Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 November 2013
• Docket Number: No. A12–0327.,A12–0327.
• Citation: 839 N.W.2d 527
• Parties: Marshall HELMBERGER, Respondent, v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Appellant, Office of Administrative Hearings, Respondent, Architectural Resources, Inc., Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

839 N.W.2d 527

Marshall HELMBERGER, Respondent,

v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Appellant,Office of Administrative Hearings, Respondent,Architectural Resources, Inc., Appellant.

No. A12–0327.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 20, 2013.

Syllabus by the Court

A private business that contracted with a school district to provide design services for the construction and renovation of schools is not required to comply with the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act as if it were a government entity in the absence of contractual notice under Minn.Stat. § 13.05, subd. 11(a) (2012).

Mark R. Anfinson, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent Marshall Helmberger.

Todd A. Wind, Christopher A. Stafford, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for appellant Johnson Controls, Inc.

Steven R. Lindemann, Amy B. Conway, Leonard, Street & Deinard, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for appellant Architectural Resources, Inc.

Mark A. Bloomquist, Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P.; Michael B. Lapicola, Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP; and Dean B. Thomson, Fabyanske, Westra, Hart & Thomson, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for amici curiae American Council of Engineering Companies of Minnesota, American Institute of Architects Minnesota, and Minnesota State Bar Association Construction Law Section.

OPINION

GILDEA, Chief Justice.

This case presents the question of whether a subcontract between two private businesses is subject to the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 13.01–.90 (2012). Appellant Johnson Controls, Inc., contracted with Independent School District 2142 (the District) to provide design services. After Johnson subcontracted with appellant Architectural Resources, Inc., respondent Marshall Helmberger submitted a request to Johnson under the Data Practices Act for a copy of the Johnson–Architectural Resources subcontract. Johnson denied the request and Helmberger subsequently filed a complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). After an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissed the complaint. The court of appeals reversed. Because we conclude that Johnson is not obligated to disclose the subcontract under the Data Practices Act, we reverse the court of appeals.

The facts of this case are undisputed. On February 25, 2010, the District entered into two contracts with Johnson related to the construction of two new schools and the renovation of three existing schools. Under both contracts, Johnson agreed to “provide design, engineering, commissioning and construction management services.” Johnson's principal obligation under the contracts was to provide “design services through licensed consultants including normal architectural, structural, mechanical, civil and electrical engineering and commissioning services, and any other services necessary to produce a complete set of Construction Documents.” The contracts permitted Johnson to use subcontractors “to assist ... in performing the services.” Johnson subsequently entered into a subcontract with Architectural Resources for architectural services.

In March 2011, Marshall Helmberger, the publisher and managing editor of the Timberjay newspapers in St. Louis County, sent a request to Johnson under the Data Practices Act for certain information, including a copy of Johnson's subcontract with Architectural Resources. Johnson denied Helmberger's request.

Helmberger then requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner of Administration pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 13.072¹ as to whether Johnson is required to comply with the Data Practices Act. The Commissioner issued an opinion, concluding, among other things, that Johnson is required to provide a copy of the subcontract with Architectural Resources to Helmberger because Johnson “is performing a governmental function for the District.” Notwithstanding this opinion, Johnson continued to withhold the subcontract.

Helmberger then filed a complaint with the office of administrative hearings, seeking an order that Johnson comply with his request for inspection of documents, including “all subconsultant contracts” related to Johnson's contract with the District. Architectural Resources intervened in the proceedings. An evidentiary hearing took place, and Johnson moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of Helmberger's case-in-chief. The administrative law judge granted Johnson's motion and dismissed Helmberger's complaint. The judge concluded that Helmberger did not establish that Johnson “was performing a ‘governmental function’ as described in Minn.Stat. § 13.05, subd. 11(a).” The judge reasoned that “the Legislature has not directed School Districts to undertake the kind of architectural services that are contemplated by the ... subcontract.” The judge also concluded that Helmberger failed to establish that architectural services have traditionally been performed by the District or by Minnesota school districts generally.

The court of appeals reversed, holding that Johnson had contracted to perform a government function within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 13.05, subd. 11(a). Helmberger v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 821 N.W.2d 831, 838 (Minn.App.2012). Because the Data Practices Act does not define a government function, the court of appeals applied the definition from our decision in Mace v. Ramsey County, 231 Minn. 151, 42 N.W.2d 567 (1950), in which we said that a function is governmental when it “involves the exercise of power conferred by statute upon local agencies in administering the affairs of the state and the promotion of the general public welfare.” See Helmberger, 821 N.W.2d at 834 (quotingMace, 231 Minn. at 154, 42 N.W.2d at 569). The court of appeals determined that Johnson was performing a government function because school districts have a statutory duty to “ ‘furnish school facilities' to school children.” Id. at 835 (quoting Minn.Stat. § 123B.02, subd. 2 (2010)). The court reasoned that furnishing school facilities entails “planning, designing, and obtaining qualified builders and architects to perform such duties,” which are duties that Johnson contracted to perform. Id. The court also rejected Johnson's argument that the Data Practices Act applies only to private entities that have received the contract notice required by Minn.Stat. § 13.05, subd. 11(a). Helmberger, 821 N.W.2d at 837 (noting that the court of appeals had specifically rejected that argument in WDSI, Inc. v. County of Steele, 672 N.W.2d 617, 621–22 (Minn.App.2003)). Concluding that Johnson had contracted with the District to perform a government function, the court remanded to the administrative law judge for further proceedings. Id. at 838.

We granted the petitions for review of Johnson and Architectural Resources. On appeal to our court, Johnson argues that because its contract with the District did not provide notice that Johnson was subject to the Data Practices Act, Johnson is not bound by the provisions of the Act and the subcontract between Johnson and Architectural Resources is not public data under the Act. Johnson and Architectural Resources also argue that the court of appeals applied the wrong test to determine whether Johnson was performing a government function for purposes of Minn.Stat. § 13.05, subd. 11(a). When the correct legal test is applied, they argue that Johnson was not performing a government function. For his part, Helmberger argues that because Johnson contracted to perform a government function, the subcontract is public information under the Data Practices Act.

I.

Before addressing the parties' arguments, we begin with a brief overview of the Data Practices Act. The Data Practices Act “regulates the collection, creation, storage, maintenance, dissemination, and access to government data in government entities.” Minn.Stat. § 13.01, subd. 3. The Act defines what data are “public” for purposes of the Act: “All government data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by a government entity shall be public unless classified by statute ... as nonpublic[,] ... private or confidential.” Minn.Stat. § 13.03, subd. 1; see alsoMinn.Stat. § 13.02, subd. 7 (defining “government data” as “all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use”). The Act therefore “establishes a presumption that government data are public and are accessible by the public for both inspection and copying unless there is a federal law, a state statute, or a temporary classification of data that provides that certain data are not public.” Minn.Stat. § 13.01, subd. 3.

When first enacted in 1974, the Data Practices Act did not provide for the disclosure of public data held by private entities. Act of Apr. 11, 1974, ch. 479, 1974 Minn. Laws 1199. In 1999, the Legislature added a provision relating to the privatization of government functions. Act of May 25, 1999, ch. 250, art. 1, § 42, 1999 Minn. Laws 2728, 2756–57. This provision states:

(a) If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to the private person under this subdivision.

(b) This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract.

Minn.Stat. § 13.05, subd. 11 (emphasis added). The focus of the parties' dispute is whether the subcontract between Johnson and Architectural Resources is public...