-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff, FOR PUBLICATION December 20, 2016

9:05 a.m.

v No. 334491
Genesee Circuit Court GENESEE CIRCUIT JUDGE, LC No. 16-000000-AZ

Defendant.

Before: K. F. K ELLY , P.J., and G LEICHER and S HAPIRO , JJ.

G LEICHER

, J.

This action for superintending control arises from the Flint w ater crisis, a public health disaster catalyzed by the city of Flint’s switch to the Flint R iver as its municipal water source. Due to the city’s failure to utilize chemicals to control corro sion, lead leached from the pipes and contaminated the water. But toxic lead exposure was not the on ly scourge delivered upon Flint’s people through their new water supply.

According to the Flint Water Advisory Task Force (Task Force) appointed by Governor Rick Snyder, “[t]he specific events that led to the water quali ty debacle, lead exposure, heightened Legionella susceptibility[.]” Flint Water Advisory Task Force, Final Rep ort (March 2016), p 1, available at <https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sn yder/ FWATF_FINAL_REPORT_21March2016_517805_7.pdf> (accessed December 15, 2016). Legionella is a bacterium that causes a severe, sometimes deadly respirato ry disorder called Legionellosis or, colloquially , Legionnaire’s Disease. See <http://www.cdc.gov/legionella/about/> (accessed December 15, 2 016). Efforts made by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS or DHHS ) to investigate Legionella cases at McLaren-Flint Hospital were stymied when a Genesee Cir cuit judge issued three protective orders barring the DHHS from obtaining any inf ormation from McLaren relating to the hospital’s Legionella outbreak. The protective orders, signed on June 27, August 17 , and August 24, 2016, are the subjects of this action.

The circuit court entered the protective orders at the behest of three entities: McLarenFlint Hospital, Todd F. Flood (t he special assistant attorney g eneral appointed by Attorney General Bill Schuette to investigate the water crisis), and the Genesee County prosecutor. These parties filed no petitions in the circuit court seeking the pro tective orders, the circuit court-2- created no record before issuing them, and no case numbers were assigned to any actions giving rise to the protective orders. L egal representatives of the DH HS were not invited to take part in the court’s in-chambers discussions with counsel seeking the pr otective orders. This Court granted the DHHS’s complaint for superintending control. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs v Genesee Circuit Judge , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered September 14, 2016 (Docket No. 334491).

According to the entities who successfully obtained them, the protective orders are unreviewable by this court under the rubric of superintending c ontrol. We need not decide that question, as we instead construe the DHHS’s complaint in this C ourt as an application for leave, and grant it. We now vacate the protective orders.

I

The events leading to the Flint Water Crisis are the subject o f numerous articles in the press, several comprehensive judicial opinions, 1 and the Task Force Final Report cited above. While the contamination of Flint’s water began in April 2014, t he events precipitating this action commenced two years later with a letter written by Dr. Eden Wel ls, the chief medical executive of the DHHS, to the president and CEO of McLaren-Flint Hospital . Dr. Wells explained that “the MDHHS has been supporting the Genesee County Health Depart ment in an investigation of the increases in legionellosis reported between spring of 2014 and fall 2015,” and that “[p]art of the public health response to leg ionellosis outbreaks involves review and documentation of remediation actions that were employed to minimize disease tran smission.” Information provided to the DHHS indicated that McLaren “has taken signific ant measures in an effort to prevent further disease transmission” in its facilities. The D HHS offered to work with McLaren
to “better understand those actions and confirm their effective ness as we enter the summer, when
risk for Legionella transmission increases.” Dr. We lls proposed a site visit led by the DHHS, the Genesee County Health Department, and “an expert team from the CDC [the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], including epidemiologists, mic robiologists, and environmental health experts.”

Dr. Wells’ letter outlined the objectives of the visit, which centered on minimizing the
risk of Legionella transmission. She asked that a number of documents be produce d during the site visit, including an audit of lab reports of positive Legionella tests, “[c]hemical, physical, and microbiological monitoring test results” conducted at McLaren, and a “description (with timeline) of Legionella remediation efforts.”

