Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Maryland Department of Agriculture

HARRELL, J. “There’s many a slip ‘twixt’ the cup and the lip.” —Old English proverb Although the parties have spent considerable time presenting, for our benefit, the substantive law pertaining to the merits of the case, none ensured that the procedural posture of the appeal was proper. For the forthcoming reasons, this Court must dismiss the present appeal for lack of jurisdiction. I. BACKGROUND The controversy giving rise to the present appeal began in the summer of 2007, when Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. (“WKA”) submitted to the Maryland Department of Agriculture (“MDA”) a pair of requests for certain public records. In those requests, WKA sought to obtain the specific nutrient management plans (“NMPs”) of various private farming operations on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, along with any supporting documentation related to the NMPs.

WKA submitted the requests pursuant to the Maryland Public Information Act (“PIA”), Maryland Code (1984, 2009 RepLVol.), State Govern ²⁶⁸ ment Article, §§ 10-601 to 10-628, 1 which allows generally for the inspection and receipt of copies of public records. The MDA denied WKA’s requests, on the basis that § 10-615(2)(i) 2 of the PIA exempted disclosure of the NMP inspection records, citing Md.Code (1973, 2007 Repl.Vol.), Agriculture Art., § 8 — 801.1(b)(2) 3 as the operative excepting statute. On 4 February 2008, WKA and eight other environmental advocacy groups filed an action (‘WKA action”) against the MDA and three of its executives in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (“Anne Arundel Circuit Court”) to obtain the records WKA sought. 4 WKA’s Complaint alleged four legal grounds, which it labeled “Causes of Action,” upon any of which the court should order the MDA to produce the records: ²⁶⁹ [1] On its Face, Md.Code Ann., Agrie. § 8-801(b)(2) [sic] Constitutes a Violation of the Rights Conferred on Citizens by Article 6 of Maryland’s Declaration of Rights.... [2] Md.Code Ann., Agrie. § 8 — 801(b)(2) [sic] is a “Special Law” That Violates Article III, § 33 of the Maryland Constitution .... [3] Md.Code Ann., Agrie. § 8-801(b)(2) [sic] Constitutes a Violation of the Rights Conferred on Citizens by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.... [4] The Denial of Access to Nutrient Management Plans Violates the Maryland Public Information Act. To remedy the alleged violations, the Complaint pressed six distinct, but at times overlapping, prayers for relief: The Waterkeepers pray that this [c]ourt: (1) deelare[] Md.Code Ann., Agrie. § 8 — 801(b)(2) [sic] unconstitutional under the Maryland and United States Constitutions; (2) enjoin[] the defendants from withholding the public records sought by Waterkeeper; (3) order[ ] the defendants to produce the public records improperly withheld; (4) order[ the] defendants to pay actual and punitive damages for the failure to disclose public records; (5) order[ the] defendants to pay reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs, including attorney and expert fees; and (6) grant[ ] other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Following WKA’s filing of the Complaint, the parties engaged in discussions as to what specific information the MDA might be required to disclose. No apparent settlement was reached, and the case remained “live.” After the discussions concluded, WKA filed on 16 May 2008 a third request with the MDA for information, which the MDA approved tentatively. On 18 July 2008, before the MDA could fulfill WKA’s third PIA request, the Maryland Farm Bureau, Inc. (“MFB”) and three anonymous farmers filed a related action (“MFB action ²⁷⁰ I”) against the MDA in the Circuit Court for Dorchester County (“Dorchester Circuit Court”). MFB alleged in its Complaint that the “[MDA] received a request pursuant to the Maryland [PIA] for the disclosure of certain [NMP] information[,] ... [including] all [NMPs], plan summaries, and records of inspection or enforcement against poultry operations located in Dorchester, Queen Anne’s Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties.” The Complaint asserted two counts-one alleging grounds for a declaratory judgment as to the scope and temporal limitations of Agrie. § 8-801.1(b)(2), 5 and the other alleging grounds for preliminary and permanent injunctions to enjoin the MDA from disclosing confidential information.

