Court Opinion

ID: 9591411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:04:11.406307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:24.690617
License: Public Domain

Miller, C. J.,
dissenting: I find myself in agreement with the statements of law contained in the majority opinion, but in disagreement with the application of that law and with the ultimate conclusion reached. I therefore respectfully dissent. The facts are adequately set forth in the majority opinion and will not be repeated here unnecessarily.
The first issue is whether the material is protected by copyright law. I agree with the majority that no copyright protection exists for the documents in issue.
*431The second issue considered is KG&E’s claimed right to confidentiality based upon the qualified privilege of self-critical analysis. The majority opinion sets forth the four conditions necessary to establish a qualified privilege against disclosure, as stated in our opinion in Berst v. Chipman, 232 Kan. 180, 653 P.2d 107 (1982), and then determines that the fourth condition is not met, i.e., that the injury caused by disclosure of the Quality First files is less than the benefit conferred. I disagree.
In discussing the Quality First Program, the majority opinion says in part:
“Because confidentiality was considered a critical element of the Quality First Program, KG&E adopted a confidentiality agreement for the use and protection of all the Wolf Creek workers who provided information under the program. Each worker was also required to execute a nondisclosure agreement.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The workers who were required to execute a nondisclosure statement were those persons who were employed within and who administered the Quality First Program. Employees who made their concerns known to Quality First were free to state their concerns to the KCC, NRC, media, public interest groups such as ALERT and NAN, and to the public generally. The Quality First Program did not attempt to muzzle the employees; it merely assured employees who stated their concerns to the program that their names and statements would be held in confidence.
All the Quality First files were made available to the KCC and to the NRC; files selected by those agencies were also made available to counsel at hearings before those commissions, but copies could not be made and the files were returned to Quality First at the conclusion of the hearings. KG&E took every effort to protect the files and the identities of persons who submitted statements of concern to the program.
The vital question is whether the result of the court’s opinion will be to increase public safety by making the Quality First files public, or to decrease public safety by rendering ineffective KG&E’s safety program. The majority opts for the former; I reach the latter conclusion. The program gives employees a convenient, on-the-job opportunity to voice concerns, with assurance of complete anonymity. The majority opinion torpedoes the program. Employees are always free to express their concerns to public *432regulatory agencies, the media, public interest groups, and the public generally. This program gives them the opportunity to speak to an in-house agency where prompt investigation and, if necessary, prompt corrective or remedial action should follow.
Unauthorized copies of Quality First files, surreptitiously made and supplied to defendants, should be returned. We should not uphold their use and thus support the wrongdoers or their successors.
In this critical area of nuclear power, the majority opinion removes or at least greatly diminishes the effectiveness of a program designed to further the public safety. All the files are available to the governmental regulatory agencies; those agencies, in turn, make files available at public hearings when the public interest or safety will be served. I have faith in those agencies to review the files and bring to light anything that should properly be revealed in the public forum. The public interest groups, and apparently the majority herein, do not.
I would affirm the judgment of the district court.
McFarland, J., joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.