Sablan also described as “irrelevant” Assistant Attorney General Braddock Huesman’s argument that had she made the request to examine any and all contracts and documents between the CNMI and the law firm Jenner & Block as a legislator instead of as a taxpayer, her request may have been granted.
“Any person, including a lawmaker acting in her official capacity, may request any disclosure of records under the Open Government Act, and may file a petition for mandamus or injunction in order to stop or prevent threatened violations of the Act…. Indeed, as defendants themselves note in their motion to withhold documents, ‘the identify of the requester is irrelevant to whether disclosure is required’ [under the Open Government Act],” she said in her 10-page reply to the defendants’ motion to withhold documents.
She also disputed the defendants’ assertion that disclosing information about the CNMI’s contract with Jenner & Block may undermine its lawsuit’s standing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
“Disclosure of the records [Sablan] seeks pursuant to the Open Government Act can in no way tend to prove or disprove any facts at issue before the U.S. District Court in the 903 lawsuit,” she said.
Gov. Benigno R. Fitial and Finance Secretary Eloy Inos, in their official capacities, are the defendants in Sablan’s petition for mandamus.
Sablan filed the petition after the administration repeatedly rejected her request to examine or have documents relevant to the CNMI’s dealings with Jenner & Block.
Acting Attorney General Gregory Baka earlier disclosed to Sablan that public funds were used to pay the law firm.
Superior Court Associate Judge David Wiseman ordered Baka removed as one of the defendants because the Open Government Act requests were only made to Fitial and Inos.
Sablan said the “defendants should be compelled to release all requested records to plaintiff expeditiously and without regard to the status of the 903 litigation.”
She added, “Alternatively, if after an in camera review of all records responsive to plaintiff’s request, this court permits defendants to redact or withhold any said records, defendants should be required to provide plaintiff with a complete privilege log listing such records, explaining for the redaction or the withholding, and describing their contents to the greatest extent possible as permitted by this court.”
