2017 ORS 192.502¹
(Title not available: statute has been repealed or renumbered.)

[1987 c.373 §23e; 1987 c.764 §3; 1987 c.898 §27 (enacted in lieu of 192.500); 1989 c.6 §17; 1989 c.925 §1; 1991 c.825 §7; 1993 c.694 §27; 1993 c.817 §1; 1995 c.79 §70; 1995 c.162 §62a; 1995 c.604 §1; 1997 c.44 §1; 1997 c.559 §1; 1997 c.825 §1; 1999 c.274 §17; 1999 c.291 §24; 1999 c.379 §1; 1999 c.666 §1; 1999 c.683 §3; 1999 c.811 §2; 1999 c.855 §4; 1999 c.955 §23; 1999 c.1059 §§12,16; 2001 c.377 §§17,18; 2001 c.915 §3; 2001 c.922 §§12,13; 2001 c.962 §§80,81; 2001 c.965 §§62,63; 2003 c.14 §§90,91; 2003 c.524 §§2,3; 2003 c.733 §§49,50; 2003 c.803 §§5,6; 2005 c.397 §1; 2005 c.561 §3; 2005 c.659 §1; 2007 c.152 §1; 2007 c.181 §1; 2007 c.513 §5; 2007 c.687 §7; 2009 c.57 §4; 2009 c.500 §1; 2009 c.541 §7; 2009 c.604 §22; 2010 c.76 §15; 2011 c.9 §16; 2011 c.424 §1; 2011 c.645 §6; 2012 c.45 §26; 2012 c.90 §§19,30; 2013 c.325 §3; 2013 c.550 §5; 2013 c.587 §1; 2013 c.732 §5; 2015 c.26 §1; 2015 c.313 §5; 2015 c.383 §1; 2015 c.481 §2; 2015 c. 805 §1; 2017 c.340 §1; 2017 c.475 §1; renumbered 192.355 (Public records exempt from disclosure) in 2017]

Notes of Decisions

Where vehicle registrant asked Motor Vehicles Division not to reveal address to public and took other steps to assure privacy, she brought address within “in­for­ma­­tion of per­sonal nature” proviso of this sec­tion. Jordan v. MVD, 93 Or App 651, 763 P2d 420 (1988), aff’d 308 Or 433, 781 P2d 1203 (1989)

Where plaintiff brought civil rights ac­tion against police chief and police of­fi­cers to recover for use of excessive force during arrest and moved to compel discovery, docu­ments about psychological or psychiatric referral, evalua­tion or treat­ment of police of­fi­cers for past incidents of violence or arrest were not privileged under this statute. Mueller v. Walker, 124 FRD 654 (D. Or. 1989)

Where public body’s only basis for claiming records are exempt from disclosure as confidential is contract whereby it agreed to keep them confidential, it did not make other re­quired showings under this sec­tion for excep­tion. AA Ambulance Co., Inc. v. Multnomah County, 102 Or App 398, 794 P2d 813 (1990)

Five Part Test for Determining Whether Informa­tion Supplied to Agency In Confidence Is Exempt From Disclosure Is Whether

1) in­for­ma­­tion was submitted voluntarily; 2) agency can show that nature of in­for­ma­­tion is such that in­for­ma­­tion should be kept confidential; 3) agency has undertaken good faith obliga­tion to maintain confidentiality; 4) disclosure might harm public interest; and 5) in­for­ma­­tion was actually submitted in confidence. Gray v. Salem-Keizer School District, 139 Or App 556, 912 P2d 938 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Condi­tional pro­hi­bi­­tion on public disclosure of per­sonnel files does not exempt files from discovery under federal rules. Brown v. State of Oregon, Dept. of Correc­tions, 173 FRD 262 (D. Or. 1997)

Op­tion of invoking or waiving confidentiality of per­sonnel record belongs to agency pos­ses­sing record, not to individual who is subject of record. Oregonian Publishing v. Portland School District No. 1J, 152 Or App 135, 952 P2d 66 (1998), aff’d on other grounds, 329 Or 393, 987 P2d 480 (1999)

Investigatory report that is not specific to employ­ment of individual employee is not part of per­sonnel file and therefore is subject to disclosure. Oregonian Publishing v. Portland School District No. 1J, 329 Or 393, 987 P2d 480 (1999)

Whether identity of complainant falsely reporting viola­tion of Oregon Safe Employ­ment Act (ORS 654.001 (Short title) to 654.295 (Application of Oregon Safe Employment Act)) is subject to disclosure depends on complainant’s good or bad faith in making complaint. Hood Technology Corp. v. Oregon Occupa­tional Safety and Health Division, 168 Or App 293, 7 P3d 564 (2000)

Require­ment for showing that public interest weighs against disclosure in “particular instance” prevents categorical disclosure exemp­tion for advisory communica­tions within public body or between public bodies. Kluge v. Oregon State Bar, 172 Or App 452, 19 P3d 938 (2001)

Oregon Health and Science University records or in­for­ma­­tion is “not customarily provided to business competitors” if not ordinarily provided to business competitors of university or of its business partners. In Defense of Animals v. OHSU, 199 Or App 160, 112 P3d 336 (2005)

Where plaintiff pharmaceutical company and defendant entered into confidentiality agree­ments, defendant is limited only from disclosing product that plaintiff itself produced and not contractually obligated to protect its own work product under public records request, even if defendant’s work product includes some of plaintiff’s work product. Pfizer Inc. v. Depart­ment of Justice, 254 Or App 144, 294 P3d 496 (2012)

When read together with ORS 192.505, this sec­tion exempts from disclosure only in­for­ma­­tion in contract between municipal utility and biomass energy producer for purchase of biomass-generated energy that is sensitive business, commercial or financial in­for­ma­­tion and disclosure of in­for­ma­­tion would cause competitive disadvantage for municipal utility or retail electricity customers, but does not exempt from disclosure entire contract. Brown v. Guard Publishing Company, 267 Or App 552, 341 P3d 145 (2014)

  • KVAL News, Dec 11, 2009
    “A video captured by the Taser a Eugene police of­fi­cer used to shock a Chinese student in September is a public record and not exempt from public disclosure, the district attorney ruled on Friday. ...”
1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 192—Records; Public Reports and Meetings, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors192.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 192, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano192.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.