{ "id": 3712777, "name": "C.D. NOLAN v. Darryl LITTLE, Director, State Plant Board", "name_abbreviation": "Nolan v. Little", "decision_date": "2004-10-14", "docket_number": "03-1115", "first_page": "161", "last_page": "167", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "359 Ark. 161" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "196 S.W.3d 1" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "486 U.S. 35", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6209906 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/486/0035-01" ] }, { "cite": "333 Ark. 451", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 703807 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/333/0451-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 25-19-105", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(1)" }, { "page": "(a)(l)(A)" }, { "parenthetical": "a" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 Ark. 711", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 210153 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/344/0711-01" ] }, { "cite": "358 Ark. 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8451533 ], "weight": 7, "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/358/0089-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 Ark. 8", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 3713316 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/359/0008-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 25-19-103", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "A" }, { "parenthetical": "A" }, { "parenthetical": "Supp. 2003" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 613, "char_count": 10966, "ocr_confidence": 0.783, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0428385816333553e-07, "percentile": 0.7479436059785725 }, "sha256": "2bcc981442b854da377c21afaef2fcaa42739c310b92f8282989225630803c79", "simhash": "1:bf9e6f70542a3bbc", "word_count": 1829 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:12:09.658813+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "C.D. NOLAN v. Darryl LITTLE, Director, State Plant Board" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Betty C. Dickey, Chief Justice.\nThis case involves whether seed samples are public records under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (hereinafter \u201cFOIA\u201d). The Pulaski County Circuit Court, Honorable Jay Moody presiding, found that the actual physical seeds that were the subject of the FOIA request did not fall under the terms and definition of \u201cpublic records,\u201d as defined by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 25-19-103 (5)(A) (Supp. 2003). We affirm.\nOn July 15, 2003, C.D. \u201cDuff\u2019 Nolan filed a complaint against Darryl Little, Director of the Arkansas State Plant Board, alleging Little failed to comply with the Arkansas FOIA by denying his request for various seed samples. Little denied the request, contending that the seeds were not public records and thus not subject to FOIA.\nDuff Nolan testified that he was an agriculture lawyer involved with a number of seed companies who have created and developed useful varieties of seed on which they expect to receive royalties. These companies attempt to eliminate illegal reproduction and illegal sale of an inventor and owner\u2019s property rights in germ plasm, which relates to genetic codes. Nolan said that during the last few years seeds are being reproduced and sold illegally, and one way of investigating this illegal trade is through the Arkansas State Plant Board. The State Plant Board receives seeds from different seed dealers and different farmers, submitted as seed samples, as opposed to regulatory samples. The Board performs germination tests or a vigor test, then identifies and stores the samples.\nNolan wanted to know if the Alice-Sidney Dryer and Seed Company of Dermott had submitted wheat samples to the State Plant Board. According to Nolan, Alice-Sidney Dryer asked the Plant Board to provide a germination test on certain seeds, because that test is required in order to sell the seed. On June 20, 2003, Nolan made a FOIA request to the Board for the disclosure of representative seed samples, 100 grams of both regulatory and service samples, submitted by Alice-Sidney Dryer and maintained in the State Plant Board\u2019s files. The State Plant Board responded that the seed itself was not a public record, and therefore not subject to FOIA.\nAaron Palmer, a State Plant Board seed lab manager, testified to the testing procedure explaining that, \u201cif a customer sends in a sample for germination and they later request a purity test, if some of the seed has been removed, then we have less than the amount of weight that we need to go through that sample and create an analysis. So, they\u2019re going to have to resample, if the sample is even available.\u201d He also testified that the resulting data is subsequently compiled into analysis reports and those reports are turned over for FOIA.\nDarryl Little said that, in responding to FOIA requests, he had previously given Nolan copies of records, but has \u201cnever considered the seeds to be a record because they are a sample. It\u2019s not a compilation of information or data that our agency puts together. It\u2019s merely the physical sample that we use to compile the data.\u201d If these seeds were given out under FOIA, it \u201cwould deplete the file sample to a point where we wouldn\u2019t be able to not only service the farmer or the farm community here in Arkansas, but may jeopardize our ability to meet federal requirements with regards to interstate shipments of seed. This would be because we might run out of seeds.\u201d\nOn appeal, Nolan first argues that a \u201cpublic record,\u201d as defined by FOIA, includes seed samples. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 25-19-103 (5)(A) defines a public record as follows: Furthermore, the term \u201cmedium\u201d is defined as \u201cthe physical form or material on which records and information may be stored or represented and may include, but is not limited to, paper, microfilm, microform, computer disks and diskettes, optical disks, and magnetic tapes.\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 25-19-103 (3) (Supp. 2003).\n\u201cPublic records\u201d means writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes, electronic or computer-based information, or data compilations in any medium required by law to be kept or otherwise kept and that constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions that are or should be carried out by a public official or employee, a governmental agency, or any other agency wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds. All records maintained in public offices or by public employees within the scope of their employment shall be presumed to be public records.