Provenza v. Town of Canaan
| Docket Number | 2020-0563 |
| Decision Date | 22 April 2022 |
| Citation | 175 N.H. 121,281 A.3d 965 |
| Parties | Samuel PROVENZA v. TOWN OF CANAAN |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Milner & Krupski, PLLC, of Concord (John S. Krupski on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.
Town of Canaan, filed no brief.
American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire Foundation, of Concord (Gilles R. Bissonnette and Henry R. Klementowicz on the brief, and Henry R. Klementowicz orally), for the intervenor, Valley News.
Malloy & Sullivan, Lawyers Professional Corporation, of Hingham, Massachusetts (Gregory V. Sullivan, on the brief) for Union Leader Corporation and New England First Amendment Coalition as amici curiae.
The plaintiff, Samuel Provenza, formerly employed as a police officer by the defendant, Town of Canaan (Town), appeals an order of the Superior Court (Bornstein, J.) that: (1) denied his petition for declaratory judgment and "request for temporary and permanent injunctive and other relief"; and (2) granted the cross-claim of the intervenor, the Valley News. Provenza sought to bar public disclosure of an investigative report commissioned by the Town as a result of a motor vehicle stop in which he was involved while still employed by the Town as a police officer; the Valley News sought release of the report under RSA chapter 91-A, the Right-to-Know Law. See RSA ch. 91-A (2013 & Supp. 2021). We affirm.
We summarize the pertinent facts found by the trial court or supported by the record. On November 30, 2017, Provenza was involved in a motor vehicle stop that received media coverage in the Upper Valley. Provenza was responding to a call received by police dispatch about a suspicious vehicle following a town school bus. He did not activate the camera in his cruiser before responding. When he arrived at the location of the bus, he observed a vehicle closely following the bus and initiated a traffic stop. The driver explained that she was following the bus because her daughter had been having issues with the school bus operator. When Provenza attempted to arrest the driver of the vehicle, she physically resisted.
The driver subsequently filed a formal complaint against Provenza in which she alleged that he had used excessive force. The Town commissioned Municipal Resources, Inc. to investigate the encounter. Municipal Resources filed a report (Report) with the Town. In February 2019, the Valley News filed a Right-to-Know Law request seeking disclosure of the Report. The Town denied the request, citing the "internal personnel practices" exemption set forth in RSA 91-A:5, IV (2013) and this court's opinion in Union Leader Corp. v. Fenniman, 136 N.H. 624, 620 A.2d 1039 (1993).
In June 2020, the Valley News renewed its request following our decisions in Union Leader Corp. v. Town of Salem, 173 N.H. 345, 239 A.3d 961 (2020), and Seacoast Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Portsmouth, 173 N.H. 325, 239 A.3d 946 (2020). The Town informed Provenza of the request and he then filed this lawsuit against the Town seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under a variety of theories to prevent the Town from releasing the Report. The Valley News filed a motion to intervene, which the trial court granted. The Valley News then filed an objection to Provenza's request for injunctive relief and a cross-claim seeking a ruling that the Report is subject to disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law. The Valley News also argued that, because Provenza was not a "person aggrieved" under RSA 91-A:7 (Supp. 2021), he did not have standing to bring this action.
In September 2020, the trial court held a hearing during which counsel for Provenza, the Town, and the Valley News participated. At that hearing, the parties agreed that the order to be issued by the trial court would serve "as a final adjudication on the merits of both [Provenza]’s requests for declaratory judgment and for preliminary and permanent injunctions and on the merits of Valley News's crossclaim."
In its order, the trial court "assume[d] without deciding that [Provenza] is a ‘person aggrieved’ within the meaning of RSA 91-A:7," and "further rule[d] that [Provenza] has standing to maintain this action under RSA 491:22 and RSA 498:1." After a detailed discussion of the analysis to be applied when determining whether disclosure of public records constitutes an invasion of privacy under RSA 91-A:5, IV, see Union Leader Corp. v. Town of Salem, 173 N.H. 345, 355, 239 A.3d 961 (2020), the court concluded that the Report was subject to disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law. The Town requested that certain medical information, license plate numbers, and the names of minors be redacted from the Report. The Valley News did not object. The trial court agreed that the information should be redacted, concluding that the privacy interest in this information outweighed any public interest. Provenza then filed this appeal.
