The Providence Journal Company v. Convention Center Authority

774 A.2d 40 (R.I. 2001) · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · June 21, 2001 · No. No. 99-320-Appeal

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court considered whether records sought from the Convention Center Authority under the Access to Public Records Act were exempt as confidential commercial or financial information. The court adopted the Critical Mass test for determining confidentiality, upheld withholding of negotiation-related documents, and held that final contracts were generally subject to disclosure, subject to redaction of segregable exempt information. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Holdings

  1. APRA's applicability is not determined by balancing the Authority's competitive interests against the public's right of access. Records are subject to disclosure unless they fall within an enumerated statutory exemption.
  2. Documents reflecting the give-and-take of negotiations, including offers, responses, counteroffers, budgets, insurance needs, attendance projections, and funding considerations, constitute confidential commercial or financial information obtained from prospective customers and are exempt from disclosure under APRA.
  3. APRA does not require the Authority to compile profit-and-loss or similar information that was not maintained in the requested form.
  4. Final contracts between the Authority and event organizers are subject to APRA and the public's right of access. Confidential or privileged financial information within a contract may be redacted if reasonably segregable, but the contract as a whole is not exempt merely because negotiation materials may be exempt.
  5. The Supreme Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo and applies the same rules and standards as the trial court.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether records reflecting negotiations between the Convention Center Authority and prospective customers constituted confidential commercial or financial information exempt from disclosure under APRA.
  2. Whether the Authority was required to compile profit-and-loss or other operational data that was not maintained in the requested form.
  3. Whether final contracts between the Authority and event organizers were subject to disclosure, at least in reasonably segregable portions, under APRA.
  4. What standard governs review of the Superior Court's summary-judgment ruling.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (16)

  • Direct Action for Rights and Equality v. Gannon, 713 A.2d 218, 225 (R.I. 1998)(followed)
  • Providence Journal Co. v. Kane, 577 A.2d 661, 663 (R.I. 1990)(followed)
  • Marr Scaffolding Co. v. Fairground Forms, Inc., 682 A.2d 455, 457 (R.I. 1996)(followed)
  • M & B Realty, Inc. v. Duval, 767 A.2d 60, 63 (R.I. 2001)(followed)
  • Rotelli v. Catanzaro, 686 A.2d 91, 93 (R.I. 1996)(followed)
  • Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc., 674 A.2d 1223, 1225 (R.I. 1996)(followed)
  • Bourg v. Bristol Boat Co., 705 A.2d 969, 971 (R.I. 1998)(followed)
  • Pawtucket Teachers Alliance v. Brady, 556 A.2d 556, 558 (R.I. 1989)(followed)
  • Providence Journal Co. v. Sundlun, 616 A.2d 1131, 1134 (R.I. 1992)(followed)
  • Department of the Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs v. Klamath Water Users Protective Association, 532 U.S. 1, 121 S. Ct. 1060, 149 L. Ed. 2d 87 (2001)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Rhode Island Supreme Court