Administrative Director Steven D. Canterbury’s response to the Associated Press’ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed April 30, 2008, in Kanawha County Circuit Court

CHARLESTON, W.Va. – While it is abundantly clear what is at the heart of this particular request, any demand for the disclosure of communications or information of West Virginia Supreme Court Justices has effects well beyond any singular request. The disclosure of the requested information sets a bad precedent, is likely unconstitutional, and has long-range ramifications. The results of this case will affect not only West Virginia Supreme Court Justices but Circuit Judges, Family Court Judges, Juvenile Court Judges, Magistrates, and Mental Hygiene Commissioners as well.

Under our constitutional framework, the judiciary is an independent branch of state government entitled to conduct its business under administrative rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of Appeals. The legislative branch, through the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) statute, cannot require the judicial branch of government to disclose the communications of its members.

The idea that all judicial records -- including grand juror, domestic relations or juvenile records, or the records of the private communications of judicial officers and employees -- are subject to a FOIA request by any person or entity for any reason is clearly contrary to the sound administration of our system of justice. Judges must be able to think, correspond, and interact freely without the threat of his or her communications being divulged to the public. Independence is one of the cornerstones of our judiciary and this independence would be crippled by a rule that, upon written request of anyone for any reason, mandated that the communications of every judicial officer are subject to disclosure.

It is important to note that public records of judicial bodies, such as court orders, pleadings, and other documents, are readily available to members of the public or the media without resort to a FOIA request. Moreover, administrative records of judicial bodies, including budgetary, financial, and other records maintained concerning the management of the courts, should be and are subject to public inspection. The track record of the Supreme Court's Administrative Office in providing such public records is absolutely without blemish.

The decision not to provide the information that has been requested is based upon the provisions of the West Virginia Constitution, the language of the Freedom of Information Act, the cases interpreting the language of the Act, the decisions in other jurisdictions addressing the application of similar language to judicial bodies, and the need to preserve the independence of the judiciary. This suit will be vigorously defended with these fundamental considerations in mind.

I also want to announce today that Robert P. Fitzsimmons and Robert J. Fitzsimmons of Fitzsimmons Law Offices, Daniel J. Guida of Guida Law Offices, and Bill Wilmouth and Ancil Ramey of the law firm of Steptoe and Johnson have been selected to protect these important interests of the judiciary. Please direct any questions to them.

##