Granite Green Investment Partners, LLC v. City of Nashua

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2019-0004, Granite Green Investment Partners,
LLC v. City of Nashua, the court on October 28, 2019, issued the
following order:

Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).
We affirm.

The plaintiff, Granite Green Investment Partners, LLC, appeals the order
of the Superior Court (Temple, J.) denying its request for relief under the Right-
to-Know Law, RSA chapter 91-A (2013 & Supp. 2018), arguing that the
defendant, City of Nashua, failed to adequately respond to its requests for
documents and records.

The adequacy of the defendant’s search for documents is judged by the
standard of reasonableness. ATV Watch v. N.H. Dep’t of Transp., 161 N.H.
746, 753 (2011). Following a two-day trial, during which fifteen witnesses
testified, and a review of voluminous exhibits, the trial court found that the
defendant’s searches were reasonably calculated to uncover all reasonably
described and relevant documents. The court found that the plaintiff’s lawsuit
was not necessary to make public records available, and that its Right-to-Know
Law requests were motivated by its displeasure with an adverse land use
decision by the city.

On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the defendant violated the Right-To-
Know Law by: (1) delaying disclosure of text messages and other records that
were immediately available; (2) failing to respond to certain Right-To-Know Law
requests; and (3) improperly redacting certain documents prior to disclosure.
The plaintiff also argues that the defendant’s email and text message retention
policies violate the Right-to-Know Law, that there was no evidence that it acted
with an improper motive, and that it was entitled to recover its attorney’s fees.

As the appealing party, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court’s order, the defendant’s challenges to it, the relevant
law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the plaintiff has not
demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

Hicks, Bassett, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2