Opinion ID: 2444260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Town's Burden Under FOAA

Text: [¶ 5] Anastos argues that the Town has not met its burden of proving that the study falls within an exception to the general rule requiring public disclosure. See Town of Burlington v. Hosp. Admin. Dist. No. 1, 2001 ME 59, ¶ 13, 769 A.2d 857, 861 (The burden of proof is on the agency or political subdivision to establish just and proper cause for the denial of a FOAA request.). We review the construction of a statutory scheme de novo, see id. ¶ 12, 769 A.2d at 861, mindful of the Legislature's mandate that FOAA should be liberally construed, 1 M.R.S. § 401 (2010). [6] See Citizens Commc'ns Co. v. Attorney Gen., 2007 ME 114, ¶ 9, 931 A.2d 503, 505 (In construing FOAA's statutory provisions, we will consider the underlying public policy and rules of construction expressed by the legislature in 1 M.R.S. § 401.); Guy Gannett Publ'g Co. v. Univ. of Me., 555 A.2d 470, 471 (Me.1989) (holding that a corollary to the liberal construction of FOAA is a strict construction of exceptions to disclosure). [¶ 6] Anastos asserts that JHR did not request that the study be kept confidential when it submitted the study to the Town, and its post-hoc characterization of the study as confidential is insufficient to meet the requirement of section 13119-A(1)(A). The parties agree that JHR told the Town that it considered the study confidential when responding to Anastos's request, and Anastos does not dispute that JHR considered the study confidential when it submitted it to the Town. The plain language of section 13119-A(1)(A) does not require that the party that submits confidential information designate it as confidential at the time of submission. Although it might be prudent to identify a document as confidential when first submitting it to a government agency, JHR's alleged failure to do so does not remove it from the protection of the statute. [¶ 7] Anastos also argues that the study is not proprietary information because any potential harm to JHR from its disclosure is speculative. However, section 13119-A(1)(B) does not require the Town to have found immediate or concrete detriment to JHR in order to meet its burden of proving that the study falls within the statutory exemption. Further, the Town did determine that releasing the study would harm JHR by disclosing its business strategy and allowing competitors to take business from the inn. If the statute were interpreted to require imminent harm, then a not-yet-constructed project would rarely qualify for protection, and competitors could use the project's marketing strategies and plans to make it difficult for the new project to survive before it was even completed. [¶ 8] The Town explained to Anastos that it had made a determination that the study was within the exception provided by section 13119-A(1) and was also excluded from the definition of public records because it could not be discovered or introduced at trial. The Town's application of section 13119-A(1) was correct and appropriate.