NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT STATE OF LOUISIANA WILLIAM MOST 7" Plaintiff 7 V. . . . .. Civil Action No. KEVIN W. REEVES, in his of?cial capacity as Custodian of Records for the Louisiana State Police, Defendant PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE LOUISIANA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT NOW INTO COURT, comes William Most, who respectfully requests, pursuant to Article XII, Section 3 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 and La. RS. 44:31, et seq, and other applicable law cited herein, that this Court issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Defendant Kevin W. Reeves in his of?cial capacity as Custodian of Records, to provide Plaintiff with public records in his possession. Plaintiff respectfully requests an expedited hearing within ten days of service of this petition, as required by La. C. C. P. art. 3782. Speci?cally, Mr. Most seeks a document entitled ?full list of antifa.docx??purportedly supplied by 3. Con?dential Informant?that has been circulated amongst high-level Louisiana State Police employees and other state agencies. On information and belief, the document? which claims to identify the full membership of a non?existent organization?is based on a document that ?rst appeared on a far-right conspiracy theory website called ?8Chan? in August 2017. See Ethel Chiel, Meet the Man Keeping Sahara the World ?5 Most Vile Website, Alive, SPLINTERNEWS, April 19, 2016, at goo.g1/6yer1; Mark Bray, ANTIFA: THE ANTI-FASCIST HANDBOOK (2017) (providing leading scholarly account of range of political tendencies commonly grouped as ?antifa?). After months of back?and-forth in which Louisiana State Police arbitrarily and capriciously refused to disClose hundreds of other emails containing words like ?white genocide,? and ?race traitor,?1 the agency continues to deny access to the ?full list of antifa.docx? record. In so doing, Louisiana State Police claims that it ?reasonably anticipate[s]? that ?criminal litigation? pertaining to this document will be forthcoming, and that 1 Upon threat of litigation, the agency relented and agreed on August 28, 2018 to begin providing these records. See in?a note 4. 1 there is no way to redact the document to protect the identity of the ?con?dential source.? Neither of these justi?cations is supportable. The Louisiana State Pnlice?s refusal to disclose the ??ili list of antifa.docx? record indicates that one of two-troubling scenarios is iikely true. The ?rst possibility is that Louisiana State Police genuinely believes that the ?full list of antifadocx? pertains to a criminal case it anticipates theState of Louisiana will initiate in the foreseeable ?iture. If true, Louisiana State Police?s'reliance on such a patently bogus dossier raises grave First Amendment concerns and questions about the competency of those charged with keeping Louisianans safe from harm. The second is that Louisiana State Police recognizes that the ?full list of antifa.docx? is a farcical (although dangerous) compendium of law-abiding citizens who have no connection to any criminal activity in Louisiana. If so, in order to avOid embarrassment, the Louisiana State Police has cynically invoked important and worthy exceptions to the Public Record Act (La. R.S. and La. R.S. to avoid the embarrassment of con?rming that Louisiana State Police?s investigatory work is based on such shoddy sources. Both are unhappy options. But neither justi?es the ongoing refusal to disclose the public records in question. In suppert of this petition, Plaintiff states the following: Plaintiff is William Most, a natural person over the age of eighteen, domiciled in the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. 2. Defendant is Col. Kevin Reeves, the Superintendent of and Custodian of Records maintained by the Louisiana State Police. 3. On May 25, 2018, pursuant to Louisiana Public Records Law, Plaintiff sent the Louisiana State Police a written Public Records Act request for all correspondence (including emails), containing ?fteen (15) ispeci?ed words or See EX. A Request?). The request was emailed to the Louisiana State Police attorney, Faye Morrison, who serves as the Custodian of Records for the Of?ce of Legal Affairs and is an attorney who assists the Louisiana State Police records custodians with requests. 