Public Information Act - Denials - Pending Litigation
Summary
SB555 amends Maryland’s Public Information Act to create a new basis for denying inspection of certain records connected to litigation. The bill allows a custodian to withhold records that were created for the purposes of pending or reasonably anticipated litigation when the State, a state agency, a political subdivision, or a state or local officer or employee may be a party because of their official role. It defines “reasonably anticipated litigation” as litigation expected based on concrete evidence from current facts and circumstances.
The bill excludes court records and records tied to litigation that has already been finally adjudicated or settled. It also states that nothing in the new section limits any discovery rights or opportunities available under statute or court rule to a party in litigation. The act takes effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
This bill adds a new section to the General Provisions Article, section 4-357, expanding the circumstances under which public records custodians may deny access under the Public Information Act. In practice, it creates a litigation-related exemption for government entities and officials, affecting records created for active or imminently expected cases involving the State or local governments. It does not alter court records or discovery rules, but it may reduce public access to certain pre-litigation or litigation-preparation materials held by government bodies.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had meaningful support but not unanimity, passing third reading in the Senate by a 31-11 vote. The committee report was favorable with amendments, indicating the bill was generally acceptable to the committee while still requiring some changes. No committee transcript is available, so the broader discussion record is limited, but the vote pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a targeted procedural change rather than a broadly controversial overhaul.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between government transparency under the Public Information Act and the need to protect litigation-related records from disclosure. Supporters likely view the exemption as necessary to preserve legal strategy and avoid compromising the State’s or local governments’ position in pending or anticipated cases. Opponents may be concerned that the new denial authority could be used too broadly to shield records from public scrutiny, especially because it applies to records created for litigation involving public entities and officials.