PRINT VERSION: Attorney General Opinion No. 24-IB04

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Attorney General Opinion No. 24-IB04

January 29, 2024

 

VIA EMAIL

Joelle E. Polesky
Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP
jpolesky@stradley.com

 

Michael D. O’Mara
Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP
momara@stradley.com

 

RE:     FOIA Petition Regarding the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

 

Dear Ms. Polesky and Mr. O’Mara:

We write regarding your correspondence, on behalf of your client, Holt Logistics Corporation (“Holt”) alleging that the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (“DNREC”) violated the Delaware Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10008 (“FOIA”).  We treat your correspondence as a Petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10005 regarding whether a violation of FOIA has occurred or is about to occur.  For the reasons set forth below, we find that DNREC did not violate FOIA by denying access to the requested records.

BACKGROUND

On October 5, 2023, you submitted a request to DNREC on Holt’s behalf seeking the following records:

1. Any approvals by the Delaware State Port Corporation (“DSPC”) (or other state agency), or requests for approvals submitted to DSPC (or other state agency), relating to the “existence of a scrap tire operation at the location of 104 Hay Road, Wilmington, Delaware,” as referenced in Order No. 2022-WH-0009, dated June 23, 2022, issued by Secretary Garvin of the State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (the “Tire Order”), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A.
2. Documents reflecting the investigation into the “existence of a scrap tire operation at the location of 104 Hay Road, Wilmington, Delaware,” as referenced in the Tire Order.
3. All documents submitted by the Respondents, GT Wilmington and S & A Marketing Company, Inc., in response to, and/or as required by, the Tire Order.[1]

On October 30, 2023, DNREC denied the requests pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(9) which exempts any records pertaining to pending or potential litigation which are not records of any court.  This Petition followed.

In the Petition, Holt alleges that DNREC’s response is flawed in several respects.  First, Holt argues that the response to its request is procedurally deficient, as the response failed to describe the relevant pending or potential litigation, how such litigation relates to the requested records, or any sworn facts to support this exemption.  Holt also argues that DNREC’s response violates the policy of transparency that is advanced by the FOIA statute, and as the relevant litigation was not cited, DNREC failed to provide any information to evaluate DNREC’s basis for denial.  Finally, Holt claims it is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this matter pursuant to Section 10005(d).

DNREC, through its legal counsel, replied to the Petition, maintaining that its response to the request was appropriate.  DNREC states that an appeal before the Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”) involving two appellants owned by Holt is currently pending and another appellant, the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, is represented by Holt’s law firm in this appeal, Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.  This appeal challenges DNREC Secretary Order 2021-W/CCE-0026 in which DNREC approved the Diamond State Port Corporation’s (“DSPC”) application for a subaqueous lands permit to construct a new container port on the Delaware River at the DSPC’s property on Hay Road in Wilmington, Delaware.  DNREC alleges that the DSPC’s former port operator gave S&A Marketing access to this tire operations site on Hay Road.  DNREC states that the records Holt seeks relate to the former port operator’s and S&A Marketing’s violations of solid waste laws and DNREC’s enforcement history at the tire operation site on Hay Road.  DNREC argues that a link exists “between DNREC’s authority to issue permits and to enforce violations of Title 7 of the Delaware Code, including violations related to subaqueous lands or solid waste, and hypothetical future violations of DSPC’s subaqueous lands permit, which may be used to support its EAB appeal.”[2]

DISCUSSION

FOIA requires that citizens be provided reasonable access to and reasonable facilities for copying of public records.^[3]  In any action brought under Section 10005, the public body has the burden of proof to justify its denial of access to records.^[4]  In certain circumstances, a sworn affidavit may be required to meet that burden.^[5]  In its first claim, Holt alleges that the request provided by DNREC is procedurally insufficient, as the response to the request failed to identify the pending litigation or provide the sworn factual support for the denial.  When responding to a request, FOIA requires the public body indicate the reasons for the denial.[6]  This Office has previously determined that while public bodies are encouraged to include details when denying a access to records, citation to the pending or potential litigation exemption in a denial meets the minimum requirements under Section 10003.[7]  The requirement for a detailed rationale discussed in the Judicial Watch v. University of Delaware case is not applicable to responses to the FOIA request; this requirement is triggered when the public body is challenged in an action under Section 10005.[8]

Holt further alleges that DNREC improperly denied access to the requested records under the pending or potential litigation exemption.  Under FOIA, “records pertaining to pending or potential litigation which are not records of any court” are excluded from the definition of “public record.”^[9]  To determine if the pending litigation exemption applies, we must consider whether litigation is pending and whether the records that the requesting party seeks pertain to that pending litigation.^[10]  In this case, the first prong is satisfied, as DNREC pointed to the pending appeal in front of the EAB brought by several parties, including the “port operators.”[11]  These port operators, in addition to the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority and other interested parties, also filed statements of appeal with respect to Secretary’s Order No. 2021-W/CCE-0026.

