Description: Lawsuit seeking to compel disclosure of information related to program to place private attorneys in Minnesota attorney general's office.
-
Energy Policy Advocates v. Ellison
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 09/28/2022 Opinion Download Decision of court of appeals reversed and case remanded to district court. Minnesota Supreme Court Reversed Rulings that Would Have Required Attorney General’s Disclosure of Climate Litigation Documents. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed portions of a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision that had rejected certain reasons cited by the Minnesota Attorney General for withholding documents requested under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act regarding the Attorney General’s retention of special assistant attorneys general to pursue multistate climate change litigation. First, the Supreme Court formally recognized the common-interest doctrine and said it applies when two or more parties represented by separate lawyers have a common legal interest in a litigated or non-litigated matter, the parties agree to exchange information regarding the matter, and they make an otherwise privileged communication in furtherance of formulating a joint legal strategy. The Supreme Court also held that the doctrine prevented waiver of both attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. Second, the Supreme Court said the attorney-client privilege extended to public law offices but declined to delineate the circumstances in which the privilege would protect communications within the Attorney General’s office. Third, the Supreme Court concluded that the Data Practices Act allowed the Attorney General to withhold certain “private data on individuals” such as “communications and noninvestigative files regarding administrative or policy matters which do not evidence final public actions” and investigative data even if the data do not pertain to natural persons. The court remanded to the district court for consideration of the application of the common-interest doctrine and attorney-client privilege to the documents withheld by the Attorney General. 11/23/2021 Reply Download Reply brief filed by appellants Keith Ellison and Office of the Attorney General. 11/09/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae Public Record Media (PRM) and the Minnesota Coalition on Government Information (MNCOGI) in support of respondent. 11/02/2021 Brief Download Brief filed by respondent Energy Policy Advocates. 09/16/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae Governor Tim Walz and 23 cabinet agencies. 09/16/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amici curiae District of Columbia and 38 states in support of petitioners. 09/15/2021 Amicus Brief Download Joint brief filed by amici curiae League of Minnesota Cities et al. 09/09/2021 Amicus Brief Download Joint brief filed by amici curiae Minnesota Association for Justice et al. 09/09/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amicus curiae the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. 09/09/2021 Brief Download Principal brief and addendum filed by appellants Keith Ellison and Office of the Attorney General. 09/08/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by National Association of Manufacturers as amicus curiae in support of neither party. -
Energy Policy Advocates v. Ellison
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/01/2021 Opinion Download Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The appellate court found that the attorney general could only withhold "private data on individuals" under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) to the extent that documents contained "data on individuals." The appellate court also ruled that the district court erred by failing to conduct an in camera review to determine whether documents were collected as part of an inactive or active investigation and by concluding that attorney-client privilege applied based solely on the respondents' "general descriptions of categories of documents." In addition, the appellate court held that the common interest doctrine did not provide an exception to the MGDPA's disclosure requirements, and that even if it did, the exception would apply to only documents withheld pursuant to attorney-client privilege, not the work-product doctrine. 02/02/2021 Brief Download Brief filed by respondents Keith Ellison and Office of the Attorney General. 02/02/2021 Reply Download Reply brief filed by appellants. 11/25/2020 Brief Download Brief and addendum filed by appellants. -
Energy Policy Advocates v. Ellison
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 07/16/2020 Order Download Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents denied. The district court denied Energy Policy Advocates' motion to compel the production of documents requested in December 2018. The court found that some records were shielded as "data on individuals" or investigative data, while work-product privilege protected other records from disclosure based on the common interest privilege, including "work-product communications with attorneys general in other states regarding litigation in which each are involved or in which they each have an interest." The court stated: "The extension of privilege to communication between attorneys general who are sharing litigation work-product in matters where their state clients share common interest makes sense. Energy Policy has not advanced a convincing argument to counter the application of the common interest privilege to the data at issue."
08/14/2019 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Group Filed Lawsuit Seeking Documents from Minnesota Attorney General About Private Lawyers Allegedly Placed to Pursue Climate Cases. A nonprofit corporation filed a lawsuit against Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to compel the production of documents related to “a major political donor’s program to place privately hired attorneys” in the offices of state attorneys general “to initiate investigations of perceived opponents” of policies and actions to address climate change. The information sought included correspondence between the Office of the Attorney General and a plaintiffs’ law firm and an individual in another state attorney general’s office. The plaintiff alleged that through similar requests to other state attorneys general it had obtained information demonstrating “clear relationships” between state attorneys general and the program to place private lawyers in their offices. The plaintiff asserted claims under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.