McLaren-Flint responded in a M ay 6, 2016 letter signed by Walt er P. Griffin, an attorney for the hospital. Griffin denie d the DHHS’s site visit request , explaining:

1 Concerned Pastors for Social Action v Khouri , unpublished opinion of the Dis trict Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, en tered July 7, 2016 (Docket No. 16-10277), Mason v Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, Inc , __ F3d __ (CA 6, 2016).-3- As you are aware, there are vari ous lawsuits in which McLaren- Flint is a party and to which other departm ents, including your department s, are also named parties. Although the claims against each of the defendants inthe suits may vary,
the essence of the claims concern the issue of lead in the wate r in Genesee County
and the incidents of increased L egionella in the water supplied to McLaren-Flint by the City of Flint. Based upon the allegations, it is imposs ible for McLarenFlint to respond to your request since discovery is ongoing in these cases and conflicts may exist between your departments and McLaren-Flint. Further, discovery is subject to Feder al and Circuit Court Rules.

Assistant Attorney General Dar rin Fowler and Genesee County Ch ief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Celeste Bel l sought reconsideration of McL aren’s position in a June 15, 2016 letter to Griffin. The attorneys acknowledged McLaren’s l iability concerns, but emphasized that “McLaren-Flint’s paramount interest and respons ibility is to take all steps necessary to ensure a safe and effective infection control prog ram going forward.” They urged that “[c]oncerns about potential f inancial liability related to past illnesses should not deter McLaren-Flint from taking prudent actions to ensure the health and safety of current and future patients.” The letter pointed out that the Legislature has bes towed on the DHHS “broad discretion in responding to, and preventing, the spread of dise ase and other public health threats,” and threatened “to seek judicial assistance” to achie ve the goals outlined in the April
letter.

On June 21, 2016, a different attorney, Michael P. Manley, pen ned McLaren-Flint’s answer. Manley advised that his representation of the hospital encompassed both “the numerous civil claims” and “the criminal investigations” emanating from the Flint Water Crisis, and referenced a telephone call with Fowler. Accord ing to Manley, the Genesee County prosecutor’s office had issued an investigative subpoena to McLaren, and McL aren-Flint planned to comply. The information provided pursuant to the subpoena “is deemed co nfidential,” Manley related, and the prosecutor’s office “has stated they will sign a protec tive order.” Manley pledged that the prosecutor’s office would “turn this information over to yo u” under the protective order. A
list of items to be turned ove r, prepared by attorney Griffin, was attached to Manley’s letter. 2

The next development is shrouded in mystery. On June 27, 2016 , Genesee Circuit Judge Geoffrey Neithercut issued the first of three protective orders . According to the brief filed by Judge Neithercut’s counsel in this Court, the orders resulted f rom “various meetings and other communications.” None of the “meetings and other communication s” took place on the record. Nor did the proponents of the first protective order file a pet ition or other document setting forth good cause for the issuance of a protective order, or outlining the legal basis for such an order. Although the order limits the ability of the DHHS to obtain inf ormation from McLaren-Flint,

2 The items included McLaren’s 2001 policy for its water managem ent program, a draft of its 2016 Water Safety & Management Plan, a copy of test results for Legionella in the water, and a map of McLaren Hospital.-4- counsel for the DHHS was not present at the meetings and had no notice of the private meetings
between the circuit court and c ounsel for the protective order proponents.

The first paragraph of the June 27 protective order declares that the court “reviewed the Subpoena dated May 11, 2016, issued to McLaren-Flint Hospital,” and then states that “all discovery material provided her eafter to the Genesee County Pro secutor’s Office by McLarenFlint . . . pursuant to . . . ‘The City of Flint Water Crisis’ shall be confidential. . . .” Although awkwardly worded, the next sentence purports to prohibit disclo sure of the information and to “bind all other individuals, gr oups, institutions, agencies, or otherwise, who receive such confidential information” to the terms of the protective order. The order permitted McLarenFlint to “designate any document it produces as confidential by stamping” it as such, thereby limiting its disclosure to the pr osecutor’s office “and investi gative bodies under their control.”
The order continued:

It is recognized by the Court there are multiple civil actions related to McLaren-Flint . . . and may be others filed hereafter in court[ s] of competent jurisdiction to which this Protec tive Order precludes any party to any actions, naming McLaren-Flint . . . from r eceiving said materials which are marked

“CONFIDENTIAL.”

