Opinion ID: 1276694
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appraisal Reports for Other Properties Are Confidential

Text: The DOH argued to this Court that appraisal reports for properties other than the defendant's property are confidential records not subject to discovery. I agree. 49 C.F.R. § 24.9(a) requires a government agency [9] that acquires real property to maintain records to establish its compliance with the Federal Act. [10] However, these records are confidential: Confidentiality of records. Records maintained by an Agency in accordance with this part are confidential regarding their use as public information, unless applicable law provides otherwise. 49 C.F.R. § 24.9(b). [11] As the DOH correctly notes, only one court has addressed this regulation. In City of Reno v. Reno Gazette-Journal, 119 Nev. 55, 63 P.3d 1147 (2003), a local newspaper sought to obtain, inter alia, copies of appraisal documents for real property to be acquired from various landowners in furtherance of a public works project in the city of Reno. The project was classified as a federal highway project; therefore, the city was required to comply with the Federal Act. City of Reno at 57, 63 P.3d at 1148. Relying on the plain meaning of 49 C.F.R. § 24.9(b), the Supreme Court of Nevada concluded that this regulation plainly makes records involved in the acquisition of real property for federally funded programs confidential, and not public information, unless there is a law providing that they are not confidential. 119 Nev. at 60, 63 P.3d at 1150. (Emphasis added). The newspaper unsuccessfully argued that the acquisition and relocation records are public records and are required to be open for inspection under the Nevada Public Records Act. [12] 119 Nev. at 57-58, 63 P.3d at 1148. Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court of Nevada observed that [t]he Nevada Public Records Act merely provides that public records that are not declared by law to be confidential, must be open for inspection. It does not declare that records regarding acquisition of property are public. Acquisition records have been declared confidential under 49 C.F.R. § 24.9(b), which was adopted by statute into Nevada law. Therefore, these records fit within the exemption provided in the Nevada Public Records Act. The Nevada Public Records Act is not applicable law changing the confidential nature of these records. Id. at 60-61, 63 P.3d at 1148 (emphasis added). I agree with the Supreme Court of Nevada that appraisal reports pertaining to property not owned by the person or entity seeking their disclosure are rendered confidential by 49 C.F.R. § 24.9(b), and thus are not public records absent a specific law declaring them to be public records. There is no such law in West Virginia. Indeed, in its brief to this Court, Fort Pleasant acknowledges that it is prohibited from obtaining appraisal reports pertaining to property it does not own. Citing to the City of Reno case, Fort Pleasant observed that the `public information' confidentiality [of 49 C.F.R. § 24.9(b)] goes . . . to the accessibility of these records to third parties via Freedom of Information Act requests. Obviously, it would be inappropriate for information purveyors, for example, to gain access to these records for compilation, distribution, and private profit. (Emphasis added). I agree. The West Virginia Freedom of Information Act (hereinafter FOIA), W. Va.Code § 29B1-1, et seq., provides for the disclosure of public records. See, e.g., W. Va.Code § 29B-1-3 (1992) (Repl. Vol.2002) (Every person has a right to inspect or copy any public record of a public body in this state, except as otherwise expressly provided by section four [§ 29B-1-4] of this article.). Because federal law renders the appraisal reports confidential with respect to third parties, they are not public records subject to disclosure under FOIA. Fort Pleasant argues, however, that the language of 49 C.F.R. § 24.9(b) stating unless applicable law provides otherwise is intended to allow the disclosure of this information, for example, in the context of civil or criminal litigation under the applicable procedural rules. This argument must fail. In promulgating 49 C.F.R. § 24.9(b), the United States Department of Transportation could not have intended rules of civil procedure to qualify as applicable law providing otherwise. Every state in the nation has adopted rules of civil procedure. Thus, if such rules could be relied upon to obtain confidential appraisals of non-owned property, then 49 C.F.R. § 24.9(b) would be meaningless insofar as it classifies such documents as confidential because they could potentially be disclosed to anyone involved in litigation. As this Court has previously explained, It is the `duty of this Court to avoid whenever possible a construction of a statute which leads to absurd, inconsistent, unjust or unreasonable results.' Expedited Transp. Sys., Inc. v. Vieweg, 207 W.Va. 90, 98, 529 S.E.2d 110, 118 (2000) (quoting State v. Kerns, 183 W.Va. 130, 135, 394 S.E.2d 532, 537 (1990)) (emphasis omitted). Thus, [w]here a particular construction of a statute would result in an absurdity, some other reasonable construction, which will not produce such absurdity, will be made. Syl. pt. 2, Newhart v. Pennybacker, 120 W.Va. 774, 200 S.E. 350 (1938). Accord Syl. pt. 2, Conseco Fin. Serv'g Corp. v. Myers, 211 W.Va. 631, 567 S.E.2d 641 (2002) (`It is the duty of a court to construe a statute according to its true intent, and give to it such construction as will uphold the law and further justice. It is as well the duty of a court to disregard a construction, though apparently warranted by the literal sense of the words in a statute, when such construction would lead to injustice and absurdity.' Syllabus Point 2, Click v. Click, 98 W.Va. 419, 127 S.E. 194 (1925).). Bluestone Paving, Inc., A Corp. v. Tax Comm'r of State, 214 W.Va. 684, 689, 591 S.E.2d 242, 247 (2003). [13] Had the United States Department of Transportation intended to create a broad sweeping exception to the confidentiality of acquisition records under the rules of civil procedure, it could have easily created a regulation establishing such a litigation exception. It did not. I find further support for rejecting Fort Pleasant's theory of a litigation exception to the confidentiality of acquisition records in 49 C.F.R. 24.9(e), [14] which expressly maintains the confidentiality of such records in the context of an administrative appeal. It would be nonsensical to conclude that documents retaining their confidentiality in the context of an administrative appeal would be stripped of that confidentiality in civil litigation. Consequently, I believe the majority was wrong to conclude that these confidential records are discoverable.