Facing a deadline in an access-to-public-records request, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch yesterday released none of the evidence gathered as part of the Station nightclub investigation.

Instead, the attorney general’s office sent The Journal a letter saying it could not release certain information and records because of privacy concerns and because of orders issued previously by Superior Court Judge Francis J. Darigan Jr.

Lynch said he wanted to set up a process, which is not in the Access to Public Records Act, to weigh the “privacy interests” of victims and witnesses in deciding what information should be released.

“On one hand, we have the clear provisions of the Access to Public Records Act. On the other hand, you have not only the legal restraints imposed by Judge Darigan’s orders but also the human considerations of the privacy interests,” Lynch spokesman Michael J. Healey said. “The legal term for the position we are in is called ‘between a rock and a hard place.’ ”

Earlier in the day, a Superior Court judge rejected a petition from the attorney general that sought guidance on what material must be made public. Lawyers met in chambers with Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, who concluded Lynch’s petition did not follow the procedure laid out in state law regarding access to public records, according to the attorney general’s office and a lawyer representing The Journal.

Last month, The Journal filed a public records request for the Station fire evidence. State law requires public agencies, upon request, to either give out public records or cite a legal exemption before a certain deadline. If the requester is unhappy with the response, the requester can file a lawsuit.

In this case, Lynch filed a petition before yesterday’s deadline, asking for a deadline extension and for guidance on what material should be kept secret because of privacy considerations.

Healey said, “Nothing about this case has been routine and basically what we were trying to convey to Judge Thompson in chambers this morning was: This is an exceptional case, so please consider giving us an exemption.”

After Thompson rejected that petition, Special Assistant Attorney General Michael W. Field sent The Journal a five-page letter, which began by saying, “Due to the volume of documents responsive to your Oct. 2, 2006, APRA request, this department is continuing to review your request.”

“Two factors complicate this response: (1) Orders issued by Justice Darigan during the criminal proceedings prohibiting third-party disclosures of some material,” the letter stated. “And (2) the privacy interests of the victims, families and witnesses to the disclosure of assorted documents and information contained within documents.”

Field said, “Since, at this point, the victims, families and witnesses have not had an opportunity to assert a privacy interest, this department, at this point, must assert the privacy exemption.”

The letter broke down the evidence into 17 categories.

For example, it said Darigan has prohibited the disclosure of letters and information that families submitted regarding the criminal sentences imposed in the case. Also, the letter said the judge had prohibited disclosure of test results, such as the results of tests on flammable foam used at the club.

But the attorney general’s office said it had no objection to releasing the results of such tests. And, the letter said, “The Department of Attorney General is prepared to work with The Providence Journal in order to ensure for an orderly release of as much information as is legally permitted to be released. In this vein, the department is prepared to petition Justice Darigan to revisit his orders prohibiting disclosure.”

Lynch’s office also called for setting a date for when “families, victims and witnesses and others with privacy rights under Rhode Island and/or federal law” could assert those rights.

Healey said, “The attorney general’s position is that the families, victims and witnesses ought to have an opportunity to speak. The law provides for privacy rights. The Access to Public Records Act recognizes privacy rights.”

When asked for an example of a privacy right issue in this case, Healey said some witnesses might have provided statements to investigators based on a promise of confidentiality. And he said, “Clearly it would not be right to ‘out’ that person in the course of trying to comply with an APRA request.”

The attorney general’s office said it has more than 900 witness reports, statements and interviews, and it is prepared to release that information – once it has blacked out “personal information” such as home addresses, telephone numbers and Social Security numbers. But, the letter said, “The precise nature of any redactions [or disclosures] can only be determined after considering the privacy interests discussed above.”

Another category involves grand jury transcripts and related exhibits. That information is exempt under the grand jury secrecy rule, the letter said, but it noted Lynch has petitioned Superior Court Presiding Judge Joseph F. Rodgers Jr. to let the public see grand jury transcripts in the Station fire case.

Lynch’s office said it was now seeking to set up a “similar procedure” to weigh privacy interests.

But Journal lawyer Kristin E. Rodgers, who is the judge’s daughter, said those proceedings involved an “entirely different” issue. “The grand jury is a sacrosanct procedure that’s completely secret,” she said. “But here we have nothing more than an Access to Public Records Act request.”

When reached last night, Kristin Rodgers declined to comment further on the attorney general’s letter.

With reports from staff writer Paul Edward Parker