Opinion
Civil Action AP-19-39
06-14-2021
SUSAN HAWES, Plaintiff v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Defendant
Plaintiff Hawes-Pro Se. Defendant CCSO-Michaei Devine, Esq.
Plaintiff Hawes-Pro Se.
Defendant CCSO-Michaei Devine, Esq.
ORDER
Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court.
In response to the court's order dated March 15, 2021 plaintiff Susan Hawes filed on April 14, 2021 a second amended complaint including as Count Four a claim that she did not receive all of the records covered by a request made on January 21, 2021. She also added two additional FOAA claims as Counts Five and Six.
Ms. Hawes was granted leave to amend to add count Four in the court's March 15 order.
In Count Four Ms, Hawcs states that she understood there were 60+ pages responsive to her January 21, 2021 request but that, as of April 13, 2021 only 49 pages had been received.
Count Five seeks relief based on a request she made on March 19, 2021 for a standard excel spreadsheet of regular', overtime, and all other pay types paid to each jail employee for the years 2018 to present. She alleges that pay codes were wrongfully redacted and that the spreadsheet was produced in a non-functional form.
Count Six relates to her January 21 request for overtime records relating to the period from December 22, 2020 to January 21, 2021. However, the request annexed to the Second Amended complaint as Exhibit E and referred to in Count Six is dated March 15, 2021, not January 21, 2021. In Count Six, as in Count Five, Ms. Hawes alleges that pay codes were wrongfully redacted and that the spreadsheet was produced in a non-functional form. Ms. Hawes had not been granted leave to amend to add Counts Five and Six. However, the Sheriffs Office did not object to those additional amendments but simply filed an answer to her Second Amended Complaint.
The court orders as follows:
1. As set forth below, the court will consider whether Ms, Hawes may proceed on Counts Five and Six, but apart from that there shall be no further amendments to the complaint. The court only allowed Ms, Hawes to add Count IV because it reiterated the request made in count I for a different time period. The court does not have - and does not intend to exercise - continuing jurisdiction over all of Ms. Hawes's current and future FOAA requests.
2. The court will schedule one further hearing at which the parties shall be prepared to address the following:
(1) Ms. Hawes's claim in Count Four that she only received 49 of the 60+ documents requested;
(2) whether Ms. Hawes shall be permitted to proceed on Counts Five and Six;
(3) if so, whether the Sheriffs Office is entitled to redact pay codes and to contend that the basis of the redaction is confidential;
(4) if so, whether the Sheriffs Office has produced spreadsheets in a non-functional form;
(5) if so, whether the production of spreadsheets in a non-functional form violates 1 M.R.S. § 408-A(7).
3. If the Sheriffs Office needs witnesses in order to address (3) and (4) above, those witnesses shall be available at the hearing because the burden of persuasion in FOAA cases is on the agency. Dubois v. Department of Agriculture, 2018 ME 68 ¶ 15, 185 A.3d 743.
The entry shall be:
Procedural order issued. The clerk shall incorporate this order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a).