PIERCE COUNTY v. GUILLEN

Legal Principle at Issue

Does the Hazard Elimination Program, which protects information compiled by state and local governments for federal highway safety programs from discovery or use in court, exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution?

Action

Reversed and remanded. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

As part of its effort to improve the safety of the Nation's highways, Congress adopted the Hazard Elimination Program, which provides state and local governments with funding to improve the most dangerous sections of their roads. To be eligible for such funding, a government must undertake a thorough evaluation of its public roads. Because of States' concerns that the absence of confidentiality with respect to the law's compliance measures would increase the liability risk for accidents that took place at hazardous locations before improvements could be made, and Department of Transportation's concerns that the States' reluctance to be forthcoming in their data collection efforts undermined the Program's effectiveness, Congress amended the law in 1987, stipulating that materials "compiled" in compliance with the law "shall not be admitted into evidence in Federal or State court." Congress expressly made the statute applicable to pre-trial discovery in 1991 and added the phrase "or collected" after the word "compiled" in 1995. 

Several months before, respondent Ignacio Guillen's wife died in an automobile accident at an intersection in Pierce County that was denied funding under the act. Its second request was approved three weeks after the accident. The county declined to provide Guillen's counsel with information about accidents at the intersection, asserting that any relevant information was protected. Respondents then filed an action in Washington state court, alleging that petitioner's refusal to disclose violated the State's Public Disclosure Act. The trial court granted respondents summary judgment, ordering petitioner to disclose five documents and pay respondents' attorney's fees. While petitioner's appeal was pending, Guillen filed another state-court action, alleging Pierce County had been negligent in failing to install proper traffic controls at the intersection. The county refused to comply with their discovery request for information regarding accidents at the intersection, and respondents successfully sought an order to compel. 

The Washington state court of appeals granted the county's motion for discretionary appellate review of the interlocutory order, consolidated this and the PDA appeals, and in large part affirmed, concluding that four of the documents requested in the PDA action were not protected. On further appeal, the Washington Supreme Court determined that disclosure under the relevant state laws would be appropriate only if the requested materials were not protected under the law.