McLaughlin v. Mont. State Legislature

• Decision Date: 12 May 2021
• Docket Number: OP 21-0173
• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Parties: Beth MCLAUGHLIN, Petitioner, v. The MONTANA STATE LEGISLATURE, and the Montana Department of Administration, Respondents.

489 P.3d 482

2021 MT 120

Beth MCLAUGHLIN, Petitioner,

v.The MONTANA STATE LEGISLATURE, and the Montana Department of Administration, Respondents.

OP 21-0173

Supreme Court of Montana.

Decided: May 12, 2021

Rehearing Denied: July 14, 2021

For Petitioner: Randy J. Cox, Boone Karlberg P.C., Missoula, Montana

For Respondent Montana State Legislature: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Kristin Hansen, Lieutenant General, Derek J. Oestreicher, General Counsel, Helena, Montana

For Respondent Montana Department of Administration: Michael P. Manion, Department of Administration, Helena, Montana Dale Schowengerdt, Crowley Fleck PLLP, Helena, Montana

Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion and Order of the Court.

¶1 Respondent, Montana State Legislature (Legislature), has filed in this original proceeding a motion "for the immediate disqualification of all Justices" of the Montana Supreme Court.¹ Petitioner, Beth McLaughlin (McLaughlin), the Judicial Branch's Court Administrator, has responded and objects to the Legislature's motion. To best address the Legislature's motion, some discussion of the procedural background and underlying issues is necessary.

¶2 In an original proceeding before this Court filed March 17, 2021, Brown, et. al. v. Gianforte , OP 21-0125, the Legislature, as an intervenor, and Respondent Governor Greg Gianforte raised concerns about a Montana Judges Association (MJA) survey of its members (poll) facilitated by McLaughlin regarding Senate Bill 140 (SB 140). At the time of the poll, the Legislature was considering SB 140. SB 140, which has since been signed into law, changes the way the Governor fills vacancies for judges and justices in Montana. After learning of the MJA poll, the Legislature requested McLaughlin provide information on the poll. McLaughlin provided the final tally of the poll but indicated some of the emails from judges responding to the poll had been routinely deleted. On April 8, 2021, the Legislature issued an investigative subpoena to the Department of Administration, which administers the Judiciary's computer system, seeking the production of "[a]ll emails and attachments sent and received by Court Administrator Beth McLaughlin between January 4, 2021 and April 8, 2021 ..." and "[a]ny and all recoverable deleted e-mails sent or received by Court Administrator Beth McLaughlin between January 4, 2021 and April 8, 2021 ...." The legislative subpoena required production of the documents by 3 p.m. the next day, April 9; however, the Court was informed that the Department of Administration began producing the documents immediately. In the subpoena, purportedly issued by the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Legislature did not provide a reason or purpose for its request or otherwise state what it was investigating. The subpoena was issued without notice to McLaughlin or to the Judicial Branch. When McLaughlin learned of the investigative subpoena one day later, on April 9, several thousand emails involving her communications with Montana's judges and justices had been released to the Legislature. It now appears there were more than 5,000 Judicial Branch e-mails disclosed to the Legislature. The Legislature determined on its own that many of those e-mails were not privileged, sensitive, or work related, and it released these judicial communications for distribution to the press. In response to an emergency motion filed by McLaughlin, this Court entered an order on April 11, 2021, quashing the subpoena until we could address the scope and parameters of the Legislature's subpoena power when privileges have been asserted. Thereafter, McLaughlin, who was not a party or intervenor in OP 21-0125, filed a Petition for Original Jurisdiction and Emergency Request to Quash/Enjoin Enforcement of Legislative Subpoena on April 12, 2021, which began the instant proceeding.

¶3 Also, on April 12, 2021, the Court received a letter from Lieutenant General Kristen Hansen, of the Montana Department of Justice, stating that she had been retained by the legislative leadership to "represent the interests of the Montana State Legislature to resolution [sic] of the ex parte Motion of Beth McLaughlin ...." In her letter, Hansen wrote:

The Legislative power is broad. In fulfilling its constitutional role, the Legislature's subpoena power is similarly broad. The questions the Legislature seeks to be informed on through the instant subpoena directly address whether members of the Judiciary and the Court Administrator have deleted public records and information in violation of state law and policy; whether the Court Administrator has performed tasks for the Montana Judges Association during taxpayer funded worktime in violation of state law and policy; and whether current policies and processes of the Judicial Standards Commission are sufficient to address the serious nature of polling members of the Judiciary to prejudge legislation and issues which have come and will come before the courts ....

The Legislature does not recognize this Court's Order as binding and will not abide [by] it. The Legislature will not entertain the Court's interference in the Legislature's investigation of the serious and troubling conduct of members of the Judiciary. The subpoena is valid and will be enforced.

In like regard, the Legislature, through its counsel, Derek J. Oestreicher, filed a Motion to Dismiss stating the Montana Supreme Court "lacks jurisdiction to hinder the Legislature's power to investigate these matters of statewide importance," and that this Court's order "will not bind the Legislature and will not be followed." These representations from counsel that the Court's orders would not be followed were disruptive to the Court's functioning as a tribunal and the administration of justice, particularly because the Court was dealing with the unrestrained and ongoing dissemination of thousands of Judicial Branch e-mails.

¶4 Two days later, on April 14, 2021, and during the pendency of the instant proceeding, the Legislature issued a subpoena to each justice of the Montana Supreme Court demanding that the justices appear before it on April 19, 2021, and produce:

(1) Any and all communications, results, or responses, related to any and all polls sent to members of the Judiciary by Court Administrator Beth McLaughlin between January 4, 2021 and April 14, 2021; including emails and attachments sent and received by your government e-mail account ... as well as text messages, phone messages, and phone logs sent or received by your personal or work phones; and any notes or records of conferences of the Justices regarding the same.

(2) Any and all emails or other communications between January 4, 2021 and April 14, 2021 regarding legislation pending before, or potentially pending before, the 2021 Montana Legislature; including emails and attachments sent and received by your government email account ... as well as text messages, phone messages, and phone logs sent or received by your personal or work phones; and any notes or records of conferences of the Justices regarding the same.

(3) Any and all emails or other communications between January 4, 2021 and April 14, 2021 regarding business conducted by the Montana Judges Association using state resources ....

The subpoena provided that:

[t]his request pertains to the Legislature's investigation into whether members of the Judiciary or employees of the Judicial Branch deleted public records and information in violation of state law and policy; and whether the current policies and processes of the Judicial Standards Commission are sufficient to address the serious nature of polling members of the Judiciary to prejudge legislation and issues which have come and will come before the courts for decision.

¶5 Also on April 14, 2021, Hansen sent e-mails with an attachment entitled "PRESERVATION REQUEST" to all District Court judges, their staff members, and employees or contracted employees of the MJA "who might have received emails from or sent emails to Ms. McLaughlin" between January 4, 2021 and April 8, 2021. The letter asked all recipients to segregate and hold "any emails, documents, notes, or other records" sent to or received from McLaughlin and to "preserve all existing materials relevant to this dispute ...." Hansen asked the recipients to suspend any deletion, overwriting or destruction of such documents and that "[t]his hold overrides what might be your normal retention policy so these documents and data should not be deleted even if otherwise allowed." Hansen stated that the Legislature had previously sought the information from McLaughlin but "received an unsatisfactory response."

¶6 On April 16, 2021, this Court entered its first order in these proceedings, which continued the injunction against the subpoena issued to McLaughlin in OP 21-0125; set a briefing schedule; and stayed enforcement of any subpoenas for judicial communications, including those served on the Court on April 14, 2021, until the issues presented by the Legislature's subpoenas could be adjudicated during the course of due process. At the time, and in light of the representations made by Hansen, Oestreicher, and the Legislature, it was unclear whether the release of judicial e-mails to the Legislature was ongoing and would continue indiscriminately. The Department of Administration has since retained counsel who immediately assured this Court that it will abide by the Court's orders and would not release any more judicial communications unless directed by the Court to do so. On April 19, 2021, every justice of the Montana Supreme Court appeared before the Legislature and answered, to the extent permitted by the Montana Code of Judicial Conduct, questions propounded by the Special Joint Select Committee on Judicial Transparency and Accountability, a newly formed legislative committee to investigate alleged misconduct in the Judicial Branch.

¶7 In its Response to Petition for Original Jurisdiction, ...