We defer to the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by the evidence and are not erroneous as a matter of law. Town of Lincoln v. Chenard, 174 N.H. 762, 765 (2022). We review the trial court's interpretation of statutes, including the Right-to-Know Law, de novo. 38 Endicott St. N., LLC v. State Fire Marshal, 163 N.H. 656, 660, 44 A.3d 571 (2012) ; N.H. Ctr. for Pub. Interest Journalism v. N.H. Dep't of Justice, 173 N.H. 648, 652, 247 A.3d 383 (2020). We resolve questions regarding the Right-to-Know Law with a view to providing the utmost information in order to best effectuate the law's statutory and constitutional objectives. N.H. Ctr. for Pub. Interest Journalism, 173 N.H. at 653, 247 A.3d 383. Accordingly, we construe provisions favoring disclosure broadly, while construing exemptions restrictively. Id. When the facts are undisputed, we review the trial court's balancing of the public interest in disclosure and the interests in nondisclosure de novo. N.H. Right to Life v. Dir., N.H. Charitable Trusts Unit, 169 N.H. 95, 111, 143 A.3d 829 (2016). The party resisting disclosure bears a heavy burden to shift the balance toward nondisclosure. Id.
The Right-to-Know Law provides: "Any person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter may petition the superior court for injunctive relief." RSA 91-A:7. The Valley News argues that Provenza is not a "person aggrieved" under this statute. The Valley News further contends that the exemptions set forth in the Right-to-Know Law do not create statutory privileges that can be invoked to prevent a public body from disclosing information. It argues that exemptions in the Right-to-Know Law "merely provide a license to a public body to withhold information" — they do not prevent the public body "from voluntarily disclosing any records, even if they are exempt." Thus, the Valley News asserts, Provenza lacked standing to bring this action.
In this case, the trial court granted the motion to intervene filed by the Valley News. The Valley News then filed its claim against the Town pursuant to RSA 91-A:7 in which it sought a ruling that the Report is a public record that must be made available for inspection by the public under RSA chapter 91-A. The trial court's order reflects that Provenza's petition and the Valley News’ claim were considered together at a hearing on September 15, 2020, with agreement by the parties that the order of the trial court resulting from that hearing would act as a final adjudication on the merits of both Provenza's petition and the Valley News’ Right-to-Know request.
In its order addressing whether disclosure of the Report would constitute an invasion of privacy under RSA 91-A:5, IV, the trial court determined that Provenza, "as the party opposing disclosure," bore the heavy burden of demonstrating that the materials should not be disclosed. See Union Leader Corp. v. N.H. Housing Fin. Auth., 142 N.H. 540, 554, 705 A.2d 725 (1997) (). Thus, Provenza was treated as a party in the proceedings in the claim filed by the Valley News. Accordingly, we conclude that he was entitled to appeal the order granting the Valley News’ request. See id. at 544-45, 705 A.2d 725 (); cf. Seacoast Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Portsmouth, 173 N.H. 325, 330, 239 A.3d 946 (2020) (). Provenza is able to raise all of his arguments under the Right-to-Know Law in his appeal from the grant of the Valley News’ request. Therefore, given the specific procedural history of this case, we need not decide whether he was a "person aggrieved" under RSA 91-A:7.
We have not yet addressed whether RSA 91-A:7 provides a remedy for, and grants standing to, an individual who seeks to prevent disclosure of information pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law. Compare Campaign for Accountability v. CCRF, 303 Ga. 828, 815 S.E.2d 841 (2018) (), and Beckham v. Bd. of Educ. of Jefferson Cty., 873 S.W.2d 575 (Ky. 1994) (), with Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979) (), and R.I. Federation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial