  Plaintiff alleged that both the Department and the OCA had provided copies
  of some of the requested documents but had improperly withheld others.  The
  OCA later provided plaintiff with an index listing some twenty-five
  nondisclosed documents. The index contained a summary of each document, the
  number of pages, the author and recipient, the basis for nondisclosure
  under the Act, and a brief note relating the contents of the document to
  the claimed statutory exemption. 

       ¶  3.  The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 
  Plaintiff narrowed his request to seven documents withheld by the OCA,
  identified in the index as documents 1 through 7.  The court examined the
  documents in camera, and later issued a written decision, concluding that
  all seven documents were entirely exempt from disclosure under the Act's
  exception for "records which by law are designated confidential." 1 V.S.A.
  § 317(c)(1).  This appeal followed. (FN1) 
   
       ¶  4.  We have frequently observed that the Act is to be "construed
  liberally" in favor of disclosure to effectuate its goal of providing "free
  and open examination" of public records. Herald Ass'n v. Dean, 174 Vt. 350,
  355,