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

Heading: Redaction of the Study

Text: [¶ 9] Anastos argues that even if some parts of the study were properly determined to be confidential pursuant to section 13119-A(1), the entire study should not be exempt from disclosure, and therefore the court erred by not ordering the Town to release a redacted version. We review the construction of a FOAA exception de novo. See Town of Burlington, 2001 ME 59, ¶ 12, 769 A.2d at 861. In interpreting a statute, we first consider the plain language and will consider other indicia of legislative intent if the language is silent or ambiguous. Dyer v. Dyer, 2010 ME 105, ¶ 7, 5 A.3d 1049, 1051. We are cognizant of the need to balance transparency of government action with the protection of sensitive information as required by section 13119-A(1). Although the public is entitled to review the eligibility of a project for financial assistance, disclosing sensitive information must not disadvantage the project to the extent that it will discourage potential applicants from seeking assistance. [¶ 10] The Superior Court held that section 13119-A(1) protects the entire work product from public disclosure it protects the selection, collection, organization and analysis of information from which commercially advantageous business conclusions are drawn. After reviewing the study, the court found that it constituted proprietary information because it contains not only specific information, but also an analysis of that information that would be advantageous to JHR's competitors and would disadvantage JHR if released. See Boyle v. Div. of Cmty. Servs., 592 A.2d 489, 491 (Me.1991) ( In camera review is a routine and appropriate means for judicial review of documents where disclosure is sought.). Even though the study in this case may contain publicly available data, it is the way that this data is incorporated into the study and analyzed that renders the collection of information commercially advantageous. [¶ 11] Reading the statute as a whole, 5 M.R.S. §§ 13119-A(1) and 13119-B(4) [7] (2010) permit a document that is determined to be proprietary informationnot merely to contain proprietary informationto be withheld from public disclosure. Contrary to the Town's argument, the mere existence of some element of proprietary information within a document does not presumptively render the entire document confidential in every instance. However, a document that contains a commercially advantageous collection or analysis of information may be found to be confidential as a whole and thus protected from disclosure pursuant to section 13119-A(1). In a case involving a document such as JHR's feasibility study that consists wholly of proprietary information, redaction is not appropriate. [¶ 12] While we have previously required documents to be redacted and released, see, e.g., Guy Gannett Publ'g Co., 555 A.2d at 470 (requiring that one protected statement regarding medical information be excised from an agreement before disclosure of the agreement), the study at issue in this case cannot be dissected into sensitive and nonsensitive information because the selective inclusion of public and private data, and the analysis of that data, creates a single, integrated work producta document that constitutes an advantageous business tool for the owner. When such a document contains only protected information, the agency is not required toand may notdisclose any portion of that document. See Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Dep't of Transp., 2000 ME 126, ¶ 11 n. 4, 754 A.2d 353, 357. JHR's feasibility study is such a document and is thus exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 13119-A(1). [¶ 13] An examination of the legislative history of section 13119-A reveals that the Legislature was keenly aware of the fact that an exception was being created to FOAA's well-established policy of liberal disclosure in matters concerning government. The Statement of Fact notes that the bill seeks to balance the need for accountability with the privacy rights of applicants for state or local economic development assistance and to encourage submission of proposals that will benefit the municipality or the state. L.D. 1842, Statement of Fact (115th Legis.1991). It also observed that under previously existing law, municipalities may have been required to disclose personal financial information of applicants seeking public development assistance, but the bill protects such personal information, as well as [c]ertain competitive business information. Id. [¶ 14] The bill received the support of the Department of Economic and Community Development. In its letter to the Housing and Economic Development Committee, the Department detailed a situation similar to JHR's, noting that existing protection for marketing plans was too narrow because a marketing plan would not be a trade secret, and expressed the Department's belief that [t]he definition in L.D. 1842 would protect [an] applicant's marketing plan from public release. Letter from Mary Faye LaFaver, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, to Hon. Rita B. Melendy and Hon. Joseph C. Brannigan, Chairpersons, Housing and Economic Development Committee (May 21, 1991). The Department reported that an increasing number of companies were seeking its assistance, but it was difficult to assess the companies' needs, because they were reluctant to provide relevant financial information due to competitive concerns. Testimony of Mary Faye LaFaver, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, before the Housing and Economic Development Committee (May 14, 1991). [¶ 15] The Economic Development Council of Maine emphasized that it supported the bill as a way to protect certain business information ... while still providing sufficient information so as to hold ... municipalities accountable for public funds that they received to provide economic development assistance. Letter from Charles G. Roundy, Legislative Committee Chairman, to Hon. Rita B. Melendy and Hon. Joseph C. Brannigan, Chairpersons, Housing and Economic Development Committee (May 21, 1991). [¶ 16] The cities of Bangor and Portland reported the chilling effect that the prospect of disclosure of proprietary business information can have on municipal development. The City of Portland presented the testimony of the Dean of the School of Business at the University of Southern Maine and Director of the Center for Business and Economic Research. Testimony of Dr. Richard J. Clarey, Dean, Univ. of S. Me. School of Bus., and Dir., Ctr. for Bus. and Econ. Research, before the Housing and Economic Development Committee (May 21, 1991). He opined that making company-specific financial information available to the public would jeopardize the success of the economic development efforts referred to in the bill. Id, He stated that only truly desperate applicants would be willing to divulge anything to remain afloat, and other applicants might be tempted to present misleading data. Id. [¶ 17] The Legislature was also well apprised of the contrary view. The Maine Daily Newspaper Publishers Association and the Maine Press Association expressed concern that the definition of proprietary information did not require that the information be actually secret or otherwise unknown to the public. Letter from Gordon H.S. Scott to Hon. Rita B. Melendy and Hon. Joseph C. Brannigan, Chairpersons, Housing and Economic Development Committee (May 16, 1991). These associations argued that the then-current requirements for disclosure were sufficient until the Legislature further considered the issue. Id. [¶ 18] In enacting L.D. 1842, the Legislature made a measured and informed decision to depart from FOAA's stated purpose in favor of liberal disclosure. The exception created by section 13119-A marks a legislative balancing of equities and a clear intent to stimulate economic development. [¶ 19] The study in this case is the type of documenta compilation and analysis of informationthat was contemplated by the Legislature in creating the protection at issue here. The Legislature extended protection from disclosure to encourage applicants to seek public economic assistance, and releasing this particular study in a redacted form would frustrate the clearly stated legislative intent.