Three attorneys stipulated to an d signed the protective order: Griffin, Manley, and Karen Hanson, a Genesee County a ssistant pr osecutor.

On August 12, 2016, Fowler wrote to Judge Neithercut advising that “lawyers representing McLaren Flint and th e Genesee County Prosecutors o ffice will be contacting you soon to clarify the protective order[.]” Fowler suggested that the attorneys believed that the order “may impede McLaren’s ability to provide” information to the DHHS regarding its Legionella investigation. He pressed the court to “clarify the order” by confirming that the DHHS should be allowed access to those documents in McLaren’s p ossession necessary to the DHHS’s investigation. Fowler pled ged that the DHHS would adher e to the protective order “in regards to the limited use and sharing of this material,” and w ould ensure that the CDC did the

same.

McLaren-Flint and the prosecuto r’s office returned to Judge Ne ithercut, this time accompanied by Special Assistant Attorney General Flood or one of his delegates. Fowler was not invited; in fact, his request that the order be “clarified” by including the DHHS in the circle of document recipients was turned on its head. After another o ff-the-record, ex parte proceeding, Judge Neithercut ordered that all discovery materia l produced by McLaren-Flint
would be deemed confidential and off-limits to the DHHS. This order delegated to both McLaren and the Genesee County prosecutor the power to “designa te any document” or other item produced by McLaren as confidential. “Without prior writt en consent of the Genesee County Prosecutor’s Office and/or the Attorney General – Office of Special Counsel and/or United States Attorney General,” the order continued, “the [DHH S] and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and/or it’s [sic] as sociates, employees and/or contractors, shall be prohibite d from receiving any discovery” of the information produced by McLaren “during the pendency of the Flint Water Crisis Investig ation” and “subsequent indictments[.]”-5- In addition to prohibiting disc losure of public health-related data to the DHHS, Judge
Neithercut directed the manner in which the Legionella investigation would proceed:

Genesee County Health Departmen t is directed to contact [the C DC] directly for assistance involving any and all issues, testing, analysis required involving any lead and/or legione lla issues, water testing, and any other assistance needed for the City of Flint Water Crisis issues being investig ated by the Genesee County Health Department during the pendency of the Flint Water Crisis as
detailed above.

McLaren Hospital is directed to contact Genesee County Health Department instead of MDHHS and/ or MDEQ for any assistance requ ired by McLaren Hospital involving any future issue relating to the Cit y of Flint Water Crisis during the pendency of the Flint Water Crisis as detaile d above.

Without the prior written consen t of the producing party and/o r Genesee County Prosecutor’s Office, no document may be shown to or disc ussed with any individuals, groups, institutions, agencies, or otherwise, who receive such confidential information except as provided by subsequent Order of the Court or by this Protective Order.

Attorneys Hanson, Griffin, Manley and Flood stipulated to and s igned this protective order.

A third ex parte protective order followed fast on the heels of the second. Th e rationale for the issuance of the third pro tective order remains obscure. Once again, no record was created and no motions were filed. The third order, dated August 24, 2 016, does not expressly revoke the second, but apparently opera tes in addition to it. The thi rd order adds that “[w]ith the exception of automatic reporting requirements,” the DHHS is pro hibited from receiving any information absent the “prior wr itten permission ” of the entiti es named in the previous order. The order widens the scope of the previous protective order by excluding from DHHS view virtually any scientific records related to Legionella :

This Protective Order specifically applies to, but is not limi ted to any and all disclosure of the above pro tected information by phone and/ or in person, emails, letters, text messages, and includes: documents photogr aphs, medical records, environmental data, samp les, isolates (samples contain ing a single strain
of concentrated Legionella )[,] DNA samples from water containing non-isolated genetic material from every bacteria present in the samples, au dio or radio recordings and any other information in any form relating to th e Flint Water Crisis investigation. . . .

