AP sues Supreme Court administrator over FOIA

Lawyer Blogs

The Associated Press has filed a lawsuit over a Freedom of Information Act request against the administrative director of the West Virginia Supreme Court, seeking the phone records and visitor logs of one of the justices.

AP filed the suit April 30 in Kanawha Circuit Court against Steve Canterbury. The AP is seeking all communications from Jan. 1, 2006, to the present between Justice Spike Maynard to any employee of Massey Energy Co., including Don Blankenship and Brenda Magann.

The suit was filed against Canterbury as he has possession and control over the records requested by the AP, which include all e-mails and phone records, including cell phone calls.

The AP also requested visitor logs pertaining to Maynard.

Canterbury has refused requests from AP reporter Lawrence Messina, who first asked for the records Jan. 16, 2008, and two times after.

In a letter to Canterbury, state Supreme Court general counsel J. Kirk Brandfass said in reference to the FOIA, West Virginia Code uses the term "public body" to include "judicial departments," but claims the term refers to the administrative functions of the Supreme Court, not the Justices themselves.

In a statement released by Canterbury, he says releasing the information will set a bad precedent and have long-term ramifications.

"While is it abundantly clear what is at the heart of this particular request, any demand for the disclosure of communications or information of West Virginia Supreme Court Justices has effects well beyond any singular request," Canterbury said. "The disclosure of the requested information sets a bad precedent, is likely unconstitutional, and has long-range ramifications."

Canterbury said the results of this case could affect not only Supreme Court Justices, but also Circuit Judges, Family Court Judges, Juvenile Court Judges, Magistrates and Mental Hygiene Commissioners.

Also in the statement, Canterbury said the judiciary is an independent branch of state government, entitled to conduct its business under rules put in order by the Supreme Court. He said the legislative branch, through the FOIA statue, cannot require the judicial branch of government to disclose the communications of its members.

"The idea that all judicial records are subject to a FOIA request by any person or entity for any reason is clearly contrary to the sound administration of our system of justice," Canterbury said.

However, the AP claims the refusal to disclose the records is unlawful. It seeks injunctive relief seeking the records.

Attorneys Rudolph DiTrapano and Sean P. McGinley are representing the AP. Robert P. Fitzsimmons and Robert J. Fitzsimmons, Daniel J. Guida, Bill Wilmouth and Ancil Ramey are representing Canterbury.

Related listings

  • Court tosses out NYC lawsuit against gun industry

    Court tosses out NYC lawsuit against gun industry

    Lawyer Blogs 04/30/2008

    A federal appeals court has thrown out New York City's lawsuit claiming the gun industry sells firearms with the knowledge that they can be diverted into illegal markets.It is one of several suits that cities have filed against gun makers.The 2nd U.S...

  • Voter-ID ruling worries Democrats

    Voter-ID ruling worries Democrats

    Lawyer Blogs 04/29/2008

    The Supreme Court's decision Monday to uphold Indiana's photo-ID law in elections will permit Republican-dominated legislatures in other states to pass legislation that liberal political advocates say will disenfranchise poorer, Democratic-leaning vo...

  • Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters

    Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters

    Lawyer Blogs 04/28/2008

    The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict ph...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

New York & New Jersey Family Law Matters We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights. >> read