Defining “Intra-Agency Deliberative Material” Under Indiana’s APRA

1. Introduction

Family & Social Services Administration v. Robert E. Saint (No. 25S-MI-101, decided April 23, 2025) is a landmark Indiana Supreme Court case clarifying the scope of the “intra-agency deliberative material” exception under the Access to Public Records Act (APRA).

In this dispute, the appellant, the Family & Social Services Administration (FSSA), withheld a “White Paper”—a legal memorandum prepared by HealthNet, a private Medicaid-provider—during qui tam settlement talks. The appellee, Robert Saint (representing a False Claims Act relator), sought disclosure under APRA. The trial court, and subsequently the Indiana Supreme Court, held that because HealthNet (not FSSA) created the paper, it is not “intra-agency” deliberative material and must be disclosed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order requiring FSSA to produce the HealthNet White Paper.
The Court held that to qualify as “intra-agency deliberative material” under Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(b)(6), a document must originate from and be circulated among employees (or fiduciaries) of the same public agency.
Because the White Paper was authored by HealthNet, a private contracting entity, and merely used—but not generated—by FSSA, it does not satisfy the “intra-agency” prong of the exception.
FSSA’s alternative arguments (attorney-client privilege and confidentiality of settlement negotiations) were waived or summarily affirmed as unsuccessful and therefore remain Court of Appeals precedent only.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

Groth v. Pence, 67 N.E.3d 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) Held that a Texas-prepared white paper attached to gubernatorial emails was protected both by attorney-client privilege and, alternatively, as W “intra-agency deliberative material” because the Governor “used it within his office.” The Supreme Court today rejects Groth’s broad “use” rationale for the deliberative exception.
Indiana State Highway Comm’n v. Morris, 528 N.E.2d 468 (Ind. 1988) Chief Justice Shepard’s concurrence analogized that a commission employee’s communication to the Attorney General for settlement evaluation was privileged and, under a narrow reading, constituted intra-agency deliberative material because it was generated and circulated within the agency.
Newman v. Bernstein, 766 N.E.2d 8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) The Court of Appeals protected internal plea-bargaining policies as intra-agency deliberative material, since the Marion County Prosecutor and deputy prosecutors authored and circulated them exclusively within the office.
Sullivan v. Nat’l Election Def. Coal., 182 N.E.3d 859 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) Refused to apply the deliberative exception to emails between Indiana’s Secretary of State and an outside association, concluding those communications were not “intra-agency.”

3.2. Legal Reasoning

Statutory Text and Structure
APRA broadly mandates disclosure of “public records” held by “public agencies,” but carves out discretionary exceptions, including § 5-14-3-4(b)(6) for “records that are intra-agency or interagency advisory or deliberative material.” The Court interpreted “intra-agency” by reference to the ordinary meaning of “intra” (“within”) and concluded that a document must both originate within and circulate among an agency’s own employees to qualify.
Avoiding Surplusage
A broad “use” test (as in Groth) would render the categories—“intra-agency,” “interagency,” and “private contractor”—meaningless. The Court emphasized that exceptions to disclosure are strictly construed.
APRA’s Purpose
APRA’s policy is liberal disclosure; exceptions must be narrowly applied. Limiting “intra-agency” to internal communications best preserves the statute’s commitment to public access.

3.3. Impact

State agencies cannot withhold third-party or contractor reports merely by pointing to their use in internal decision-making; such documents must be generated and circulated within the agency to be excepted.
Future APRA requests will require agencies to scrutinize document origins before asserting the deliberative exception.
The decision underscores the importance of early invocation of privilege or confidentiality exceptions at the trial-court level to avoid waiver on appeal.
Lower courts now have clear guidance for interpreting “intra-agency,” providing greater predictability in public-records litigation.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

APRA: Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act, which generally requires government transparency unless a specific exception applies.
Intra-Agency vs. Interagency: Intra-agency: communications created by and shared among employees of the same public agency.
Interagency: communications exchanged between two or more distinct public agencies.
Deliberative Material Exception: APRA § 5-14-3-4(b)(6) exempts advisory or opinionated documents prepared for decision-making, but only if they are genuinely internal to a public agency (or interagency) or are contractor materials created under contract with the agency.
Qui Tam & False Claims Act: A “qui tam” suit allows a private relator (whistleblower) to sue on the government’s behalf under the federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733) and share in any recovery.
Attorney-Client Privilege & Common-Interest Doctrine: Privilege protects confidential communications between attorneys and clients. The common-interest doctrine extends privilege to communications shared among co-clients pursuing a joint legal strategy.
In Camera Review: A judge examines disputed documents privately to decide whether they fit an exemption before ordering disclosure or protection.

5. Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Family & Social Services Administration v. Saint clarifies that the deliberative-material exception under APRA applies only to records authored and circulated entirely within a public agency (or between agencies), or to contractor work produced under contract and treated as internal. Documents from outsiders—even if heavily relied upon in agency decisions—must be disclosed unless another valid exemption applies. This ruling reinforces APRA’s broad default of transparency and provides essential guidance to agencies and litigants regarding when internal deliberations may remain confidential.