ATV Watch v. New Hampshire Dept. of Transportation
Annotate this CasePetitioners ATV Watch and Andrew Walters brought suit against Respondent New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT) seeking the disclosure of agency documents under the state’s “Right-to-Know” act. Walters is the director of ATV Watch. He wrote to the commissioner of the DOT regarding a recent inquiry related to the Federal Highway Administration, asking for clarification on the federal law that governed use of rails trails within the state. The DOT responded that it would keep Walters informed of any new developments from the talks the state had with the federal government. Walters sent the DOT an email in April, 2007, asking again for information on use of the trails. In November, the DOT responded to another email request from Walters, indicating that there was no new information. On November 21, Walters sent an email to the DOT criticizing the Department for being unresponsive to his requests, and alleging that the Department was withholding documents. The Department responded that it had complied with state law by responding to Walters’ requests. Petitioners filed suit in January, 2008, seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, fees, costs and sanctions for what it felt was the DOTs withholding documents. At the hearing, the DOT indicated it had given Walters all records it could, with the exception of certain documents redacted or withheld on the basis of a privilege or exemption. Following the hearing, the DOT provided the court under seal the unredacted copies of the withheld documents, along with an index of those materials for the court’s review. The court issued its order on the merits, finding that most of the documents were properly redacted or withheld as privileged. The court denied the Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Interpreting New Hampshire’s “Right-To-Know” law, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The Court found from the record that Petitioners lacked sufficient reasons to overcome the asserted privileged documents, and therefore were not entitled to the relief they sought.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.