Cited by

To the extent that the trial court determines a privacy interest is at stake and proceeds to evaluate the public interest in disclosure, we note that the individual’s motives in seeking disclosure are irrelevant, Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 383 (2008), and the inquiry turns on whether the disclosure informs the public about the conduct and activities of the government.

Furthermore, the purpose of the Right-to-Know Law is to facilitate governmental transparency, see Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 378-79 (2008), not to create personal rights to notice for individuals who may be discussed in a non-public session, cf. San Antonio v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 820 S.W.2d 762, 765 (Tex.

RSA 91- A:7; Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 377 (2008) (involving petition for declaratory judgment alleging violation of the Right-to- Know Law filed in superior court after county officials denied petitioners’ request for documents).

Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 378-79 (2008).

Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 382 (2008).

at 519-20; see Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 382-86 (2008) (describing the balancing test used to determine whether public records are exempt from disclosure because their release would constitute an invasion of privacy).

at 520; see, e.g., Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 382-86 (2008) (describing the balancing test employed to determine whether public records are exempt from disclosure because their release would constitute invasion of privacy).

Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 383 (2008).

Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 381 (2008).

Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 382-83 (2008) (citations omitted).

the UTSA prohibits disclosure of trade secrets and, therefore, whether the designated information falls under the exemption in RSA 91-A:4, I, for information the disclosure of which is “otherwise prohibited by statute.” “Resolution of this case requires us to interpret several statutory provisions, including certain provisions of the Right-to-Know Law.” *587 Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 378 (2008).

v. Town of Hampton, 162 N.H. 7, 14 (2011); Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 379 (2008).

Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 378 (2008).

Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 379 (2008).

Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 384 (2008) (action under State’s Right-to-Know Law).

Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 381 (2008) (under RSA 91-A:8, II, decision whether to invalidate action is within discretion of the trial court).

However, “[w]hen a public entity seeks to avoid disclosure of material under the Right-to-Know Law, that entity bears a heavy burden to shift the balance toward nondisclosure.” Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 379 (2008).

Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 380 (2008) (relying upon dictionary definitions for common understanding of terms).

Lambert v. Belknap County Convention, 157 N.H. 375, 378 (2008).