MFB identified four prayers for relief: [1] A declaration that Agrie. § 8-801.1(b)(2) requires that: (a) the Department maintain nutrient management plan summaries for three years; and (b) the Department maintain all nutrient management plan information in a manner that protects the identity of the individual for whom the nutrient management plan was prepared, without any time limitation; [2] Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief preventing the Department from disclosing confidential nutrient management information identifying the Farmers or other members of the Maryland Farm Bureau; [3] Award of plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs in pursuing this litigation; [4] Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. In response to the Scylla and Charybdis effect of the actions against it, the MDA filed a motion in the Dorchester Circuit Court requesting a transfer of MFB action I to the Anne Arundel Circuit Court. On 2 September 2008, the Dorchester Circuit Court granted the MDA’s motion. After MFB action I ²⁷¹ was transferred to the Anne Arundel Circuit Court, the MDA filed in that court a Motion to Consolidate the WKA and MFB actions.

While the Motion to Consolidate was pending, MFB filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to MFB action I, Anne Arundel Circuit Court Case No. 02-C-08-134331, stating that MFB is “entitled to summary judgment declaring the proper interpretation of Agrie. § 8-801.1(b)(2).” The MDA filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in MFB action I. On 17 October 2008, the Anne Arundel Circuit Court granted the MDA’s Motion to Consolidate. The court consolidated the dockets of the WKA and MFB actions, and designated MFB action I, Case No. 02-C-08-134331, as the “lead case.” 6 WKA filed then a Motion in Opposition to MFB’s Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of the MDA’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties addressed the court on the summary judgment motions and oppositions during a hearing on 8 December 2008 (“the 2008 hearing”). Two months later, the trial judge issued a Memorandum Opinion and, on 10 February 2009, issued an Order (“2009 Order”) in which it granted the MDA’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, denied MFB’s Motion for Summary Judgment, including the following language in the order: DECLARED, that the Maryland Department of Agriculture must disclose Nutrient Management Plan Summaries that have been maintained by the Department of Agriculture for 3 years or less pursuant to the Public Information Act with the limitation that the Maryland Department of Agriculture must redact any and all information from the Nutrient Management Plan Summaries that may allow for the identification of the individual for whom the nutrient management plan was prepared; and it is further ²⁷² DECLARED, that the Maryland Department of Agriculture must disclose Nutrient Management Plan Summaries that have been maintained by the Department of Agriculture for more than three years without any redaction of identifying information unless failure to redact identifying information from Nutrient Management Plan Summaries that have been held for more than three years would allow for the identification of the individual for whom the Nutrient Management Plan was prepared with respect to those Nutrient Management Plan Summaries that have been maintained by the Maryland Department of Agriculture for three years or less; and it is further DECLARED, that the Maryland Department of Agriculture must redact any information from any documents subject to disclosure under the Public Information Act that are related to Nutrient Management Plans if such information would allow for the identification of the individual for whom the Nutrient Management Plan was prepared with respect to those Nutrient Management Plan Summaries that have been maintained by the Maryland Department of Agriculture for three years or less.

No further litigation activity was reflected on the docket immediately following entry of the 2009 Order. Over a year later, however, on 2 April 2010, the MDA received another PIA request regarding specific NMP information, this time from Assateague Coastkeeper (“Coastkeeper”), a co-plaintiff in the WKA action. Coastkeeper requested essentially the same information that WKA sought in its PIA requests and the resulting litigation. 7 Unbeknownst to Coast-keeper, the MDA and MFB engaged in communications to determine which information might be disclosed to Coastkeeper. The MDA told MFB that, among other things, it intended to provide Coastkeeper with an electronic spreadsheet con ²⁷³ taining information regarding the MDA inspections and enforcement actions involving MFB members.

MFB asked the MDA to delay releasing the spreadsheet so that it could “develop a legal strategy” to prevent disclosure of any confidential information within the spreadsheet. On 13 September 2010, after the MDA informed Coastkeeper of its plans to further delay the release of information, MFB filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief (“MFB action II”), along with a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, against the MDA in the Circuit Court for Worcester County (“Worcester Circuit Court”) seeking to prevent the MDA from disclosing, without redactions, the spreadsheet. The following day, that court issued a Temporary Restraining Order preventing the MDA from “disclosing any information concerning nutrient management plans that identifies the person for whom the plan was prepared.... ” The MDA responded with a Motion for Transfer of Venue to send MFB action II to the Anne Arundel Circuit Court. On 22 September 2010, Coastkeeper filed a “Petition for Contempt” in Anne Arundel Circuit Court Case No. 02-C-08-134331.

