Background
In early 2022, Ferndale Volunteer Fire Company submitted a series of MPIA requests to two Anne Arundel County agencies—the Fire Department and the Executive Office—seeking emails mentioning specific personnel and department identifiers from January 2019 forward. The County produced some records voluntarily but withheld or redacted others, asserting two separate statutory exemptions: the executive privilege for “confidential executive communications of an advisory or deliberative nature” under GP § 4-301(a)(1), and the deliberative process privilege for records “part of the deliberative decision making process” under GP § 4-344. Ferndale filed suit in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County seeking an order compelling full disclosure, along with damages and litigation costs.
After the circuit court ordered an in camera review of the disputed emails, it entered a partial summary judgment order finding that three sets of emails had been improperly withheld and enjoining the County from withholding them. However, the court approved the redaction of fifteen additional emails, stating they contained “confidential executive discussions of an advisory nature” and were “properly withheld.” Ferndale’s claims for damages and litigation costs remained pending. Ferndale appealed the ruling on the fifteen emails.
Because the damages claim was still unresolved when the appeal was filed, the order was interlocutory rather than a final judgment, raising a threshold question of appellate jurisdiction that the court addressed on its own motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court of Maryland first held that the interlocutory order was immediately appealable under CJP § 12-303(3)(iii) as an order “refusing to grant an injunction.” Drawing on the Supreme Court of Maryland’s decision in Office of State Prosecutor v. Judicial Watch, the court reasoned that an MPIA order compelling production is an injunction—enforceable by contempt—and that its mirror image, an order permitting an agency to continue withholding records, is therefore a refusal to grant an injunction. Although the circuit court’s order did not use the word “injunction,” its substance—a ruling that the fifteen emails were “properly withheld”—effectively denied Ferndale the injunctive relief it had requested, placing the order squarely within the statute’s scope.
On the merits, the court vacated the redaction-approval order and remanded without affirmance or reversal. The problem was the order’s ambiguity: the circuit court’s finding that the emails contained “confidential executive discussions of an advisory nature” tracked the language of the executive-privilege exemption under GP § 4-301, yet the parties had principally litigated the deliberative process privilege under GP § 4-344, and the Vaughn index cited both provisions. Because it was impossible to determine which statutory exemption the circuit court had applied—or whether it had resolved both—the appellate court could not conduct a meaningful review. The circuit court must clarify on remand which exemption or exemptions support the withholding of each email.
Key Takeaways
- Under Maryland law, an MPIA order permitting an agency to withhold records is a “refusal to grant an injunction” appealable as an interlocutory order under CJP § 12-303(3)(iii), even if the order does not use the word “injunction” and even while damages claims remain pending.
- Maryland courts look to the substance of an order—not its label—when deciding whether it constitutes a grant or refusal of an injunction for appealability purposes.
- When an agency asserts both the executive privilege (GP § 4-301(a)(1)) and the deliberative process privilege (GP § 4-344) to justify MPIA redactions, the circuit court must identify with sufficient clarity which exemption applies to which records; a generic finding that emails contain “confidential executive discussions of an advisory nature” is insufficient if it leaves the basis for withholding unresolved.
- A pending statutory damages or attorney’s fees claim prevents an MPIA ruling on disclosure from becoming a final, appealable judgment—but the interlocutory-appeal statute independently authorizes review of the injunctive component.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for MPIA practitioners because it establishes for the first time in the Maryland appellate courts that an order allowing an agency to keep records withheld—not just an order compelling disclosure—is immediately appealable as a refusal to grant an injunction. That ruling cuts both ways: requesters who lose a document-production ruling need not wait years for a final judgment on damages before challenging the withholding, but agencies that lose production disputes can also seek immediate review rather than waiting for trial. The symmetry gives both sides faster access to appellate resolution of privilege questions.
The remand instruction also signals that Maryland circuit courts must do more than echo statutory language when sustaining MPIA exemption claims after in camera review. A trial court approving redactions must state on the record which exemption governs and, where applicable, whether reasonably segregable portions must be disclosed. The ruling thus raises the floor for the quality of reasoning required in MPIA rulings, which will benefit both requesters assessing their options and appellate courts performing meaningful review.