4; After three days, exclusive of weekends and holidays, M. Most had not received any reply. By law, any casein which a record is requested and a question is raised by the custodian of the reocrd'as to whether it is a public record, such custodian shall within three days . . . of the receipt of the request, in writing for such record, notify in writing the person making such request of his determination and the reasons therefor.? La. RS. After a follow?up email sent by Mr. Most on June 4, ?2018?noting that the Louisiana State Police was in violation of the time requirements ?set forth by La. R.S. 44:32?Ms. Morrison responded that she ?did not see [the] 5/25 email to me that was sent after hours? but would new ?route your request for handling.? EX. B. 6. On June 12, 2018, the'Louisiana State Police sent another letter indicating it would not move forward on Mr. Most?s request because he is a civil rights attorney currently involved as counsel in a separate federal lawsuit in which the Louisiana State Police is a party, Imani v. City of Baton Rouge. See EX. C. But see Heath v. City of Alexandria, ll So.3d 569 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2009) (holding Defendant violated Public Records Act'by not immediately making available records despite the fact requester was involved in ongoing litigation against City). I i 7. immediately upon receipt of this letter, Mr. Most responded (1) that the request was unrelated to Imam; (2) even if it were related, the federal court overseeing Imam? had expressly held that written discovery was not stayed, and (3) that the federal Fifth Circuit had rejected the proposition'that pending litigation forecloses public records requests. See EX. D. 8. On July 17, 2018, the federal court in which Imani v. City ofBaton Rouge dismissed a ?Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiffs? Attorney Has Not Violated the Stay Order?; the court?s ruling left no ambiguity that Mr. Most?s public records requests should be addressed. See EX. E. Mr. Most immediate wrote to Louisiana State Police: ?Based on Judge Wilder?Doomes ruling this morning, i presume that LSP will provide documents responsive to the Public Records request. Is that right? Can your clients provide an estimate of when 3 that will be?? See EX. F. Later that day, the Louisiana State Police assured Mr. Most in writing ?we will resume efforts on conducting the search.? See id. 9. Contrary to Louisiana State Police assurances of July 17, 2018, it appears no substantive action was taken on the Public Records Act request on the following work days: July 17-July 20; July 23-July 27; July 30-August 3; August 3-August 6. 1 0. On August 6, 2018, having heard nothing from the Louisiana State Police, Mr. Most sent an email inquiring as to the status of his Public Records Act request. More than two months had transpired since the initial request and still no responsive records had been made available. See EX. G. 1 1. Louisiana State Police responded on August 6, 2018. See id. This email disclosed that the search for records had not even started. Id. (?Once the search starts . . . I will advise?). Indeed, the email did not even promise to begin the search at any ?xed time; rather, Louisiana State Police wrote hope that it will get started this week.? Id. (emphasis added). The language of this email is, at best, in tension with the Louisiana State Police?s July 17, 2017 representation that it was ?resum[ing] efforts on conducting the search.? 12. A week later, on August 13 2018, Louisiana State Police wrote that the agency had segregated all of the responsive records. Louisiana State Police provided a detailed table indicating the number of segregated records that it had identi?ed corresponding with each of the racial slurs or far-right requested. Speci?cally, Louisiana State Police answered that it had identi?ed the following records: Hits Mailboxes Keyword 144469 I 2122 MONKEY 60670 1691 WATERMELON 9512 965 6948 1240 ALT-RIGHT 6948 1240 PEPE 2042 417 173 9 220 NIGGER 1456 i 263 CHIMP 557 157 CHIMPANZEE 550 165 57 26 YOUR However, having identi?ed, located, and segregated the records responsive to Mr. Most?s request, the Louisiana State Police then denied Mr. Most access to any of the records, claiming that ?to complete the review necessary to protect non public portions of these emails is too overly burdensome [Sic] to complete.? Id. 13. Mr. Most wrote back later on August 13, 2018, offering, to compromise by narrowing his request to 3% of the responsive records (tie, to seek access only to a subset of those emails containing the racial slurs and of greatest interest to him). Speci?cally, Mr. Most offered to limit his request to those emails containing the words ?Pepe,? ?red pill,? ?nigger,? ?9 CC- ?chirnp,? ?chimpanzee,? ?white genocide,? ?love your face, race traitor,? and ?we wuz kangs.? The resulting request limited the scope of the records Mr. Most sought to review to mere hundreds of records (as opposed to the many thousands of records segregated in response to Mr. Most?s request of May 25, 2018). EX. 1. 