Opinion ID: 2632238
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the administrative decision allow Gwich'in to meaningfully challenge the assertion of privilege?

Text: Gwich'in first argues that the initial decision by the Office of the Governor is facially inadequate to sustain the privilege because the decision failed to state sufficient reasons for withholding the documents and therefore did not satisfy requirements stated in regulation and case law. The Office of the Governor promulgated 6 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 96.350 (2000), which requires that an administrative appeal determination of a Public Records Act request denial must be in writing, must specify the specific statute, regulation, or court decision that is the basis for the denial, and must state briefly the reason for the denial. We have never addressed what an agency must show to invoke the privilege under 6 AAC 96.350. [35] In City of Colorado Springs v. White, [36] the Colorado Supreme Court thoroughly discussed what an agency must do to invoke the privilege successfully following a public records act request. The court there adopted the well-established procedure federal agencies must follow to protect documents from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. [37] Under federal law, an agency must assert the privilege by preparing a Vaughn index. [38] The court stated that the index should (1) describe specifically each document claimed to be privileged, noting its author, recipient, and subject; (2) explain how each document qualifies for the privilege, describing the deliberative process to which the document is related and the role the document played in that process; (3) include an affidavit discussing why disclosure would be harmful; and (4) describe which portions of large documents are and are not subject to disclosure. [39] The requirements of 6 AAC 96.350 are not as extensive as the requirements for a Vaughn index, but the purpose is the sameto provide litigants with fundamental information about the allegedly privileged material, and provide them with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the government's claims. [40] When it initially denied Gwich'in access to the documents, the Office of the Governor provided information about each document's author, subject matter, date, length, and reason for nondisclosure. Ayers's written determination of the administrative appeal listed the specific documents, the reasons for nondisclosure, and the legal authority for nondisclosure. The Office of the Governor therefore complied with 6 AAC 96.350. Moreover, the superior court's in camera review and the full briefing before that court allowed Gwich'in a meaningful opportunity to challenge the claim of privilege. [41] Because we hold that the administrative decision and the superior court's in camera review were sufficient, we do not need to address the Office of the Governor's cross-appeal.