Marcel Dubois et al. v. Department of Environmental Protection et al.

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed a partial denial by the Department of Environmental Protection of a Freedom of Access Act request for records concerning Dubois Livestock, Inc. The court affirmed withholding records protected by the work product privilege but vacated the judgment concerning complainant identities withheld under the informant identity privilege. The matter was remanded for factual findings regarding whether the Department was conducting an investigation and whether its personnel were acting as law enforcement officers.

Holdings

1. The Superior Court's in camera review of disputed records did not violate due process because permitting FOAA requesters to inspect allegedly privileged records before the court determined whether the privilege applied would defeat the privilege and FOAA exceptions.
2. The work-product privilege applied to the Department's drafts of an administrative search warrant, warrant application, and related emails concerning drafting and execution strategy because the documents were prepared in anticipation of regulatory enforcement or other compliance-related litigation.
3. The record was insufficient to determine whether records identifying complainants were protected by the informant-identity privilege or by statutory confidentiality for investigative records; therefore, the judgment concerning those records had to be vacated and remanded for evidentiary proceedings and factual findings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Superior Court's in camera review of withheld records and consideration of a Department affidavit denied the appellants due process in a FOAA appeal.
2. Whether the work-product privilege applied to drafts of an administrative search warrant, a warrant application, and related emails and strategy documents.
3. Whether the record established that the informant-identity privilege or statutory confidentiality for investigative records protected records identifying complainants to the Department.
4. Whether the matter had to be remanded for factual findings concerning whether Department personnel were law-enforcement officers conducting an investigation.

Disposition

other