Assistant Attorney General Braddock Huesman said because the original transfer was undone and that no other government agency was involved except for the governor’s office, it’s not necessary to have those documents disclosed.
These documents should reflect the amount of public funds used under the governor’s operating account #1011-6250 that acting Attorney General Gregory Baka identified as the one used for Jenner & Block’s legal fees.
In his four-page brief to the Superior Court, Huesman said the relevant documents were numbered 24 & 25 on the privilege log.
“First, document #24 indicates that money was transferred from one of the governor’s account into the governor’s discretionary account. Document #25, however, indicates that the money was, in the same day, transferred back to the original account,” he said.
“Thus, the documents are not responsive because the original transfer was undone. The second reason the documents are not responsive is that the money was transferred from within the Office of the Governor. No other agencies were affected,” he added.
Jenner & Block represents the governor in his federalization lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C.
Rep. Tina Sablan, Ind.-Saipan, earlier filed an Open Government Act to compel the administration to release documents regarding the litigation fees it has so far incurred.
Superior Court Associate Judge David Wiseman approved the release of relevant documents except for the following: the engagement letter or contract between the administration and Jenner & Block; receipts regarding payments to Jenner & Block; transaction reports showing the internal transfer of funds from CNMI accounts; and billing statements from Jenner & Block.
Huesman said records about billings and payments are not discoverable because they are not relevant for evidence purposes.
“As they are not ‘available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery’ by the plain language of 1 CMC § 9918 (a) (8) they are exempted from disclosure under the Open Government Act. Despite plaintiff’s protests, documents not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence may still be relevant to a controversy in a broader sense,” Huesman said.
“The commonwealth is only seeking the same protection from its adversaries as the federal courts in the District of Columbia provide for the litigants before them, the right to keep litigation budgets and expenses secret from the opposing party,” he added.
At least 34 items were listed on the privilege log.
