Schenectady County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. v. Mills, 16 N.Y.3d 44 (2010)
An agency responding to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request must redact a record to remove exempt information if it can do so without unreasonable difficulty, rather than withhold the entire record.
Summary
Schenectady County SPCA requested a list of names and addresses of licensed veterinarians and veterinary technicians from the New York State Education Department under FOIL. The Department offered names and city/state portions of addresses but refused to provide street addresses, claiming they could not distinguish between business and residential addresses. The SPCA sought only business addresses. The Court of Appeals held that the Department could not refuse to produce the entire record simply because some of it might be exempt. The court emphasized the duty to redact exempt information when reasonably possible, to fulfill FOIL obligations efficiently.
Facts
The Schenectady County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) requested, via email and then formally under FOIL, a list of names and addresses of licensed veterinarians and veterinary technicians in Schenectady County from the Education Department.
The Department offered a list of names, cities, and states but refused to provide street addresses, stating that it did not provide home addresses for licensed professionals and could not distinguish between business and residential addresses in its computerized files.
The SPCA clarified it was seeking only business addresses.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court dismissed the SPCA’s petition to compel production of the list.
The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision and granted the petition, compelling the Department to produce the list.
The Department appealed to the New York Court of Appeals as of right.
Issue(s)
Whether an agency responding to a FOIL request may withhold a record entirely because some of the information in that record may be exempt from disclosure, even if the exempt information could be redacted.
Holding
No, because an agency responding to a FOIL request must redact the record to remove exempt information if it can do so without unreasonable difficulty, rather than withhold the entire record.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the Education Department could not refuse to produce the entire list of names and addresses simply because it contained some information (home addresses) that might be exempt from disclosure under FOIL’s privacy provisions.
The Court reasoned that the SPCA was only seeking business addresses, which the Department did not claim were private. The Court found it “obvious” that the Department should simply delete the home addresses from the list, especially because the SPCA was only seeking business addresses.
The Court distinguished between creating a new record (which FOIL generally does not require) and redacting an existing one. Citing Matter of Data Tree, LLC v Romaine, 9 NY3d 454, 464 (2007), the court noted that “even when a document subject to FOIL contains . . . private, protected information, agencies may be required to prepare a redacted version with the exempt material removed.”
The Court criticized the extensive litigation of the case, stating, “It seems that an agency sensitive to its FOIL obligations could have furnished petitioner a redacted list with a few hours’ effort, and at negligible cost.” The Court expressed its hope that the Department and other government agencies would comply with their FOIL obligations more efficiently in the future.