MPR's Elizabeth Stawicki reports that three Twin Cities-based news organizations are asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to keep open the option for access to documents filed as part of the lawsuit to keep the Minnesota Twins in the Metrodome.
In a hearing, an attorney for the organizations argued that a Hennepin County judge erred in issuing a broad protective order to keep the documents sealed. The Twins argue that the judge had wide discretion to keep all the information confidential.
ELIZABETH STAWICKI: The Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission holds a disk containing at least 9,000 Twins financial documents collected during the lawsuit to keep the Twins in Minnesota last year. After the case was settled, Hennepin County judge Harry Crump, ordered the Commission to either destroy the documents or return them to the Twins. But three news organizations The Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Associated Press, and KARE 11 TV, say, not so fast.
JOHN BORGER: Somebody has just applied a rubber stamp to 9,000 pages and said that there's no reason to give any of this to anybody.
ELIZABETH STAWICKI: John Borger represented the media organizations before the appeals court. He argues that before the files are destroyed, the judge should go through them, item by item, and assess the public's interest in the information. Borger claims that even though Crump ordered the files kept under seal, Crump never viewed them individually. Borger claims Crump left it up to the parties themselves to determine what individual items should be confidential. That prompted a question by Judge James Harten.
JAMES HARTEN: It sounds to me as though you're assuming that the district court committed an error.
JOHN BORGER: Your honor, as a matter of law, the district court does commit an error and an abuse of discretion when it does not look at the specific information that's at stake in a Data Practices Act context.
JAMES HARTEN: And so you're presuming that this district court judge committed an error here, even though you can't define and show where it is.
JOHN BORGER: I can-- where I can show where it is that he never looked at the information. It is obvious from the sequence that the data, the 9,000 pages, was never in his possession. He never looked at it.
ELIZABETH STAWICKI: The Minnesota Twins argue that they gave the information to the court as part of a lawsuit. And because the case is settled, the information in the file should not be given to the public. Twins attorney Roger Magnuson told the panel that judges have wide discretion in determining what to keep sealed.
ROGER MAGNUSON: And nowhere is that discretion more important than managing both the litigation process and the discovery process of litigation. Here, Judge Crump exercised discretion. It was required for him to do so. It was right for him to do so. It was reasonable for him to do so.
ELIZABETH STAWICKI: The news organizations argue that the commission, as a government entity, has some duty to preserve the Twins files. And that by abiding by Crump's order to destroy or return them, the commission is violating that duty. But the Commission's attorney, Corey Ehling, told the court the commission disagrees.
COREY EHLING: We don't see the statute as telling us, no matter what you say in your protective order, you got to hold on these documents and produce them to the public at the end of the case.
ELIZABETH STAWICKI: In a rebuttal, the news organizations attorney, John Borger, told the court that all he's asking for is for the parties to back up their claims that the individual items in the files should be private and not public.
JOHN BORGER: Put these folks to the test of backing up their assertions of confidentiality, the reasons for the confidentiality. If they've got legitimate reasons, legal and factual, let them say what they are, and let the judge determine whether they are legitimate.
ELIZABETH STAWICKI: The Court of Appeals must rule on the case within 90 days. I'm Elizabeth Stawicki. Minnesota Public Radio.
Digitization made possible by the State of Minnesota Legacy Amendment’s Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund, approved by voters in 2008.
Views and opinions expressed in the content do not represent the opinions of APMG. APMG is not responsible for objectionable content and language represented on the site. Please use the "Contact Us" button if you'd like to report a piece of content. Thank you.
Transcriptions provided are machine generated, and while APMG makes the best effort for accuracy, mistakes will happen. Please excuse these errors and use the "Contact Us" button if you'd like to report an error. Thank you.