Does an Exception to State’s “Sunshine Law” Bar Civil Discovery in Court?

Singleton v. Mazhari, 2025 WL 2736530 (D. Md. Sep. 25, 2025), answered that question in the negative.

Maryland’s “Public Information Act” (“MPIA”) is a State analog to the federal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).  Like FOIA, the MPIA provides a broad right to inspect public records, subject to enumerated exceptions.

Singleton addressed the situation where a plaintiff in civil litigation seeks discovery of public records that are protected against disclosure by the MPIA.

The Singleton Court held that the MPIA does not bar civil discovery; however, legislative classifications of confidentiality may themselves justify a protective order that bars dissemination of the discovery responses.  In doing so, it followed the important decision of Mezu v. Morgan State Univ., 265 F.R.D. 565 (D. Md. 2010)(Grimm, J.).

TEDCO, “an instrumentality of the State of Maryland” that was created by the General Assembly, moved for a protective order asserting that business or confidential information was requested by plaintiff’s subpoenas. The Court wrote that TEDCO asserted that its “statutory duties require the collection of trade secrets, confidential business or financial information, or employee records from various businesses in the state; production of such information without protection could lead to the disclosure of privileged or confidential information in a manner that harms businesses’ competitive positions, impairs TEDCO’s ability to collect such information in the future (in efforts to perform its duties), and pose added increase to data security risks.”

In support of its argument, “TEDCO also notes that documents containing confidential business information, including trade secrets, and employee or other personal information are protected by the Maryland Public Information Act from public, unrestricted disclosure.” Id. at *5 (emphasis added).

The Court wrote that “the MPIA does not bar discovery of otherwise-discoverable documents….” Id. at *5, citing Mezu, 269 F.R.D. at 576.  In short, the MPIA does not displace the civil discovery rules.

However, the MPIA was not ignored. The Singleton Court also wrote that “[b]ecause TEDCO is a state instrumentality subject to limitations on the State of Maryland itself, the Court will consider the impact, if any, on legislative designations related to confidentiality.” [emphasis added].  In short, the federal court wrote that comity required it to “consider” the MPIA.

It added: “Balancing these statutory limitations on disclosure and the need for civil discovery, the Court finds good cause to issue a protective order for the categories TEDCO identifies. The Court agrees that information protected by the MPIA is confidential information for purposes of Rule 26(c)(1).”  Id. at *6.

However, the Singleton Court limited the protection afforded by MPIA exemptions: “But a protective order restricting use—rather than preventing discovery—is a sufficient safeguard to address the asserted harms while advancing the aims of civil discovery.”  Id. at *6