The third order reiterates that the DHHS is not entitled to ob tain the information it sought from McLaren, but allows for some limited administrative action s:

Documents considered ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ or portions thereof, may o nly be provided and disclosed to the Genesee County Prosecutor’s Of fice[,] their designees and investigative bodies under their control, which m ay include principals involved with Flint Water Crisis from the Attorney G eneral’s Office –-6- Special Prosecution Team investigating the Flint Water Crisis w ith Spec. AG Todd F. Flood as lead counsel and designees, the U.S. Attorney General [and] their designees, principals of the Genesee County Health Depart ment and their designees. This permissible disclosure shall include all assoc iates, paralegals and employees of the above named entities to the extent reasonably necessary to render professional services in the investigation(s).

McLaren-Flint Hospital, Genesee County Health Department and/o r CDC are directed to continue any a nd all automatic reporting of any current and/or future lead and/or legionella cases as required by MDHHS to ens ure proper services are provided to any a nd all victims of Lead and/or Leg ionella.

MDHHS is directed to continue any and all automatic reporting as required to McLaren-Flint Hosp ital, Genesee County Health Depar tment and/or CDC any current and/or future le ad and/or legionella cases to e nsure proper services are provided to any a nd all victims of Lead and/or Leg ionella.

In bold print the order proclaim s that it “does not prohibit MD HHS, [the Genesee County Health Department] and/or CDC and/or McLaren-Flint Hospital from worki ng together and sharing information, investigation(s), et c on any issue no t related to Lead and/or Legionella.” The same group of lawyers signed and s tipulated to this order.

One day after the third protective order issued, the DHHS file d this original action for superintending control against the sole named defendant, Genese e Circuit Judge Geoffrey L. Neithercut. This Court granted the complaint for superintendin g control and ordered that the case “shall proceed to a full hearing on the merits in the same manner as an appeal of right.” All three proponents of the orders f iled briefs in this Court, and their counsel participated in oral
argument.

II

The DHHS challenges the protective orders on separation of pow ers grounds, while the parties defending the orders—Judge Neithercut, the Genesee Coun ty prosecutor, McLaren-Flint Hospital, and Special Assistant Attorney General Flood—insist t hat this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the DHHS’s argument. According to the proponents o f the protective orders, the DHHS is not entitled to an order of superintending control beca use it has adequate alternate remedies: “intervention,” an action for injunctive relief, or a motion to modify or quash the protective orders. Further, th e proponents as sert, good cause existed for the orde rs in that actions or inactions of the DHHS are pa rt and parcel of ongoing crimina l investigations. Allowing the DHHS access to the information, the proponents maintain, would be akin to allowing “the fox in the henhouse,” undermining the criminal investigation and openi ng the door to fabricating or tampering with evidence.

Although we review for an abuse of discretion the circuit cour t’s decision whether to grant a protective order, In re Pott , 234 Mich App 369, 373; 593 NW2d 685 (1999), we review de novo whether the circuit court applied the correct legal sta ndards in determining whether to-7- issue a protective order in the first place. See Beach v Lima Twp , 489 Mich 99, 106; 802 NW2d 1 (2011).

III

We dispense with the issue of our jurisdiction quite simply by construing the DHHS’s motion for superintending control as an application for leave t o appeal the three protective orders and by granting it. MCR 7.203(B)(1), MCR 7.216(A)(3) and (7).

IV

The DHHS urges us to hold that Judge Neithercut overstepped co nstitutional boundaries by issuing orders that restricted the DHHS’s ability to fulfill its statutory duties to protect the public health. The “widely accepte d and venerable rule of const itutional avoidance” counsels that we first consider whether statutory or general law concept s are instead dispositive. People v McKinley , 496 Mich 410, 415; 852 NW2d 770 (2014). We hold that Judge N eithercut lacked any legal authority to issue the protective orders and vacate t hem on that ground.

