Opinion ID: 2680600
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Interagency or intraagency communication

Text: [¶40] The first requirement is that the communication be between employees or officials within an agency or between agencies of the State, such as the communications at issue here between members of the Wyoming Game & Fish Commission and the Governor’s office. 2. Communication is pre-decisional and deliberative [¶41] Second, for a document to be “pre-decisional,” the document must be one that is generated prior to the government’s adoption of a policy. “The exemption thus covers recommendations, draft documents, proposals, suggestions, and other subjective documents . . . which would inaccurately reflect or prematurely disclose the views of the agency, suggesting as agency position that which is as yet only a personal position.” Coastal States Gas Corp., 617 F.2d at 866. 16 [¶42] The Coastal States Gas Corp. court went on to say: To test whether disclosure of a document is likely to adversely affect the purposes of the privilege, courts ask themselves whether the document is so candid or personal in nature that public disclosure is likely in the future to stifle honest and frank communication within the agency . . . . We also ask whether the document is recommendatory in nature or is a draft of what will become a final document, and whether the document is deliberative in nature, weighing the pros and cons of agency adoption of one viewpoint or another. Finally, even if the document is predecisional at the time it is prepared, it can lose that status if it is adopted, formally or informally, as the agency position on an issue or is used by the agency in its dealings with the public. 617 F.2d at 866. [¶43] To demonstrate that a document is “deliberative” in nature, the government must show that the document reflects the give and take of the government’s decision-making process. Such documents will contain “advisory opinions, deliberations or the exercise of discretion on some policy.” Freudenthal, 2010 WY 80, ¶ 35, 233 P.3d at 943. Mere factual information will not generally be considered sufficient to satisfy the deliberative nature requirement. [¶44] In Freudenthal, we cited with favor the Tenth Circuit’s conclusion that “[i]nformation is not protected simply because disclosure would reveal some minor or obvious detail of an agency’s decision making process.” 2010 WY 80, ¶ 36, 233 P.3d at 943 (citing Trentadue v. Integrity Comm., 501 F.3d 1215, 1228 (10th Cir. 2007)). We further explained that a document is privileged only “if its disclosure would ‘lay bare the discussion and methods of reasoning of public officials’ and withholding it is necessary to ‘protect free discussion of prospective operations and policy.’” Freudenthal, 2010 WY 80, ¶ 34, 233 P.3d at 943 (citing Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. United States, 157 F.Supp. 939, 947, 141 Ct.Cl. 38, 49 (1958)). 3. Disclosure would be contrary to the public interest [¶45] The final requirement for protection under Wyoming’s deliberative process privilege is that the document’s disclosure “would be contrary to public interest.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-4-203(b). Once the custodian has determined that the deliberative process privilege applies under Section (b)(v), he must then make the further determination which requires weighing of the interests of the government in not disclosing the document against the public’s interest in maintaining a transparent and 17 accountable government and an informed electorate. The burden of proof is on the custodian to overcome our inherent presumption that “the denial of inspection is contrary to public policy,” Freudenthal, 2010 WY 80, ¶ 19, 233 P.3d at 938, and the custodian “must . . . test any contemplated withholding decision by asking whether withdrawal will be in the public interest.” Sheridan Newspapers, 660 P.2d at 798. Consistent with the WPRA’s overarching purpose, “the custodian, in any exercise of his right to withdraw, must confine his withdrawal discretion to those areas and circumstances prescribed by this Act,” employing such discretion on a selective basis rather than through the withdrawal of entire categories of public records. Allsop, ¶ 10, 39 P.3d at 1095 (quoting Sheridan Newspapers, 660 P.2d at 795-96). Put another way, the WPRA creates a presumption that the denial of inspection is contrary to public policy, and therefore places “the burden of proof upon the custodian to show that the exercise of his discretion does not run afoul of statutory limitations in any particular instance where custodial withdrawal is effected.” Sheridan Newspapers, Inc., 660 P.2d at 795-96. PRBRC, 2014 WY 37, ¶ 34, 320 P.3d at 231. [¶46] This public interest element will not necessarily be satisfied by recognition of the public interest that underlies the deliberative process privilege, although it often will be. As the Maryland court has recognized in interpreting similar language: In cases in which the custodian invokes the agency memoranda exemption, and in which the trial court has determined that one of the privileges embraced within that exemption applies, the third element . . . will typically be satisfied, namely, disclosure to the applicant would be contrary to the public interest. There is a public interest which underlies each legally recognized privilege and, if the privilege applies, it would be at best difficult to say that an agency decision to withhold was contrary to the public interest. Cranford v. Montgomery, 481 A.2d 221, 229 (Md. 1984). [¶47] In some instances, this public interest prong of the test is satisfied by weighing the public interest in allowing the free exchange of opinions within the executive branch against the public interest in being informed of the actions of public officials carrying out 18 the business of the public. However, that may not be the result in every case, and the records custodian as well as the trial courts must carefully weigh the competing public interests, even after concluding the documents fall under the deliberative process privilege. II. Do the documents withheld fall within the deliberative process privilege? [¶48] Using the framework outlined above, see supra ¶¶ 40-47, we turn to application of the deliberative process privilege to the documents at issue in this case. [¶49] Many of the documents at issue are draft letters. Draft letters can be protected by the privilege if they are both pre-decisional and deliberative. See Krikorian v. Dep’t of State, 984 F.2d 461, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (holding privilege applied to draft letters proposing two options for responding to public inquiry where neither option was ultimately used and drafts contained advisory opinions important in the