Opinion ID: 1591641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: For or in Anticipation of a Pending Civil Action

Text: We next consider whether the investigation was undertaken either for the purpose of commencing or defending a [pending] civil legal action or of [retaining] the data in anticipation of [a pending civil] legal action. St. Peter Herald, 496 N.W.2d at 814. A `pending civil legal action' includes but is not limited to judicial, administrative or arbitration proceedings. Minn.Stat. § 13.39, subd. 1 (2002). Under Minn.Stat. § 176.181, subd. 3(a) and (b), the commissioner of DOLI must give an employer ten working days to file an objection once an order is issued. If the employer does not file an objection within ten working days, the order becomes final, and violation of that order shall be enforceable by way of civil contempt proceedings in district court. Minn.Stat. § 176.181, subd. 3(b) (2002). If the employer files a timely objection, the commissioner has to refer the matter to the office of administrative hearings for an expedited hearing before a compensation judge. Id. Thus, the statute requires the commissioner to retain the orders in anticipation of a judicial proceeding and/or to retain the orders and objections in anticipation of an administrative proceeding, each of which fits within the definition of a pending civil legal action.
DOLI argues that even if the orders and objections could properly be classified as civil investigative data pursuant to section 13.39, subdivision 2(a), they do not fit within the definition of either confidential data on individuals or protected nonpublic data provided by Minn.Stat. § 13.02, subds. 3 and 13. DOLI points out that to be protected nonpublic data under subdivision 13, the data must be not accessible to the subject of the data, and to be confidential data on individuals under subdivision 3, the data must also be inaccessible to the individual subject of the data. Obviously, the orders and objections were accessible to the Westroms. But section 13.39, subdivision 2, appears to override these definitions when it states that data that qualifies as civil investigative data are classified as protected nonpublic data pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 13, in the case of data not on individuals and confidential pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 3, in the case of data on individuals. We view any conflict between section 13.39 and section 13.02 as being subject to the rule of statutory construction that: When a general provision in a law is in conflict with a special provision in the same or another law, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both. If the conflict between the two provisions be irreconcilable, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision shall be enacted at a later session and it shall be the manifest intention of the legislature that such general provision shall prevail. Minn.Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1 (2002). Section 13.39, subdivision 2, is the special provision because it deals specifically with the subject of civil investigative data. It prevails over the general provisions of section 13.02, subdivisions 3 and 13, which provide definitions that are applicable in all other circumstances to classify data as confidential data on individuals or protected nonpublic data.
At oral argument, the Westroms conceded that the orders and objections would have constituted public documents had DOLI filed a petition for an expedited hearing with the office of administrative hearings before releasing the documents to the news organizations. In essence, the Westroms agreed that the orders and objections would have become public documents upon the filing of the petition because they then would become a part of the record of an administrative contested case proceeding. It appears from the record that DOLI filed a petition for an expedited hearing sometime between October 19, 1998, when the objections and orders were first released to the news media, and December 28, 1998, when a letter written by the Westroms suggests that the matter had been filed for hearing[.] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Westroms, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the orders and objections were released to the media before DOLI commenced the contested case proceeding. Thus, we conclude that summary judgment was not appropriate. We leave it to the district court to determine when the orders and objections may have lost their character as protected nonpublic or confidential civil investigative data.
DOLI argues that the protection of civil investigative data under section 13.39, subdivision 2, is overridden by provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, under which the investigation was undertaken. One provision states: The department of labor and industry shall be open for the transaction of business during all business hours of each and every day, except Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. The hearings of the workers' compensation division are open to the public and may be adjourned from time to time. All the proceedings of the division shall be shown on its records, which are public records. Minn.Stat. § 175.10. DOLI suggests that this provision is controlling because the creation of orders and objections constitute a proceeding. But this provision deals broadly with proceedings of the workers' compensation division and goes only so far as to declare them public, without addressing data privacy issues. We do not find section 175.10 particularly relevant to the issue before us, and, to the extent it is relevant, the more specific provisions of section 13.39, subdivision 2, would prevail over section 175.10. Another provision of the workers' compensation act states: On request of the department of labor and industry, and within the time limited therein, every employer of labor, any officer of a labor organization, or any person from whom the department of labor and industry shall find it necessary to gather information, shall make a certified report to the department, upon blanks furnished by it, of all matters covered by the request. The names of persons or concerns supplying such information shall not be disclosed. Every notice, order, or direction given by such department shall be in writing, signed by an officer or inspector of such department, or a person specially designated for the purpose, and be served by the signer. Papers so served and all records and documents of the department are hereby declared public documents and shall not be destroyed within two years after their return or receipt by such department. Minn.Stat. § 175.24 (2002) (emphasis added). The subject of this provision is the data provided by employers and others in a report that has been requested by DOLI. The orders issued to the Westroms did not request a report under this section and it is therefore irrelevant to the issues before us. Further, because section 175.24 only secondarily addresses the public character of the records and documents, its provision would not prevail over the more specific requirements of the MGDPA. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals, reverse the summary judgment granted by the district court, and remand for further proceedings. Affirmed.