No. A STATE OF MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT. Tony Webster, vs. Hennepin County and the Hennepin County Sheriff s Office,

Similar documents
No. A STATE OF MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT. Tony Webster, vs. Hennepin County and the Hennepin County Sheriff s Office,

will seek reversal of the Order of Administrative Law Judge Jim Mortenson dated April STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

Plaintiff John David Emerson, for his Complaint against Defendant Timothy

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A Court of Appeals Anderson, J. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Chutich, J.

No. A STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS. vs. Hennepin County and Hennepin County Sheriff s Office, Appellants/Relators.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A Concurring, Page, and Wright, J.J. Marshall Helmberger, Took no part, Lillehaug, J.

State of Minnesota In Supreme Court

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT NO. C PETITION OF MINNESOTA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

State of Minnesota In Supreme Court

Susan L. Naughton LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES

PLAINTIFF S INITIAL DISCLOSURES

State of Minnesota In Supreme Court

Plaintiffs St. Louis Park Echo ( The Echo ), Maggie Bahnson, individually and as

Plaintiff, DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST. Defendant. City of Bloomington ( Bloomington ) and demands that Plaintiff Tony Webster ( Webster )

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/28/ :39 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 653 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/28/2018. Exhibit 1

Office of the State Auditor Local Government Cooperation Waiver Application

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A Yolanda Bass, Respondent, vs. Equity Residential Holdings, LLC, Appellant

No. A State of Minnesota. In Court of Appeals. Tony Webster, vs. Hennepin County & Hennepin County Sheriff s Office,

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

To: Morgan Smith, th Street SE, Minneapolis, MN For the purpose of these discovery requests, the following definitions apply:

IF YOU LEASED A RESIDENCE IN MINNEAPOLIS, MN AT ANY TIME FROM NOVEMBER 13, 2012, TO TODAY, YOU MAY BE A MEMBER OF A CERTIFIED CLASS.

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF RAMSEY. Case Type: Civil/Other. Andrew Cilek and Minnesota Voters Alliance,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

This matter came on for court trial before the Honorable Mark A. Labine, Referee of District Court, on December 13, 2017.

MEEKER COUNTY GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A Court of Appeals McKeig, J.

WASHINGTON COUNTY GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT

Legislative and Law Committee Update Minnesota Judicial Branch

In the Supreme Court of Texas

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

CASE 0:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/06/18 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiff, Civil Case No.

IF YOU RECEIVED A PHONE CALL ABOUT A CASH FOR RELOCATION PROGRAM OFFERED BY ALTISOURCE, YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/19/ :18 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 50 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/19/2018

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Redwood County District Court. File No. 64-C

(2) Date of entry of judgment or date of service of notice of filing of order from which appeal is taken:

Attached are the revised comments of the Minnesota Department of Commerce (Department) in the following matter:

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK. Index No /2018

PROCEEDINGS TO REDUCE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE REDEMPTION PERIOD TO FIVE WEEKS. For Property in Hennepin County Foreclosed by Advertisement

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A Petitioners,

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

Case 0:09-cv ADM-FLN Document 42 Filed 07/30/10 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Adopted: August 1996 Wheaton ISD #803 Policy 401

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

STATE OF MISSOURI, CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE Issued: June 29, 2016

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A

CASE 0:15-cv DWF-JSM Document 1-1 Filed 12/24/15 Page 1 of 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THIS SUMMONS IS DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT:

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CLAY SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORDER AND MEMORANDUM ORDER

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

For purposes of this Ordinance, the following capitalized terms listed in alphabetical order shall have the following meanings:

DISMISSAL ORDER CV STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS. Republican Party of Minnesota, Complainant, vs.