Two weeks later, on 4 October 2010, MFB action II was transferred to the Anne Arundel Circuit Court, with MFB’s consent, and assigned to the same trial judge who issued the 2009 Order in the consolidated Case No. 02-C-08-134331. On 2 May 2011, the Anne Arundel Circuit Court dismissed, with prejudice, MFB action II. On 9 May 2011, MFB filed in Anne Arundel Circuit Court Case No. 02-C-08-134331 a Motion for Clarification of Memorandum Opinion and Order Dated February 10, 2009, asking the judge to clarify the 2009 Order in light of the evolving developments in the parties’ disputes arising after entry of the 2009 Order. 8 ²⁷⁴ On 14 July 2011, the court issued an Order (“2011 Order”) granting MFB’s Motion for Clarification and declaring how the 2010 PIA request was controlled by the 2009 decision. The 2011 Order read, in pertinent part: ORDERED and DECLARED that the Maryland Department of Agriculture must redact any information from any documents subject to disclosure under the Public Information Act that are related to Nutrient Management Plans if such information would allow for the identification of the individual for whom the Nutrient Management Plan was prepared with respect to those Nutrient Management Plan Summaries that have been maintained by the Maryland Department of Agriculture for three years or less.

In applying this standard, the Maryland Department of Agriculture must redact only that information which would allow the reader to link a specific individual with a specific nutrient management plan; and it is further: ORDERED and DECLARED that, as applied to the spreadsheet of enforcement information that the Maryland Department of Agriculture will provide to the Assateague Coastkeeper, the Maryland Department of Agriculture must redact the following fields of information in their entirety, as reflected in Exhibit 2 to the Department of Agriculture’s Response: [“Visit Type,” “Operation Type,” and “Total Farmed Acres” fields.] In addition, the Maryland Department of Agriculture must review the following fields of information and redact any plan information that could be sued to create a linkage between a specific individual and a specific nutrient management plan: [“Compliance Comments” and “Comments” fields;] and it is further: ORDERED and DECLARED that, in redacting identifying information from nutrient management plan summaries or annual implementation reports, the Maryland Department of Agriculture must redact the entries for name, address, signature, and unique identification number, as reflected in Exhibit 3 to the Department of Agriculture’s Response. ²⁷⁵ In addition, the court issued a second Order, on 5 August 2011, stating that no further proceedings were necessary in the consolidated case and that “this case was to be considered closed for statistical purposes and no future hearings are needed.” WKA noted an appeal of the 14 July 2011 Order to the Court of Special Appeals. In a reported opinion, the intermediate appellate court affirmed the judgment of the Anne Arundel Circuit Court. Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Maryland Dep’t of Agric., 211 Md.App. 417 , 65 A.3d 708 (2013). 9 WKA filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in this Court, which we granted on 20 September 2013. Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Maryland Dep’t of Agric., 434 Md. 311 , 75 A.3d 317 (2013). 10 During oral arguments, a member of the Court raised sua sponte the question of whether the 2009 Order was an enrolled final judgment, and, consequently, whether the Anne Arundel Circuit Court’s act of issuing the 2011 Order to clarify and revise its 2009 Order was in contravention of the court’s ²⁷⁶ revisory powers pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-535. 11 No party had briefed this issue prior to oral arguments.

After oral argument, MFB submitted a supplemental letter-brief to the Court, arguing that the restrictions of Rule 2-535 did not apply because the 2009 Order did not qualify as a final judgment by reason of the fact that some of the issues from the WKA action remained pending. 12 Additionally, MFB suggested in a supplemental brief that the 2011 Order is a final and appealable judgment because, after issuing the 2011 Order, the Circuit Court ordered that the consolidated case be closed. Therefore, according to MFB, the merits of the 2011 Order are before this Court properly.

II

ANALYSIS To determine whether this appeal is before this Court properly, we must address first the finality of the 2009 Order in order to determine whether the Anne Arundel Circuit Court had jurisdiction to issue the 2011 Order. If the 2009 Order was a final judgment, then MFB’s Motion for Clarification of that Order would have been subject to the temporal and other restrictions of postjudgment motions under Rule 2-535. 13 Maryland Rule 2-535 states: ²⁷⁷ (a) Generally. On motion of any party filed within 30 days after entry of judgment, the court may exercise revisory power and control over the judgment and, if the action was tried before the court, may take any action that it could have taken under Rule 2-534 [Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment]. (b) Fraud, mistake, irregularity.

