Robinson v. Indiana University

Decision Date11 December 1995
Docket NumberNo. 49A02-9306-CV-253,49A02-9306-CV-253
Citation659 N.E.2d 153
Parties105 Ed. Law Rep. 1195 Scott ROBINSON, M.D., Appellant-Plaintiff, v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY, Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, Indiana University School of Medicine, the Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis Animal Care and Use Committee, School of Medicine Subcommittee of the Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis Animal Care and Use Committee, Appellee-Defendant.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court
OPINION

KIRSCH, Judge.

Dr. Scott Robinson appeals the trial court's determination that certain public records maintained by Indiana University (I.U.) are excepted from disclosure under Indiana's Access to Public Records Act. 1 We previously decided that Dr. Robinson was not entitled to attend meetings of I.U.'s Animal Care Committee under Indiana's Open Door Law. 2 See Robinson v. Indiana University (1994), Ind.App., 638 N.E.2d 435. We remanded the public records issue to the trial court for clarification of its ruling in light of its in camera review of certain documents. Having received the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions on that issue, 3 we now consider the trial court's determination that Robinson is not permitted access to the records he seeks.

We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis Animal Care and Use Committee (the Committee) and the School of Medicine Subcommittee of that Committee (the Subcommittee) are responsible for reviewing research projects that involve the use of animals. The Committee and Subcommittee meet regularly to review all proposed new research, modifications to previously approved research applications, and to review ongoing research. Of particular relevance is the Committee and Subcommittee's review of Animal Care and Use Applications submitted by potential researchers detailing the researchers' proposed use of animals in research projects. In the five years preceding commencement of the present action, the Committee and Subcommittee reviewed 1,979 such applications.

Robinson wrote I.U. officials, requesting permission to attend meetings of the Committee and Subcommittee at which the research applications were to be discussed. Robinson also requested permission to review nine categories of documents associated with the use and care of animals in research projects and the workings of the Committee and Subcommittee.

The Committee Chairperson, Dr. George Stookey, responded to Robinson's requests. Dr. Stookey supplied Robinson with generalized information concerning I.U.'s use of animals, but did not provide any information in connection with individual research projects. Dissatisfied with Dr. Stookey's response, Robinson, through his legal counsel, wrote University Counsel Linda Redman, clarifying his original requests and seeking additional documents. Ms. Redman provided a written response to Robinson's requests stating that every effort was being made to provide Robinson with the information he requested "without releasing confidential information concerning research." Record at 34. Ms. Redman stated: "If the information requested is only available as a part of individual research projects, it has not been provided. It is our position that your client may not review individual research protocols and applications to compile the statistics he is requesting." Record at 34. While Ms. Redman provided a variety of information describing the workings of the Committee and animal use in general, she failed to provide Robinson with the completed Animal Care and Use Applications and other information related to individual research projects.

Robinson subsequently filed the present declaratory judgment action. He asked the trial court to find that the documents I.U. refused to provide were subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. Robinson also sought to enjoin any continuing, threatened or future violations of the Public Records Act. The trial court denied Robinson's subsequent summary judgment motion, and, instead, entered summary judgment in favor of I.U. The trial court found that the records at issue are excepted from public disclosure under the Public Records Act.

On remand, the trial court entered findings and conclusions in support of its determination that the records are excepted from disclosure. The court noted Robinson's acknowledgment that he had received all of the applications related to animals used for teaching. The only applications at issue, then, are those related to the use of animals for research.

ISSUE

The issue presented is whether the completed Animal Care and Use Applications submitted to the Committee and Subcommittee, and any references to particular research projects in the meeting minutes of those committees, are exempt from disclosure under Indiana's Public Records Act.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Whether Dr. Robinson should be permitted access to the public records at issue is governed by IC 5-14-3-4(a) (1991 Supp.) which provides in pertinent part:

"(a) The following public records are excepted from section 3 of this chapter and may not be disclosed by a public agency, unless access to the records is specifically required by a state or federal statute or is ordered by a court under the rules of discovery:

....

(6) Information concerning research, including actual research documents, conducted under the auspices of an institution of higher education, including information:

(A) concerning any negotiations made with respect to the research; and

(B) received from another party involved in the research."

