5 N.Y.3d 84 (2005)
Federal law (23 USC § 409), which protects certain highway safety documents from discovery in lawsuits, does not automatically exempt those documents from disclosure under a state’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).
Summary
Newsday requested the New York State Department of Transportation’s list of hazardous intersections under FOIL. The Department denied the request, claiming the list was exempt under 23 USC § 409, which prohibits the discovery and admission into evidence of certain highway safety-related documents in federal or state court. The New York Court of Appeals held that § 409 does not create a blanket exemption from FOIL. The court reasoned that while § 409 aims to encourage states to identify and address road safety issues without fear of litigation, it does not explicitly prohibit disclosure of the documents outside of the discovery context in lawsuits. Therefore, because Newsday was not a tort plaintiff attempting to circumvent discovery rules, the documents were not exempt from FOIL.
Facts
A Newsday reporter submitted a FOIL request to the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT). The request sought the DOT’s “priority list of hazardous intersections and locations” for Long Island and New York City. This list is required to be maintained as part of the federally mandated Hazard Elimination Program.
Procedural History
The DOT denied Newsday’s FOIL request, citing 23 USC § 409 as the basis for exemption. Newsday appealed internally within the DOT, but the denial was upheld. Newsday then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court to compel disclosure of the records. The Supreme Court granted Newsday’s petition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted the DOT’s appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether 23 USC § 409, which restricts the discovery and admissibility of highway safety-related documents in damage actions, also exempts those documents from disclosure under New York’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).
Holding
No, because the language of 23 USC § 409 does not explicitly create a blanket exemption from disclosure under FOIL; it only prohibits the use of the covered documents in the context of discovery and evidence in damage actions.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged the tension between FOIL, which favors public access to government records, and 23 USC § 409, which aims to encourage states to identify hazardous locations. The court emphasized that FOIL reflects the principle “that the public is vested with an inherent right to know and that official secrecy is anathematic to our form of government.” The court found that the language of § 409 does not mandate complete confidentiality. Quoting the statute, the court noted that the documents