14. On August 14, 2018, Louisiana State Police Responded: ?William: The fact that you have reduced an unreasonably request does not transform it to reasonable or not burdensome . . . Your request is denied.? Id. 1 5 . Mr. Most responded later on August 14, 2018 as follows: Faye, In that case, will you please review and send me the emails from ?white genocide? and down? (Surely reviewing 111 [mailboxes] will not ?shut your of?ce down.?) And then we?ll do some research on our end about burden and f1 gure out whether a lawsuit will be needed for the remainder. . . . Thank you, William.2 2 Mr. Most actually overstated the size of the modest request. Although the requested terms appeared 111 times in the requested records, in fact there were only 64 records containing the 5 See EX. J. In asking for ?the emails from ?white genocide? and down,? this August 14, 2018 email asked Louisiana State Police to begin producing records containing four (4) of the nine (9) contained in the already limited August 13, 2018 request. 1 6. That afternoon, the Louisiana State Police wrote: ?William: I can live with that request . . . . Will get someone on this review ASAP. fdm.? Id. 17. Having heard nothing the following week, Mr. Most Wrote to Louisiana State Police on August 20, .2018: ?Faye, What?s the ETA on those emails? Thank you! William.? EX. 1 8. Louisiana State Police responded on August 22, 2018, indicating that the records from the 64 mailboxes identi?ed in Mr. Most?s August 14, 2018 email were copied to a ?ash-drive and would be mailed to Mr. Most. Importantly, despite Louisiana State Police claims that ?protecting[ing] non public portions of the emails [would be] too overly burdensome,? there was not a single piece of non?public private information redacted from any of the records 64 that was intentionally redacted. EX. L. 9. On August 27, 2018, Mr. Most inspected-the disclosed records. Included in the 64 records were ?ve (5) emails with a Subject Line reading ?Emailing: ?ill list of antifadoex? or Emailing: full list of antifadocx?. See EX. M. The emails all contained no text in the body of the correspondence, but attached to each of the emails was a Microsoft Word document entitled ?full list of antifa.docx?. The emails in question are as follows: FROM: Troy Dupuis TO: Steven McGovern DATE: Aug 21, 20l7, FROM: Steven McGovern TO: Rock Schexnaydre; Chuck McNeal CC: Lamar Davis DATE: Aug. 21,2017, FROM: Rock Schexnaydre TO: Steve Woodring four phrases ?white genocide,? ?love your face,? ?we wuz kangs,? or ?race traitor.? Some records contained multiple iterations of the same phrase. Additionally, some of the records appeared, in duplicate, in multiple mailboxes, so in fact there Were fewer than 64 unique records. 6 DATE: Aug. 21, 2017, FROM: Steve McGovern TO: DATE: Aug. 21, FROM: SteVe McGovern TO: Erin Vaugh DATE: Aug 21, 2017 See EX. M. The recOrds provided to Mr. Most did not include the actual document attached to the emails (despite the fact that the requested far-r1 was contained in the attachment, not the body of the email). Id. 20. The omission of the ?ve attachments was apparently inadvertent. Mr. Most immediately wrote Louisiana State Police on August 27, 2018 and asked for the record. Despite the purportedly detailed review that had delayed the disclosure of the records, Louisiana State Police responded: will positively look into the antifa.docx. I have no idea what it is but I Will ?nd out.? See EX. N. 21. Later in the day, Louisiana State Police responded: ?the information I am getting on the document is that it was provided to LSP by a Cl during an investigation. I have looked at it and appears to be from an outside source. I am trying to justify release to you but do not want to jeopardize an investigation. I am working on getting additional information and will do what I can do legally to let you have a peek at it. the other part is making certain that release does not tend to identify a con?dential source. Those are my two concerns. I?d like to work through them with you. Thanks. fdm? See EX. 0. 