We begin with Judge Neithercut’s contention that he entered th e protective orders pursuant to his authority under MCR 6.201(E). At oral argument , counsel for the proponents confirmed that MCR 6.201(E) supplied the sole legal basis for J udge Neithercut’s actions. 3 We find this court rule inapposite. MRE 6.201 governs discovery i n criminal cases. See also MCR 6.001(A) (stating that the rul es in subchapters 6.000-6.500 “go vern matters of procedure in criminal cases cognizable in the circuit courts and in courts o f equivalent criminal jurisdiction.”). Subpart (E) permits a court to ent er a protective order in a cr iminal case “[o]n motion and a showing of good cause.” The rule continues:

In considering whether good cause e xists, the court shall consi der the parties’ interests in a fair trial; the risk to any person of harm, undu e annoyance, intimidation, embarrassment, or threats; the risk that evidence will be fabricated; and the need for secrecy regarding the identity of informants o r other law enforcement matters. On motion, with notice to the other party , the court may permit the showing of good cause for a protective order to be m ade in camera. If the court grants a protective order, it must seal and preserve the record of the hearing for review in t he event of an appeal.

The parties advise that there are ongoing criminal cases pendi ng against nine individuals in connection with the Flint Water Crisis, and that some of the se defendants were employed by the DHHS. But the protective orders were not issued in any pen ding criminal case. Even assuming that the relevant criminal cases are assigned to Judge Neithercut (no such evidence has been provided to us), we find it telling that the attorneys for the defendants in those cases were

3 At argument, counsel for the proponents mentioned that the cir cuit court had issued an investigative subpoena to McLaren. The proponents begrudgingly conceded, however, that the protective orders were not ente red as part of the investigative subpoena proceedings.-8- not notified of the protective order proceedings or invited to take part in them. Furthermore, none of the prerequisites for obtaining a protective order set forth in MCR 6.201(E) were fulfilled. No motions were filed, no showing of good cause was made, and no record was created. Therefore, we wholly reject the suggestion that MCR 6 .201(E) supplied Judge Neithercut with authority to iss ue these protective orders.

The protective order proponents have identified no other legal standard that arguably might support entry of the three protective orders. The specia l prosecutor’s delegate argued that the protective orders were nece ssary to protect the general “in tegrity” of the ongoing criminal prosecutions. When questioned, however, the attorney was unabl e to articulate any facts or legal theories illustrating how the DHHS ’s execution of its statutory duties might hinder the special prosecutor’s ability to marshal or protect evidence. Nor are w e able to understand how a public health investigation conducted by a state agency pursuant to st atutory authority could possibly impair the ongoing prosecutions. Any evidence supporting this claim should have been presented to the circuit court, on the record, after notice to all interested parties, including the
DHHS and the defendants i n the criminal actions.

In addition to our finding that the circuit court lacked legal authority to issue the protective orders, we hold that the broad scope of the orders c onstituted an abuse of Judge
Neithercut’s discretion. We have no evidence that the circuit court exercised any discretion before issuing the protective orders. “[T]he failure to exerci se discretion when called on to do so
constitutes an abdication and he nce an abuse of discretion.” People v Stafford , 434 Mich 125, 134 n 4; 450 NW2d 559 (1990). Furthermore, an order restrictin g the flow of information to a state agency, or curtailing a state agency’s ability to fulfill its statutory mandate, cannot rest on catchy phrases or naked asserti ons devoid of factual support. And nothing more than that has been presented to this Court.

We highlight that in vacating the three protective orders, we have not remanded for further proceedings. Because there were no proceedings of reco rd in the circuit court, a remand
is unwarranted.

We vacate the three protectiv e orders. We do not retain juris diction.

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher /s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly /s/ Douglas B. Shapiro