CONCORD, N.H. (Legal Newsline) – A potential defendant in a not-yet-filed slip-and-fall lawsuit won’t be granted access to the plaintiff’s 911 call.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled Feb. 23 that B&C Management isn’t entitled to the recording under the state’s Right-to-Know Law. B&C took legal action against the New Hampshire Division of Emergency Services but was turned away at every step.
It argued state law allowed it access to the call and that it was entitled to equitable discovery.
“Here, the trial court determined that B&C failed to show why the court should grant its request for equitable discovery,” the ruling says. “The court determined that B&C has ‘suffered no injury’ or ‘financial burden,’ and that its ‘position will not change’ if the court ‘does not compel’ discovery of the 911 audio recording.”
On appeal, B&C argued incorrectly named potential defendants will be forced to incur pre-suit costs without the recording.
“This generalized assertion is hardly sufficient to demonstrate that the trial court’s ruling was unreasonable or untenable to the prejudice of B&C’s case.”
A customer slipped and fell at B&C’s Fireside Inn in Nashua on June 16, 2019, and called 911. The guest’s attorney sent a letter stating their intention to investigate but did not include a settlement demand. No lawsuit was filed, but B&C submitted a request to the DES for a recording of the call.
DES denied, and the Merrimack Superior Court affirmed its decision. The state Attorney General's Office represented DES.
B&C unsuccessfully claimed the only location that should remain secret is a caller’s location.
“(W)hen the legislature addressed the information and records that should not be considered ‘public records’ for the purposes of the Right-to-Know Law, if it had intended to exempt only ‘automatic number and location identification,’ as B&C contends, it could have said so,” the ruling states.
“Instead, the legislature provided that any information or records compiled under ‘this chapter,’ that is, under RSA chapter 106-H, ‘shall not be considered a public record for the purposes of’ the Right-to-Know Law.”