22. Because there were signi?cant quantities of other records responsive to Mr. Most?s initial request that Louisiana State Police was still refusing to disclose,3 undersigned counsel began 3 Because it bears on the question of whether Louisiana State Police has acted improperly in response to Mr. Most?s Public Records Act request, see La. RS. 44:3 (providing $100 per day damages for certain violations), the court should be aware of the ongoing dif?culty securing other records responsive to Mr. Most?s initial request. . Speci?cally, after the Louisiana State Police agreed to provide the ?rst 64 records (including the ?full list of antifadocx? attachment that still has not been provided) on August 14, 2018 (see 1111 15, 16), discussion turned to disclosure of records containing the next ?ve (5) requested search terms (approx. 800 records). Louisiana State Police initially insisted, on August 22, 2018, that it was ?overly burdensome? to review just these records. But see Johnson v. City 7 handling communications with Louisiana State Police as counsel for Mr. Most on August 27, 2018. In an email to undersigned counsel on August 28, 2018, Louisiana State Police clari?ed that it was no longer interested in ?let[ting] [Mr Most] have a peek at [the ?full list of antifadocx? record].? Speci?cally, Louisiana State Police wrote: I have since learned that the document at issue is part of an ongoing criminal investigation. It was provided by a Con?dential Informant and release of the document would have the potential to undermine the investigation and may potentially identify the Con?dential Informant. As such, this document is not considered public under La. R.August 29, 2018, in an effort to avoid litigation over the issue, undersigned counsel wrote Louisiana State Police to clarify whether some compromise might be possible. Undersigned counsel wrote: [C]an you please state the legal basis for denying Mr. Most's request for the record containing the requested search terms that appears to be the "list of antifadocx" attachment? Is it your position that no amount of redaction would allow us to View the document? See EX. U. 24. Louisiana State Police responded on August 29, 2018 this time clarifying that (contrary to its earlier assertion) the record was not exempt from disclosure under La; R.S. With respect to the antifadoc, as I advised yesterday [via telephone], the document at issue is part of an ongoing criminal investigation. It was provided by a Con?dential Informant and release of the document would have the potential to undermine the investigation and may potentially identify the Con?dential Informant. As such, this document is not considered public under La. R.S. and (2). Yesterday, 1 was thinking (3) as well but 1 and 2 are applicable. It was sent among LSP investigators for law enforcement ofPinevilZe, 9 So.3d 313 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2009) (granting relief in case involving request for 13,574 requested emails); Vandenweghe v. Parish ofJe?erson, 70 So.3d 51, 53 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (rejecting suggestion that request for over 25,000 emails was overbroad); Esmcm v. Cannizzaro, Case No. 17-4661 Civ. Dist. Ct., Orleans Parish (Order, July 11, 2017) (rejecting ?unduly burdensome? argument in ?fake subpoena? case wherein search has now cost $118,656 and required more than 4,000 man?hours by over 100 employees). Then, when Mr. Most offered to reduce his request even further, Louisiana State Police refused to say whether it was accepting Mr. Most? compromise or denying his request despite repeated emails soliciting a ?yes? or ?no? answer, despite at least four (4) emails expressly requesting such an answer. The game of cat-and?mouse continued until Mr. Most retained outside counsel and threatened to ?le suit, at which time Louisiana State Police immediately changed its position and announced it would not be ?unduly burdensome? to process Mr. Most?s request. See Exs. P, Q, R, S, T. Despite the Louisiana State Police?s earlier insistence that it could not possibly process Mr. Most?s compromise request, the agency now represents it will have little trouble completing its review of the documents within two weeks. 