ACLU of Maryland and Green Party Challenge State Subpoena of Civil Rights Lawyer's Computer and Personnel Records (1/29/2007)
FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
BALTIMORE, MD - Contending that a government subpoena demanding production of
a civil rights lawyer's computer hard drive and personnel records violates
principles of privacy and attorney-client privilege, the American Civil
Liberties Union of Maryland has appealed to the Maryland Court of Special
Appeals to quash the subpoena. The controversy arises in a
voting rights case in which the Maryland Green Party successfully challenged the
constitutionality of state election laws and practices that denied a Green Party
candidate a place on the ballot during the 2000 Congressional elections.
"If enforced, this type of subpoena would seriously undermine enforcement of
important civil rights laws," said ACLU cooperating counsel Creighton R. Magid,
of Dorsey & Whitney LLP. "Not only has this proceeding become a
colossal waste of taxpayer resources, but enforcement of the subpoena would
undermine two of the oldest and most fundamental protections clients and their
lawyers have under the law: the attorney-client privilege and the work product
doctrine."
The subpoena was served in Spring 2006 upon the employer of one
of the Green Party's lawyers, even though the employer is not a party to the
case. It demands production of the lawyer's job application and his wage,
attendance, and leave records. More importantly, the subpoena also seeks
all e-mail and other electronic information stored on the lawyer's
password-protected work computer, including privileged communications between
the lawyer and the Green Party and confidential documents prepared as part of
the litigation.
"What plaintiff in her right mind will come forward to seek
justice through the courts if being successful means the party who violated her
rights can then search her lawyer's computer, reading any communications back
and forth -- even if wholly unrelated to the case?" said ACLU of Maryland
Legal Director Deborah A. Jeon.
The merits of the dispute were settled in
2003, when the state's highest court ruled in favor of the Green Party.
The courts decided that the state is required to pay the Green Party's legal
fees under civil rights law, but the litigation has dragged on for years as the
state has sought to delay or avoid payment of those fees, engaging in what
Supreme Court Justice William Brennan once called "one of the least socially
productive types of litigation imaginable." Numerous civil rights
and legal groups joined the ACLU as "friends of the court" supporting the effort
to quash the subpoena, because of its potential to undermine enforcement of
civil rights law. Led by the Public Justice Center, those groups include: CASA
of Maryland, Inc., Civil Justice, Inc., the Greater Baltimore Christian Legal
Society, the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, the Maryland
Disability Law Center, the Maryland Employment Lawyers Association, the National
Council of La Raza, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., the
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Public
Citizen. Counsel in the case include Frank Dunbaugh and Mark
Miller, original counsel for the Green Party; Magid and Beth Forsythe of
Dorsey & Whitney; C. Christopher Brown of Brown, Goldstein & Levy; and
Jeon and David Rocah of the ACLU of Maryland. Suzanne Sangree at the Public
Justice Center organized participants filing the amicus brief. The ACLU of
Maryland's brief before the Court of Special Appeals is online at: www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Green_Party_Brief.pdf
|