The parties do not dispute that the documents at issue constitute public records. They also do not dispute that I.U. is a public agency. The parties' sole disagreement is over whether the documents at issue concern research within the meaning of IC 5-14-3-4(a)(6).

Resolution of this case is grounded in principles of statutory construction. Our goal in construing a statute is to give effect to the legislative intent. IC 1-1-4-1 (1991 Supp.); Figg v. Bryan Rental Inc. (1995), Ind.App., 646 N.E.2d 69, 72-73, trans. denied. To achieve that end, we must "consider the goals of the statute, and the reasons and policy underlying the statute's enactment." Indiana State Police Dep't v. Turner (1991), Ind.App., 577 N.E.2d 598, 601, trans. denied.

Robinson argues that the "concerning research" exception should be construed narrowly in keeping with the express policy statement contained in the statute. That statement provides:

"A fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government is that government is the servant of the people and not their master. Accordingly, it is the public policy of the state that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and employees. This chapter shall be liberally construed to implement this policy and place the burden of proof for the nondisclosure of a public record on the public agency that would deny access to the record and not on the person seeking to inspect and copy the record."

IC 5-14-3-1 (1988 Ed.). It is easy to ascertain from this legislative statement the policy and reasons underlying the Public Records Act. "The Act clearly indicates that the public is to have access to the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them." Heltzel v. Thomas (1987), Ind.App., 516 N.E.2d 103, 106, trans. denied (1988), Ind., 529 N.E.2d 345.

The difficulty we face is that the legislature has articulated a liberal construction policy, yet has enacted a myriad of broad exceptions. Liberal construction of a statute requires narrow construction of its exceptions. See Eric J. Graninger, Note, Indiana Opens Public Records: But (b)(6) May Be the Exemption That Swallows the Rule, 17 Ind.L.Rev. 555, 574 (1984). In the context of public disclosure laws, this court has explained:

"[E]xceptions to a statute and its operation should be strictly construed by placing the burden of proving the exception upon the party claiming it.

"Other states, in examining their respective 'Open Door' or 'Sunshine' laws, follow these same mandates, particularly the principle of strict construction of statutory exceptions."

Common Council of City of Peru v. Peru Daily Tribune, Inc. (1982), Ind.App., 440 N.E.2d 726, 729 (citations omitted). Nonetheless, "[l]iberal construction does not mean that expressed exceptions specified by the legislature are to be contravened." Heltzel, 516 N.E.2d at 106.

To aid in our construction of the statutory exception, we have looked to other jurisdictions who have considered similar facts. Of particular similarity is S.E.T.A. UNC-CH, Inc. v. Huffines (1991), 101 N.C.App. 292, 399 S.E.2d 340, in which a student...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Humane Soc'y of the United States v. Superior Court of Yolo Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 27, 2013
    ...and [¶] (b) received from another party involved in the research.” (Ind.Code § 5–14–3–4, subd. (a)(6); see also Robinson v. Indiana University (Ind.Ct.App.1995) 659 N.E.2d 153 [university records on animal use in research projects was research information exempt from disclosure].) 22. Altho......
  • Indiana Newspapers v. Indiana University, 53A04-0112-CV-527.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 2, 2003
    ...file. 7. Neither party suggests that Indiana University is not a public agency within the meaning of APRA. See Robinson v. Indiana Univ., 659 N.E.2d 153, 155 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (applying APRA to Indiana University and noting that the parties did not dispute that the University was a public a......
  • Sullivan v. Nat'l Election Def. Coal.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 20, 2022
    ...should be construed strictly, but expressed exceptions specified by the legislature are not to be contravened. Robinson v. Ind. Univ. , 659 N.E.2d 153, 156 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. denied.II. Standard of Review [18] When a trial court reviews an alleged APRA violation, it does so de nov......
  • IND. BELL TELEPHONE CO. v. IND. UTILITY REG. COM'N
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 30, 2004
    ...this issue by stating that: `Liberal construction of a statute requires narrow construction of its exceptions.' Robinson v. Indiana Univ., 659 N.E.2d 153, 156 (Ind.App.1995). The United States Supreme Court has made this same evaluation of its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the federal ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT