Johannesen v. Town of Danville, Doc. No. 218-2013-CV-215 (Rockingham Super. Ct., March 11, 2013) (McHugh, J.)

Pages: 1 2


The State of New Hampshire







On February 19, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a Petition for Injunctive Relief. Specifically, she asked the Court to order the defendant to turn over to her a series of documents which she claimed she was entitled to receive pursuant to our right to know law, to wit, RSA 91A. A hearing was held on the Plaintiff's Petition on March 7, 2013. Both parties appeared. The plaintiff conceded that since she filed her Petition she received most of the documents she requested. She complains, however, that some of the documents she now knows were available prior to the Deliberative Session held in Danville on February 2, 2013 were not given to her until after that date. She claims she could have used them during her presentation.

The defendant reports that but for some records that had to be redacted due to personal information that the public would not be entitled to receive, it has forwarded to the plaintiff all of the documents requested in a timely fashion. It points out however that there was some delay in getting these documents to the plaintiff because of the necessity of inspecting them prior to their release. The Town assured the Court that had the plaintiff made her request for these documents in December or even January, she would have had them prior to the Deliberative Session.

The defendant had a copy of the documents given to the plaintiff available for the Court's inspection at the hearing and they contain approximately 2000 pages. Patricia [2] Shogren, the Selectmen's Administrator for the Town of Danville, was present at the hearing and she recited the process that she employed in order to obtain and disseminate the requested records to the plaintiff.

Upon review of all the evidence submitted, the Court finds and rules that the Town of Danville is not in violation of RSA 91-A with respect to the documents requested by the plaintiff. Those documents were assembled and disseminated in a timely fashion after necessary inspection so as to assure that personal information was not sent to the plaintiff by mistake. Accordingly, the plaintiff's Petition is dismissed.

So Ordered.

   March 11, 2013       /s/   

DateKenneth R. McHugh

Presiding Justice