On motion of any party filed at any time, the court may exercise revisory power and control over the judgment in case of fraud, mistake, or irregularity. We note that Rule 2-535 is applicable only to final judgments. See Quartertime Video & Vending Corp. v. Hanna, 321 Md. 59, 65 , 580 A.2d 1073, 1076 (1990) (per curiam). Thus, non-final orders are “subject to revision ... without regard to Rule 2-535.” Albert W. Sisk & Son, Inc. v. Friendship Packers, Inc., 326 Md. 152, 159 , 604 A.2d 69, 73 (1992).

In sum, if the 2009 Order was a final judgment, the Anne Arundel Circuit Court lacked the authority to revise that Order more than two years later in July 2011, absent proof of fraud, mistake, or irregularity — none of which grounds have been alleged here. Conversely, if the 2009 Order was not a final judgment, the Anne Arundel Circuit Court had the authority in 2011 to revise the 2009 Order without regard to the restrictions of Rule 2-535. For reasons stated infra in Part II.B., we agree with MFB that the 2009 Order was not a final judgment, and, thus, Rule 2-535 does not apply. We disagree, however, with MFB’s follow-on suggestion that the 2011 Order was a final judgment.

As we discuss in detail infra in Part II.C., the 2011 Order, like the 2009 Order, did not resolve all of the claims before the trial court. Because none of the immediate appealability exceptions to the requirement of a final judgment are applicable to the 2011 Order, it was not an appealable judgment. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of this ²⁷⁸ appeal (as did the Court of Special Appeals), and, therefore, the appeal must be dismissed, without reaching the merits. A. Applicable Law Concerning Final Judgments. “The appellate jurisdiction of the courts of this State is delimited by statute.” Harris v. David S. Harris, P.A., 310 Md. 310, 314 , 529 A.2d 356, 358 (1987).

Maryland law provides that a party has the right to seek appeal when there is entry of a final judgment. 14 Md.Code (1973, 2013 Repl.Vol.), Courts & Judicial Proceedings Art. § 12-301; Quillens v. Moore, 399 Md. 97, 116 , 923 A.2d 15, 26 (2007). Conversely, a party cannot appeal ordinarily a judgment that is not final. Nnoli v. Nnoli, 389 Md. 315, 324 , 884 A.2d 1215, 1220 (2005). Requiring cases to have reached final judgment before permitting appeal reflects Maryland’s long-established policy against piecemeal appeals.

See, e.g., Medical Mut. Liability Ins. Soc. of Maryland v. B. Dixon Evander and Assocs. (Evander), 331 Md. 301, 313 , 628 A.2d 170, 176 (1993) (“[Reviewing an order with unresolved claims] is clearly contrary to the policy against piecemeal appeals.”); Frey v. Frey, 298 Md. 552, 555-56 , 471 A.2d 705, 707 (1984) (“The policy underlying this rule is that piecemeal appeals are disfavored.”).

An order will constitute a final judgment if the following conditions are satisfied: (1) “it must be intended by the court as an unqualified, final disposition of the matter in controversy;” (2) “it must adjudicate or complete the adjudication of all claims against all parties;” and (3) “the clerk must make a proper record of it” on the docket. Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck, 318 Md. 28, 41 , 566 A.2d 767, 773 (1989); see also Md. Rule 2-601; 15 Md. Rule 2-602(a)(l). In other words, for an order to qualify as a final judgment, it must adjudicate ²⁷⁹ each and every claim and be reflected in a docket entry. Schuele v. Case Handyman & Remodeling Servs., LLC, 412 Md. 555, 565 , 989 A.2d 210, 216 (2010); see also Estep v. Georgetown Leather Design, 320 Md. 277, 287 , 577 A.2d 78, 82 (1990) (holding that the viability or mootness of a claim bears no relevance to whether a judgment is final); Case v. Comptroller, 219 Md. 282, 288 , 149 A.2d 6, 9 (1959) (requiring the court to release declarations, upon request of declaratory judgment, on each of the issues raised in the action before a final judgment could be entered).

The language of Maryland Rule 2-602 emphasizes this requirement: (a) Generally. Except as provided in section (b) of this Rule, an order or other form of decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all of the claims in an action ... or that adjudicates less than an entire claim, or that adjudicates the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties to the action: (1) is not a final judgment; (2) does not terminate the action as to any of the claims or any of the parties; and (3) is subject to revision at any time before the entry of a judgment that adjudicates all of the claims by and against all of the parties. Md. Rule 2-602(a) (Emphasis added). “A ‘claim’ ... is defined as a ‘substantive cause of action’ that encompasses all rights arising from common operative facts.” Schuele, 412 Md. at 568 , 989 A.2d at 218 (Citations omitted). Alternative legal theories and differing prayers for relief do not constitute separate “claims” so long as they arise from a single asserted legal right.

