Opinion ID: 2376955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Examination of Each Document

Text: ¶ 49 Justice Sanders asks us to review each claimed exemption de novo to determine its validity. Sanders's Opening Br. at 19. We have done so in detail. ¶ 50 For each document, we have examined the AGO's claimed exemption, the trial court's ruling, and Justice Sanders's contentions on review. Assuming the narrow view of the attorney-client privilege advocated by Justice Sanders, and applying the work product privilege as set forth above, we affirm almost all of the trial court's rulings. However, we reverse the trial court's rulings that four documents were exempt:  SPDs 44, 50, and 51: These are cover e-mails pertaining to in camera documents 94 and 103. The trial court correctly ruled that those in camera documents are nonexempt, but neglected to realize that the cover e-mails are also nonexempt. The cover e-mails neither reveal attorney thought processes about, nor are they relevant to, any pending, completed, or reasonably anticipated litigation to which the State (as represented by AGO) was a party. Instead, they relate to the screening procedures to be used during the CJC proceeding against Justice Sanders, which fall outside the scope of the privilege.  SPD 52: Like the SPDs just discussed, this e-mail string relates to screening during the CJC proceeding, and so is largely outside the scope of the work product privilege. But, it contains one line suggesting that AGO attorneys might consult with the attorney who represents CJC about the proceeding against Justice Sanders. The only reason the AGO attorneys might do so would be because it was relevant to their own cases, in which they planned to file motions to recuse Justice Sanders on grounds similar to those forming the basis of the CJC complaint. Thus, this portion of SPD 52 reveals attorney thought processes about pending litigation and should be redacted. The document should have been produced with redactions. We reverse the trial court's rulings and deny AGO's claim of exemption as to these four documentsexcept as to the redactable material in SPD 52and assess costs and fees accordingly. See infra Part 7. Denying the claimed exemptions for these documents also affects the award of penalties. Because we affirm the trial court's penalty determination, we apply that determination to these four documents. See infra Part 5.e. We affirm the trial court's rulings on all of the other documents.