Opinion ID: 2015982
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: investigatory records exception

Text: It is uncontested in this case that the NHCA is a party entitled to seek access to public records, that the documents at issue in this case are public records under the definition provided in § 84-712.01, and that the Department has denied the NHCA access to the records requested. Therefore, the NHCA has made a prima facie case for release of the records. The issue, then, is whether the Department has met its burden of showing that the documents fall within an exception to the general disclosure requirement. At trial, the Department offered two exceptions: the trade secrets exception of § 84-712.05(3) and the investigatory records exception of § 84-712.05(5). The Department, however, does not argue trade secrets on appeal. It is provided by § 84-712.05(5), in relevant part, that public records may be withheld if they are [r]ecords developed or received by law enforcement agencies and other public bodies charged with duties of investigation or examination of persons, institutions, or businesses, when the records constitute a part of the examination, investigation, intelligence information, citizen complaints or inquiries, informant identification, or strategic or tactical information used in law enforcement training .... It is uncontested by the parties that the Department is a public body charged with duties of investigation. Therefore, the Department must prove that the documents at issue here are part of an investigation or examination, as those are the particular aspects of § 84-712.05(5) that are most relevant to the present case. Nebraska jurisprudence has not previously set forth any particular standards by which a court can determine what records are part of an investigation. The federal courts, however, in interpreting a similar provision of the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. (1994 & Supp. II 1996), have used a two-part standard for determining whether records are investigatory. It has been held that (1) the agency's investigatory activities that give rise to the documents sought must be related to the enforcement of laws or the maintenance of national security and (2) the nexus between the investigation and one of the agency's law enforcement duties must be based on information sufficient to support at least a colorable claim of its rationality. Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408 (D.C.Cir.1982). See, also, e.g., Davin v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 60 F.3d 1043 (3d Cir. 1995); Rosenfeld v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 57 F.3d 803 (9th Cir.1995), cert. dismissed 516 U.S. 1103, 116 S.Ct. 833, 133 L.Ed.2d 832 (1996); Keys v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 830 F.2d 337 (D.C.Cir.1987). This analysis has merit. In applying the unique elements of the Nebraska statute, we determine that the corresponding requirement is that a public record is an investigatory record where (1) the activity giving rise to the document sought is related to the duty of investigation or examination with which the public body is charged and (2) the relationship between the investigation or examination and that public body's duty to investigate or examine supports a colorable claim of rationality. In the present case, the Department is charged with the duty to investigate and examine nursing homes' claims for medicaid reimbursement. The Department's auditing activities are clearly and rationally related to the Department's investigatory duty. This leaves open the question, however, whether these auditing activities are investigations or examinations within the meaning of § 84-712.05(5). In this instance, again, other jurisdictions have developed standards which are helpful to our analysis. It has generally been held that a distinction must be drawn between (1) routine administration or oversight activities and (2) focused inquiries into specific violations of law. See, e.g., Center for Nat. Pol. Rev. on Race & Urb. Is. v. Weinberger, 502 F.2d 370 (D.C.Cir.1974); Rural Housing Alliance v. United States Dept. of Agr., 498 F.2d 73 (D.C.Cir.1974); Goldschmidt v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 557 F.Supp. 274 (D.D.C.1983); Gregory v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 470 F.Supp. 1329 (D.D.C.1979), rev'd in part on other grounds 631 F.2d 896 (D.C.Cir.1980); State ex rel. Yant v. Conrad, 74 Ohio St.3d 681, 660 N.E.2d 1211 (1996); Hechler v. Casey, 175 W.Va. 434, 333 S.E.2d 799 (1985); McClain v. College Hosp., 99 N.J. 346, 492 A.2d 991 (1985). If a document is compiled ancillary to an agency's administrative function, then it is not protected from disclosure; when, however, an inquiry by an administrative agency departs from the routine and focuses with special intensity on a particular party, an investigation is underway for purposes of the investigatory records exception. Center for Nat. Pol. Rev. on Race & Urb. Is. v. Weinberger, supra . For instance, in Gould Inc. v. General Services Admin., 688 F.Supp. 689 (D.D.C. 1988), the court dealt with the disclosure of documents relating to government audits of bids for government contracts. The court agreed with the government that the audit reports were not prepared as a matter of routine. At the time these reports were in the process of being completedand perhaps even when they were initiated[the agency's] inquiry had departed from the routine and had focuse[d] with special intensity upon specific... activities. An investigation was underway. Id. at 697. Similarly, in the instant case, the activities of the Department had departed from the routine when the auditors began to make specific requests for the production of specific documentation. The Department is charged with the administrative function of reviewing the cost reports submitted by nursing homes. When certain aspects of those reports draw special attention, be they the entire report or simply particular items within the report, then the investigatory duties of the Department have supplanted the Department's routine administration of the medicaid program. More specifically, it is clear that a field audit is ordinarily a nonroutine investigation by the standard set forth above. It is equally clear that a desk audit departs from the routine, and becomes an investigation, when an auditor's attention is drawn by a particular deficiency in a cost report and the auditor decides to make a specific request for further information. Considering our standard of review on this issue and having reviewed the record, we cannot say that the trial court's determination was clearly erroneous when it found, as a matter of fact, that the records in this case were produced by the Department as part of an investigation. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's determination that the documents requested by the NHCA were created by the Department as part of their investigations, as those investigations were rationally related to the investigatory duties imposed by law on the Department. Consequently, the documents may be withheld from disclosure at the discretion of the Department. The NHCA's first assignment of error is without merit.