The SJC Walks Back The GE Decision; State Agencies Can Protect Work Product (Video Content)

FH
Foley Hoag LLP

Contributor

Foley Hoag provides innovative, strategic legal services to public, private and government clients. We have premier capabilities in the life sciences, healthcare, technology, energy, professional services and private funds fields, and in cross-border disputes. The diverse experiences of our lawyers contribute to the exceptional senior-level service we deliver to clients.
Realizing that allowing parties in litigation with government agencies to obtain through the Act what they could not obtain in discovery made no sense, the SJC eviscerated GE.
United States Environment

In its 1999 decision in GE v. DEP, the SJC surprised most Massachusetts lawyers by ruling that the Commonwealth's Public Records Act (our version of FOIA) did not have an exemption for work product materials and that it had no discretion to read any implied exemptions into the Act.  Yesterday, in DaRosa v. New Bedford, the SJC, in the immortal words of David Byrne, asked itself "My God, what have I done."

Realizing that allowing parties in litigation with government agencies to obtain through the Act what they could not obtain in discovery made no sense, the SJC eviscerated GE.  (That's a technical term for what the SJC does when it recognizes that a prior decision was plain wrong, but for some reason does not want to reverse it.)

Without formally overruling GE, the SJC did state that:

We no longer hold to the view declared in General Electric that there are no implied exemptions to the public records act....

Having gone that far, the SJC did not actually rely on any implied exemption from the Act for work product.  Instead, the Court simply concluded that, in most circumstances, work product constitutes "policy deliberation" which is explicitly exempt from the Act.

So what is the rule?  Opinion work product will be protected under almost all circumstances, though the Court stopped short of calling the protection "absolute."  Fact work product is protected as to uncompleted reports and remains protected as to completed reports, if and to the extent that the facts are "interwoven with opinions or with analysis leading to opinions".

You may wonder at the significance of DaRosa to environmental law practitioners.  In response, I'll only note that both GE and DaRosa were in fact Superfund cases.  These issues arise with some regularity.  Now, lawyers representing parties opposed to state agencies will not be able to use the Public Records Act as an end-run around discovery privileges.  This might disadvantage some of my clients, but it's difficult to say that it's the wrong result.

To view Foley Hoag's Law and the Environment Blog please click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More