Civil Forfeiture in Minnesota

Minnesota Open Meeting Law

BEFORE THE MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 600 North Robert Street St. Paul, MN 55101

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiffs, COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT v. (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

CITY OF FROM: Chelsea Petersen, Assistant City Manager CHANHASSEN

BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. Beverly Jones Heydinger

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

CASE 0:15-cv SRN-SER Document 1-1 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 12

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

June 15, Thank you for your correspondence of April 24, In your letter you present the following facts: FACTS AND BACKGROUND

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

EXPUNGEMENT WORKSHEETS

Why the Minnesota Supreme Court Should Overturn a Lower Court Decision on Price-Setting: Part 2

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA JOINTLY ADMINISTERED UNDER CASE NO Polaroid Consumer Electronics, LLC;

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State AFFIDAVIT OF CANDIDACY

The Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MINNESOTA

Transcription:

No. A16-0736 STATE OF MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT May 4, 2017 Tony Webster, Petitioner, vs. Hennepin County and the Hennepin County Sheriff s Office, Respondents. REQUEST OF STAR TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY LLC, AMERICAN PUBLIC MEDIA GROUP, AND MINNPOST FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF COUNSEL FOR STAR TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY LLC: Randy M. Lebedoff Star Tribune Media Company LLC 650 3rd Ave. South, Suite 1300 Minneapolis, MN 55488 Telephone: (612) 673-7133 ATTORNEYS FOR STAR TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY LLC, AMERICAN PUBLIC MEDIA GROUP, AND MINNPOST John P. Borger, MN (9878) Leita Walker, MN (387095) Faegre Baker Daniels LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 766-7000 Fax: (612) 766-1600

TO: The Minnesota Supreme Court Star Tribune Media Company LLC, American Public Media Group (owner of Minnesota Public Radio), and MinnPost (the Applicants ) hereby request leave of this Court to file a brief in the above matter as amicus curiae. Nature of the Applicants interest: The Applicants interest in this case is both public and private. The public has a vital interest in receiving information from the news media on matters of public interest, including the operation of government. The news media serve as surrogates for expressing the public interest in preserving the free flow of information on matters of public concern. Applicants also have private interests in publishing information about matters of public interest and controversy, including the operation of government. Petitioner Tony Webster has petitioned for review of the April 10, 2017, decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) erred in concluding (1) that respondents procedures failed to comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act ( MGDPA ) and (2) that the ALJ erred in determining that respondents records arrangement failed to comply with the MGDPA. Applicants understand that Petitioner also intends to challenge (3) what he describes as the Court of Appeals suggest[ion] that a 2

government entity may in fact refuse to provide requested data if the government entity decides that the data containing the requestor s identified term do not bear upon the subject in which the requestor is interested. If the petition for review is granted, Applicants amicus brief would focus on this third issue and support Petitioner s position that the MGDPA does not contain any relevancy analysis. Applicants would urge affirmance of that portion of the Court of Appeals decision concluding that Respondents violated the MGDPA by failing to make requested public government data available for inspection but would seek clarity from this Court, in a published opinion, that responsible authorities may not withhold data responsive to an MGDPA request simply because they deem it irrelevant. Reasons why amicus brief is desirable: Under the MGDPA all government data is presumptively public and [t]he responsible authority in every government entity shall keep records containing government data in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. Minn. Stat. 13.03 subd. 1. The MGDPA also requires the responsible authority to establish procedures to insure that requests for government data are received and complied with in an appropriate and prompt manner. Id. subd. 2. 3

Applicants and other major media organizations in Minnesota and not just Petitioner have significant interests in seeing that laws designed to ensure public and press access to government documents are followed. This Court should grant Applicants an opportunity to address the impact and consequences of the matters regarding public access to government documents that are presented to this Court in this proceeding. Applicants will bring perspectives that are not replicated by others involved in this matter. 4

Conclusion Accordingly, Star Tribune Media Company LLC, American Public Media Group, and MinnPost seek leave of the Court to participate in the appeal as amicus curiae. Dated: May 4, 2017 FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP OF COUNSEL FOR STAR TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY LLC: Randy M. Lebedoff Star Tribune Media Company LLC 650 3rd Ave. South, Suite 1300 Minneapolis, MN 55488 Telephone: (612) 673-7133 John P. Borger, MN #9878 Leita Walker, MN #387095 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 Telephone: (612) 766-7000 Fax: (612) 766-1600 Attorneys for Star Tribune Media Company LLC, American Public Media Group, and MinnPost 5