See East v. Gilchrist, 293 Md. 453, 459 , 445 A.2d 343, 346 (1982); see also Cnty. Comm’rs for St. Mary’s Cnty. v. Lacer, 393 Md. 415, 426 , 903 A.2d 378, 385 (2006) (quoting Evander, 331 Md. at 313 , 628 A.2d at 176 ) (“[0]ur cases have made it clear that the disposition of an entire count or the ruling on a particular legal theory does not mean, in and of itself, that an entire ‘claim’ has been disposed of.” (Citations omitted)). Thus, for a court to adjudicate completely a particular claim, each legal ²⁸⁰ theory and non-collateral prayer for relief within that claim must be resolved. See Huber v. Nationwide Mut.

Ins. Co., 347 Md. 415, 422 , 701 A.2d 415, 418 (1997). Assessing whether all claims have been adjudicated fully may be accomplished generally by comparing all of the claims raised in the complaint with all of the claims resolved in the court’s order. See Lacer, 393 Md. at 426-27 , 903 A.2d at 385 .

In certain scenarios, however, where two or more actions are consolidated into a single case, introducing various claims in multiple complaints, this assessment may not be so straightforward or the result apparent. When multiple actions are consolidated into a single case, the trial court has discretion in determining whether “joint or separate ... judgments be entered.” Md. Rule 2-503(a). Where, as in the present case, the court does not make explicit whether it intended to resolve the consolidated case in joint or separate judgments, we must determine from the record and the applicable law whether the consolidated action should be treated as one case or multiple cases. In Yarema v. Exxon Corp., 305 Md. 219, 236 , 503 A.2d 239, 248 (1986), we stated: “[UJnless the trial court dearly intends that a joint judgment be entered disposing of all cases simultaneously, consolidated cases are not to be treated as a single action for purposes of Rule 2-602; instead, each one of the cases is to be treated as a separate action.” (Emphasis added); see also Md. Rule 2-503(a). 16 In Yarema , four separate tort actions were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County by multiple plaintiffs against Exxon Corporation and various other defendants.

Yarema, 305 Md. at 221-22 , 503 A.2d at 240 . On a motion filed by one of the defendants, the ²⁸¹ trial court consolidated the actions into a single case, for judicial efficiency, although maintaining separate dockets and entries for each action. Yarema, 305 Md. at 222-23 , 503 A.2d at 240-41 . We held that, because the trial court intended to direct the entry of judgments for each action separately, an order as to one of the consolidated cases could be treated as a final judgment, despite unresolved issues in the other cases.

Yarema, 305 Md. at 240 , 503 A.2d at 249-50 . B. The 2009 Order Was Not a Final Judgment. Determining the finality of the 2009 Order rests in part on the effect of the consolidation of the WKA action and MFB action I into a single case. If the actions do not require a joint disposition, then the finality of the 2009 Order would be contingent on the whether the 2009 Order resolved completely the claim in the MFB Complaint. 17 See Yarema, 305 Md. at 236 , 503 A.2d at 248 .

The circumstances of the consolidation in the present case differ significantly, however, from those in Yarema . For the purpose of analyzing the finality of the 2009 Order, we conclude not only that the trial judge intended to resolve both actions in a joint disposition, we are convinced that he was compelled to do so, given the interconnectedness of the actions, the nature of the claims, and Maryland’s policy disfavoring piecemeal appeals. 18 First, the trial judge recognized that the outcomes of the two actions were meaningfully interdependent. If WKA pre ²⁸² vailed on its claim that Agrie. § 8-801.1(b)(2) is unconstitutional, MFB’s claim requesting a declaration interpreting that statute would be moot as the interpretation sought was not one amenable to a judicial gloss such as to save it from the unconstitutionality claim. The Anne Arundel Circuit Court judge appeared to recognize this during the 2008 hearing when he asked WKA about its constitutional claim 19 and how that claim could affect his decision as to MFB’s claim.

Unfortunately, counsel for WKA was not prepared to address the constitutional claim at that time, and neither the judge nor the parties discussed that claim on the record again prior to the present appeal. The judge’s inquiry demonstrates, however, some appreciation that a joint disposition resolving both of the claims would be necessary to put effectively the parties out-of-court. The practicality of deciding these