\nNolan contends that a \u201cpublic record\u201d includes data as contained within \u201cany medium,\u201d to include seed samples and the genetic information contained therein. Nolan also argues that the canons of statutory interpretation require \u201cany medium\u201d to be given plain meaning and effect, and that a broad definition of \u201cpublic record\u201d be applied.\nThis court reviews issues of statutory construction de novo, as it is for this court to decide what a statute means; thus, we are not bound by the circuit court\u2019s determination in that regard. Cockrell v. Union Planters Bank, 359 Ark. 8, 194 S.W.3d. 178 (2004); Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Sauer, 358 Ark. 89, 186 S.W.3d 229 (2004). The basic rule of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. Id. In determining the meaning of a statute, the first rule is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. Id. This court construes the statute so that no word is left void, superfluous, or insignificant, and meaning and effect are given to every word in the statute if possible. Id. When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no need to resort to rules of statutory construction. Id. However, this court will not give statutes a literal interpretation if it leads to absurd consequences that are contrary to legislative intent. Id. This court will accept a circuit court\u2019s interpretation of the law unless it is shown that the court\u2019s interpretation was in error. Id.; Barclay v. First Paris Holding Co., 344 Ark. 711, 42 S.W.3d 496 (2001). This court takes pain to reconcile statutory provisions to make them consistent, harmonious, and sensible. Id.\nA seed sample does not meet the definition of a \u201cpublic record,\u201d because it cannot be said to be an object \u201con which records and information may be stored or represented.\u201d Although the list of items that can be mediums is not exhaustive, it does not contain a seed or any other organic object. Moreover, the various items that constitute a \u201cpublic record\u201d are writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes, electronic or computer-based information, and data compilations in any medium. \u201cMediums\u201d are paper, microfilm, microform, computer disks and diskettes, optical disks, and magnetic tapes. Giving the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meaning as required by the rules of statutory construction, a seed sample does not constitute a \u201cpublic record,\u201d nor does it fall within the definition of a medium. Our interpretation is consistent with the provisions of the entire Act, which provides for all public records to be open to \u201cinspection and copying\u201d by any citizen. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 25-19-105(a)(1). Removal and destructive testing of seed samples go far beyond the inspection and copying of public records.\nIn each of the cases cited by Nolan, the items at issue were books, writings, paperwork, paper reports, logs, photographs, memorandums, and notes, and the cases in no way indicate that an organic object is subject to a FOIA request. Although courts have ruled that FOIA requests be interpreted broadly, it is not so broad as to include any item located within the doors of a state agency that may contain some kind of genetic information. Flere, the actual physical seed sample that the State Plant Board uses to compile data is not a \u201cpublic record.\u201d Only the documents relating to the testing of a seed sample are available under FOIA.\nSince this court holds that the actual seed sample is not a public record, we need not address Nolan\u2019s argument that all \u201cpublic records\u201d not specifically exempt by statute are subject to public inspection under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 25-19-105(a)(l)(A) (Supp. 2003).\nFor his second point on appeal, Nolan argues that the trial court failed to apply a \u201ccommon sense\u201d solution to this narrow issue. This court has said that we will balance the interests between disclosure and non-disclosure using a common sense approach. Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration v. Pharmacy Association, 333 Ark. 451, 970 S.W.2d 217 (1998). We agree that a common sense approach should be used, and that the trial court properly ruled that a seed is not a public record.\nNolan says that the unique nature of seed samples prompts a common sense solution when balancing the public interest with the State Plant Board\u2019s current policy of annually discarding seed samples. Nolan contends that when the State Plant Board discards the seed samples the information is already in the public domain, and it should be disposed of in a manner that contemplates FOIA requests.\nSince seed samples are not public records, the trial court need not have given special consideration to the unique nature of seed samples. However, testing the seed sample does destroy the seed, and if the State Plant Board had to turn over a sample in response to a FOIA request, the Board would lose the seed sample.\nThe State Plant Board does discard the seed after a period of time. Nolan cites to California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), where the United States Supreme Court held that household garbage is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection from warrantless search and seizure since \u201can expectation of privacy does not give rise to Fourth Amendment protection . . . unless society is prepared to accept that expectation as objectively reasonable.\u201d The Court went on to hold that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in trashed items. Nolan suggests, then, that once the seeds are designated for destruction or are otherwise of no use to the State Plant Board, they should be made available.\nIn this case, at the time of the FOIA request, the seed sample is not garbage. They are stored by the State Plant Board for purposes of testing. The FOIA is not implicated in any of the Fourth Amendment cases cited by Nolan, nor is the Fourth Amendment implicated in the present case. Furthermore, FOIA only requires that the State Plant Board provide \u201cpublic records\u201d for inspection and copying, not for taking and destroying. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 25-19-105 (a)(1)(A).\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Betty C. Dickey, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Nolan & Henry, PLLC, by: Mark Murphey Henry, for appellant.", "Mike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Eric F. Walker, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "C.D. NOLAN v. Darryl LITTLE, Director, State Plant Board\n03-1115\n196 S.W.3d 1\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 14, 2004\n[Rehearing denied December 2, 2004.]\nNolan & Henry, PLLC, by: Mark Murphey Henry, for appellant.\nMike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Eric F. Walker, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0161-01", "first_page_order": 183, "last_page_order": 189 }