NY.gov Portal State Agency Listing

 

FOIL-AO-17865

 

                                                                                                October 28, 2009

 

E-mail

TO:                 

FROM:            Robert J. Freeman, Executive Director

The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions.  The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solely upon the information presented in your correspondence.

Dear

            I have received your letter in which you asked that I explain “why the figures in an audit of the Southampton Town’s capital budget should be available.”  Although the audit was prepared by an outside auditing firm, the Town has contended that it falls within the scope of the attorney-client privilege and may be withheld on that basis.  You added that the Town has indicated that “any analysis should be withheld as it could be used in a court case.”

            In this regard, I offer the following comments. 

            First, as a general matter, the Freedom of Information Law is based upon a presumption of access.  Stated differently, all records of an agency are available, except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for denial appearing in §87(2)(a) through (j) of the Law.

            Second, one of the exceptions to rights of access, §87(2)(g), often requires disclosure, and I believe that to be so in this instance.  That provision permits an agency, such as a town, to withhold records that:

"are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not:

i.  statistical or factual tabulations or data;

ii.  instructions to staff that affect the public;

iii.  final agency policy or determinations; or

iv.  external audits, including but not limited to audits performed by the comptroller and the federal government..."

            It is noted that the language quoted above contains what in effect is a double negative.  While inter-agency or intra-agency materials may be withheld, portions of such materials consisting of statistical or factual information, instructions to staff that affect the public, final agency policy or determinations or external audits must be made available, unless a different ground for denial could appropriately be asserted.  Concurrently, those portions of inter-agency or intra-agency materials that are reflective of opinion, advice, recommendation and the like could in my view be withheld.

            In the context of your inquiry, two of the provisions requiring disclosure are pertinent.  Pursuant to subparagraph (i), those portions of the record or records at issue that consist of statistical or factual information, i.e., the figures to which you referred, are accessible, and based on subparagraph (iv), external audits must also be made available.

            Third, when the attorney-client privilege is properly and justifiably asserted, records falling within the scope of the privilege are confidential and may be withheld under §87(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information Law concerning records that “are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.”   However, an the auditor is not an attorney, and he/she or the firm that prepared the audit does not carry out functions based uniquely on the knowledge or skills of attorneys.  That being so, I do not believe that the attorney-client privilege may be asserted.

            In a discussion of the parameters of the attorney-client relationship and the conditions precedent to its initiation, it has been held that:

"In general, 'the privilege applies only if (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) legal services (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client'" [People v. Belge, 59 AD 2d 307, 399 NYS 2d 539, 540 (1977)].

            In short, based on judicial precedent, again, I do not believe that the records at issue fall within the scope of the attorney-client privilege.

            Related to the privilege are provisions in Civil Practice Law and Rules concerning discovery in a litigation context.  Section 3101(c) generally exempts the work product of an attorney from disclosure, and §3101(d) exempts material prepared for litigation from disclosure.  Both of those provisions are intended to shield from an adversary records that would result in a strategic advantage or disadvantage, as the case may be.  In a decision in which it was determined that records could justifiably be withheld as attorney work product, the "disputed documents"  were "clearly work product documents which contain the opinions, reflections and thought process of partners and associates" of a law firm "which have not been communicated or shown to individuals outside of that law firm" [Estate of Johnson, 538 NYS 2d 173 (1989)].  In another decision, the relationship between the attorney-privilege and the ability to  withhold the work product of an attorney was discussed, and it was found that:

"The attorney-client privilege requires some showing that the subject information was disclosed in a confidential communication to an attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice (Matter of Priest v. Hennessy, 51 N.Y.2d 62, 68-69, 431 N.Y.S.2d 511, 409 N.E.2d 983).  The work-product privilege requires an attorney affidavit showing that the information was generated by an attorney for the purpose of litigation (see, Warren v. New York City Tr. Auth., 34 A.D.2d 749, 310 N.Y.S.2d 277).  The burden of satisfying each element of the privilege falls on the party asserting it (Priest v. Hennessy, supra, 51 N.Y.2d at 69, 431 N.Y.S. 2d 511, 409 N.E.2d 983), and conclusory assertions will not suffice (Witt v. Triangle Steel Prods. Corp., 103 A.D.2d 742, 477 N.Y.S.2d 210)" [Coastal Oil New York, Inc. v. Peck, [184 AD 2d 241 (1992)].

            In my view, it is clear that an audit and related materials cannot be characterized as the work product of an attorney or otherwise considered privileged.

            Further, it is emphasized that it has been determined judicially that if records are prepared for multiple purposes, one of which includes eventual use in litigation, §3101(d) does not serve as a basis for withholding records; only when records are prepared solely for litigation can §3101(d) be properly asserted to deny access to records [see e.g., Westchester-Rockland Newspapers v. Mosczydlowski, 58 AD 2d 234 (1977)].

            Lastly, as specified by the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, in a case involving a request made under the Freedom of Information Law by a person involved in litigation against an agency:  "Access to records of a government agency under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) (Public Officers Law, Article 6) is not affected by the fact that there is pending or potential litigation between the person making the request and the agency" [Farbman v. NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation, 62 NY 2d 75, 78 (1984)].  Similarly, in an earlier decision, the Court of Appeals determined that "the standing of one who seeks access to records under the Freedom of Information Law is as a member of the public, and is neither enhanced...nor restricted...because he is also a litigant or potential litigant" [Matter of John P. v. Whalen, 54 NY 2d 89, 99 (1980)].  The Court in Farbman, supra, discussed the distinction between the use of the Freedom of Information Law as opposed to the use of discovery in Article 31 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR).  Specifically, it was found that:

"FOIL does not require that the party requesting records make any showing of need, good faith or legitimate purpose; while its purpose may be to shed light on governmental decision-making, its ambit is not confined to records actually used in the decision-making process (Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v. Kimball, 50 NY2d 575, 581.)  Full disclosure by public agencies is, under FOIL, a public right and in the public interest, irrespective of the status or need of the person making the request (Farbman, supra, at 80).

            In an effort to enhance understanding of and compliance with the Freedom of Information Law, a copy of this opinion will be sent to the Town Board.

            I hope that I have been of assistance.

RJF:jm

cc: Town Board