We next must determine whether the requested records pertain to the pending litigation.  For this prong, we consider the relationship between these requested records and this litigation, including the timing and nature of the requests with respect to the pending litigation.^[12]  This pending appeal challenges the approval of an application for a subaqueous lands permit, which is part of the permits and approvals required for constructing a new container port on 4600 Hay Road, and Holt seeks investigatory and enforcement records related to a DNREC action involving another site located on Hay Road.  These requested records regarding DNREC’s enforcement and use of its authority may be brought to bear on the pending EAB appeal.  Additionally, although we need not specifically determine whether Holt or any related entities are litigants in the pending appeal, this factual record indicates that Holt’s legal counsel in this FOIA petition also represents the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority in the EAB appeal, and that Holt owns two of the other appellants in this EAB appeal.[13]  Further, Holt is seeking these records in the midst of the pending appeal.  When litigants seek records under FOIA to advance their litigation, Delaware courts have rejected this practice, stating that these litigants are not doing so to advance the public’s right to know, but to advance their own personal stake in litigation, and they “will not allow litigants to use FOIA as a means to obtain discovery which is not available under the court’s rules of procedure.”[14]  As such, we find that the second prong is satisfied, and DNREC has met its burden to demonstrate that the records are exempt under the pending litigation exemption.[15]

With respect to Holt’s final claim, we determine that the request for attorneys’ fees and costs is not applicable in this petition process.  Section 10005(d) expressly permits a “court” to award attorneys’ fees and costs in certain circumstances; this Office lacks such authority in the petition process.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that DNREC did not violate FOIA by denying access to the requested records.

 

Very truly yours,

/s/ Alexander S. Mackler
__________________________________
Alexander S. Mackler
Chief Deputy Attorney General

 

cc:        Devera B. Scott, Deputy Attorney General
Dorey L. Cole, Deputy Attorney General

 

[1]           Petition, Ex. B.

[2]           Response, p. 7.

[3]           29 Del. C. § 10003(a).

[4]           29 Del. C. § 10005(c).

[5]           Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996 (Del. 2021).

[6]           29 Del. C. § 10003(h)(2) (“If the public body denies a request in whole or in part, the public body’s response shall indicate the reasons for the denial.”).

[7]           Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 20-IB05, 2020 WL 719669, at *3 (Jan. 23, 2020).

[8]           29 Del. C. § 10005(c)(“In any action brought under this section, the burden of proof shall be on the custodian of records to justify the denial of access to records, and shall be on the public body to justify a decision to meet in executive session or any failure to comply with this chapter.”); Judicial Watch v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.2d 996, 1012 (Del. 2021) (“Thus, we hold that unless it is clear on the face of the request that the demanded records are not subject to FOIA, to meet the burden of proof under Section 10005(c), a public body must state, under oath, the efforts taken to determine whether there are responsive records and the results of those efforts.”).

[9]           29 Del. C. § 10002(o)(9).

[10]         Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 21-IB02, 2021 WL 559557, at *2 (Jan. 21, 2021) (“[W]e believe that the application of this exemption should be limited to determining whether litigation is pending and whether the records that the requesting party seeks pertain to that pending litigation.”); see also Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 21-IB20, 2021 WL 4351857, at *2-3 (Sept. 14, 2021).

[11]         Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 21-IB20, 2021 WL 4351857, at *2 (“This Office considers quasi-judicial proceedings litigation for the purposes of applying Section 10002(o)(9), including the ‘proceedings of administrative bodies that in essence determine legal rights outside the traditional court of law.’ This Office has previously determined that an appeal before the Environmental Appeals Board qualifies as pending litigation and consistent with this precedent, we find that this appeal before the Environmental Appeals Board qualifies as pending litigation.”) (internal citations omitted).

[12]         Del. Op. Att’y Gen. 03-IB10, 2003 WL 22931612, at *5 (May 6, 2003) (“We determine that there is a sufficient nexus based both on the timing of your FOIA request and the nature of the documents requested.”).

[13]         Response, n. 3, 9.

[14]         See, e.g., Mell v. New Castle Cnty., 835 A.2d 141, 147 (Del. Super. 2003).

[15]         We also note that Holt filed a separate petition against the DSPC regarding a FOIA request that Holt submitted on the same day for the same records that are the subject of this Petition, in addition to other records related to selection of the port operator and various matters.

<< Back