Court Opinion

ID: 9656131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:38:10.407687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:28.755707
License: Public Domain

KESSLER, J.
¶ 16. (concurring in part; dissenting in part). I concur with the Majority's conclusion1 that "Sands has failed to demonstrate that the informa*546tion she has asked for" is either relevant2 to the only issue in her litigation or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Wis. Stat. § 804.01(2)(a). I do not perceive any possible relevance in what the District may, or may not, have discussed in closed session and the question of whether Sands was, or was not, an Administrator and thereby entitled to additional notice of termination. Consequently, I agree that the trial court improperly granted the disputed discovery and concur in reversal on that ground alone.
¶ 17. I conclude the Majority goes beyond what is necessary to resolve this appeal3 and in doing so, reads too much into the exceptions to the open meeting statute, Wis. Stat. § 19.85(l)(c). This is not the case to decide whether an employee of a public body would be prohibited by statute from obtaining relevant evidence of that body's deliberations, in order to attempt to prove prohibited conduct by the body directed specifically at the employee. However, I fear that will be the unintended effect of this decision, and for those reasons I respectfully dissent.

 See Majority, ¶ 15 n.5.

 See Wis. Stat. § 904.01: " 'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."

 Gross v. Hoffman, 227 Wis. 296, 300, 277 N.W. 663 (1938) (only dispositive issue need be addressed); State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 688, 703, 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989) (case should be decided on the "narrowest possible ground").