deliberative process). As with the other documents, we must determine whether the documents are interagency or intraagency documents, whether they reflect personal opinions and recommendations on how to exercise discretion on a policy matter, whether they reflect the consultative process on a policy matter, and whether their disclosure may tend to prematurely disclose state policy or in some manner confuse the State’s position on a policy matter, whether their disclosure would be contrary to public policy. See Freudenthal, 2010 WY 80, ¶ 34, 233 P.3d at 942-43; Grand Central P’shp, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 481 (2d Cir. 1999); Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 866. [¶50] We are mindful of Mr. Aland’s argument that the State’s policy on grizzly bear listing or delisting is already established. While in a broad sense that observation may be accurate, our review of the documents reveals that the State continues to formulate its approach in negotiating with the federal government and interacting with other states on wildlife policy issues. Where the withheld documents reflect this type of deliberation, and we find that the deliberation fits within the framework set forth above, see supra ¶¶ 40-47, we have upheld application of the privilege. On the other hand, where a document does no more than communicate or explain set policy on a matter, or is virtually identical in substance to a final and released document, we will necessarily find that the privilege does not apply. See In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 737 (“[D]eliberative process privilege does not shield documents that simply state or explain a decision the government has already made[.]”); Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 866 (pre-decisional document can lose that status if it becomes agency position on issue or is used in agency dealings). 19 [¶51] The documents for which the State asserted the deliberative process privilege are Document Nos. 2 through 7, Document No. 9, and Documents No. 11 through 45.6 To explain its withholding of these documents, the State submitted, and the record contains, affidavits explaining the nature of the document and in most cases its role in the decisionmaking process, a privilege log setting forth the privilege claimed, and for the draft documents, a copy of the final version of the document that was made public and provided to Mr. Aland. In determining whether draft documents fit within the parameters of the deliberative process privilege, the comparison we have made is between each draft and the final released version of the draft document. We turn then to our consideration of the documents and whether the privilege protects them from disclosure. Document No. 2 [¶52] Document No. 2 contains the handwritten notes of Steve Ferrell, the Governor’s Wildlife and Endangered Species Policy Advisor, concerning a conversation he had with Scott Talbott, Director of the Wyoming Game & Fish Department. The notes reflect Director Talbott’s personal opinions and recommendations, as communicated to Mr. Ferrell, concerning options available to the State with regard to the listing of grizzly bears on the endangered species list. The document reflects the give and take of a conversation regarding a policy matter and does not reflect the State’s final decision regarding the issue. Disclosure of this document would be contrary to public policy because it would prematurely disclose options considered by the State in formulating its policy. We find the document fits within the privilege. Document No. 3 [¶53] Document No. 3 contains the handwritten notes of Steve Ferrell made in preparation for meetings with the Governor, and the notes reflect Mr. Ferrell’s personal thoughts, opinions, and recommendations concerning various wildlife policy matters. Because the note reflects a staff member’s personal opinions and thoughts on a policy matter and not the State’s final decision regarding the policy, disclosure would be contrary to public policy and we find that the document fits within the privilege. Document No. 4 [¶54] Document No. 4 contains the typewritten notes of Steve Ferrell outlining his personal thoughts and suggestions on matters to be included in a letter to Secretary Salazar regarding grizzly bear issues. The document is pre-decisional and reflects Mr. Ferrell’s personal thoughts and opinions, rather than the State’s position. Initially, this 6 Document Nos. 1 and 8 were withheld on the basis of the attorney-client privilege, which will be discussed hereinafter, and the State provided Aland with a copy of Document 10 after the district court ruled that the document was not protected by the attorney-client privilege. 20 document fit within the privilege. However, “even if [a] document is predecisional at the time it is prepared, it can lose that status if it is adopted, formally or informally, as the agency position on an issue or is used by the agency in its dealings with the public.” Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 866. All of the details contained in Document No. 4 became incorporated in the final letter sent to Mr. Salazar on May 24, 2012. As a result, the deliberative nature of the document no longer exists. Further, disclosure of this document would not be contrary to public policy. There is no risk that the disclosure would confuse the public as to the government’s position on the issues, nor is there a risk of prematurely disclosing the thoughts, opinions, or deliberations that ultimately were rejected by the Governor’s office. The Supreme Court recognized in National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Company that an agency employee is not likely to be chilled by the fear that his advice will become public if that advice is adopted and, therefore, becomes public. 421 U.S. 132, 161, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 1521 (1975). See also United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 218 F.R.D. 312, 317 (D.D.C. 2003) (government “has the burden of establishing that a purportedly privileged document has not been adopted formally or informally”). As a result, we find that this document does not satisfy all three prongs of the privilege and must be disclosed. Document Nos. 5 and 6 [¶55] Document Nos. 5 and 6 are draft agendas for a July 7, 2011 meeting between Governor Mead and Secretary Salazar regarding wolf management. The State, through the affidavit of Steve Ferrell, has suggested that the document is privileged because the drafts contain Mr. Ferrell’s thoughts on topics that should be discussed and not all of the topics appeared on the final agenda. We do not agree that these two documents are privileged. [¶56] The final agenda was a list of topics, set forth as follows: 1. Introductions