RGJ files lawsuit against Sparks over redacted medical pot business licenses

The Reno Gazette-Journal filed a lawsuit Friday against the city of Sparks in an effort to compel them to release the names of medical marijuana business licensees.

As the newspaper expands its coverage of Nevada’s burgeoning medical marijuana industry, the RGJ has requested and collected copies of current business licenses for cultivation centers, dispensaries and production facilities in the area. Reno and Washoe County both have policies to release all of the information that the licenses entail.

"The RGJ believes transparency in this matter is in the public’s interest," said Kelly Ann Scott, the executive editor of RGJ Media. "And our legal challenge is based on the belief that transparency in government — especially with the government’s role in the newly formed medical marijuana industry — should prevail because it is the spirit of our state’s public record laws."

The lawsuit comes after an RGJ reporter filed a public records request with the city of Sparks for the business licenses related to medical marijuana facilities in the city. The documents returned to the RGJ, however, included redacted names associated with the business licensees. Sparks' senior assistant city attorney argued he was upholding state confidentiality laws protecting people involved with the marijuana industry.

In response, the newspaper argued in its lawsuit that, “The Nevada Legislature has mandated that the Nevada Public Records Act ‘be construed liberally’, and that any limitations on public disclosure be ‘construed narrowly. Unless some provision of the law clearly and unambiguously confers confidentiality on the names of MME business license holders in the City, those names are not confidential, and the City must produce unredacted copies of the requested MME [medical marijuana establishment] business licenses to the RGJ.”

Though state law is clear that medical marijuana doctors and patients have a protected right to confidentiality, business owners and licensees are not specifically referenced. The RGJ turned to the Attorney General for clarification on how cities are supposed to handle confidentiality for business licensees.

“When a local government obtains records and personal information independently through local licensing and regulatory procedures, that information may be subject to disclosure if it is not otherwise made confidential by a local ordinance,” Attorney General spokesperson Patty Cafferata said in a written statement.

Sparks Senior Assistant City Attorney Doug Thornley said that he disagreed. He said that since confidentiality for people involved in the medical marijuana industry is granted at the state level, it doesn’t make sense for cities to disregard that confidentiality.

The RGJ filed a second public records request with the hopes that the city would re-evaluate its stance on keeping individual licensees’ names confidential. The request was returned in a timely manner but with redactions still in place.

After the second records request returned with the same redactions, the RGJ involved its attorney, Scott Glogovac, who sent a letter to the Sparks city attorney’s office explaining the newspaper’s position that the confidentiality law is ambiguous and should not be used to shield the identities of business licensees. The letter also requested a reconsideration of the city’s policy to redact the names.

Thornley responded with a letter to Glogovac, stating that he remained “unpersuaded” that the city should release the names of medical marijuana business licensees.

“I disagree with your assertion that the law is confusing and ambiguous,” he said in his letter, “but even if I concurred I could not support the position that only well drafted and easily understood laws are worthy of deference.”

With this response, the RGJ decided to file a public records lawsuit against Sparks for the release of the names of marijuana establishment licensees for future records requests.

The medical marijuana business in Nevada is cash-only and has the potential of generating millions of dollars. The newspaper is arguing that the availability of information regarding the people who own and operate these businesses is necessary, as it may help shed light on potential conflicts as the industry grows and local governments continue to approve business licenses for medical marijuana facilities to a select few recipients.

As far as the RGJ can tell, the medical marijuana industry is the only industry where a city has allowed business licensees to be anonymous on public records.