8 purposes. The fact of its existence and that we have it is protected at this time. No redaction will cure that. See EX. V. 25. Undersigned counsel made one ?nal attempt to avoid litigation later that afternoon: I do have a concern with respect to the ?complete list of antifadocx". As you are aWare, there is no "ongoing criminal investigation" exception to the PRA. The question is whether the'record pertains to "criminal litigation that is reasonably anticipated." We are relatively certain we know what the document is: a supposed "list of Antifa? ?rst posted on the conspiracy theory website SChan in August 2017, the day before [Sic] the emails you've previously disclosed. (Here?s the Neo- Nazi website "Stormfront" promoting the document shortly before your LSP emails begin; perhaps that's where your con?dential informant found it If the LSP is actually using this for a criminal investigation wherein "criminal litigation is reasonably anticipated," 1 am truly horri?ed, because it suggests LSP takes this kind of thing seriously. But I suspect that is not at all the case: I suspect your "Con?dential Informant" is more likely just a far-right sympathizer with connections to LSP who forwarded it on to people that he/she knows on LSP. The fact that it is making the rounds amongst high?ranking LSP of?cials is noteworthy, itself, but I would ask you to strongly reconsider whether it is truly impossible to redact this information so as not to reveal the identity of your "Con?dential Informant" or whether LSP is really claiming it is going to use this for reasonably anticipated criminal litigation. My sense is that it would de?nitely not by in LSP's interest to take that stance in any of?cial capacityhours later, Louisiana State Police has not revisited its denial of Mr. Most?s request. 27. The email to Louisiana State Police quoted Supra 25) includes an informed guess as to the provenance of the list the release of which Louisiana State Police insists ?ha[s] the potential to undermine? forthcoming criminal litigation. To be clear, Mr. Most does not know exactly what is in the withheld record, but he seeks con?rmation of his suspicion (based on strong circumstantial evidence) that Louisiana State Police?s purported ??ill list of antifa? is nothing more than a bogus dossier promoted by Neo-Nazi conspiracy theorists targeting private citizens for lawful First Amendment activity. On August 14, 2017, days after the ?Unite the Right? rally in Charlottesville, VA during which anti?fascist protestor Heather Heyer was murdered, the far-right conspiracy theory website ?8Chan? published what was purported to be a ?Full list of Antifa members.? See 9 10404804hun1 (Aug. 14, 2017). The list included thousands of names of regular Americans with no connection whatsoever to any political organization; most of the names on the list were simply signatories of a public, online anti-Trump petition. Ali Breland, Trump Supporters Dig Up Personal Information on Thousands of rump Opponents, Sept. 21, 2017, THE HILL, at goo. In the ensuing days, however, far-right websites promoted the ?ctitious unmasking of ?Antifa.? For instance, the poster ?SISwaffen? on the pOpular Neo- Nazi website STORMFRONT announced that ?Schan just started doxing Antifa members? on August 18, 2017, prompting dozens of enthusiastic racist replies over the coming days. See The website which promotes National Socialist fraternity, promoted the story the following week. See ?Leaked ANTIFA Membership list! Lots of School Teachers! And assorted degenerates,? at In September 2017 BUZZFEED NEWS published a partial chronology of how the bogus document initially came into existence, ?began traveling around the dark corners of the internet around April [2017]?, and eventually surfaced in its present form. See Ryan Broderick, ramp Supporters Quietly Built a Massive List With the Personal Information of Thousands of People, BUZZFEED NEWS Sept. 21, 2017, at goo. gl/J9wH8u; see also Ali Breland, rump Supporters Dig Up Personal Information on Thousands of ramp Opponents, Sept. 21, 2017, THE HILL, at goo. gl/thm9C. The first Louisiana State Police emails with the ?full list of antifadocx? attachment began circulating the morning of August 21, 2017, three days of the Neo-Nazi website STORMFRONT began promoting the 8Chan ?Full list of antifa members.? Another reason Mr. Most believes that the Louisiana State Police ?full list of antifa.docx? report is, in fact, based on the 8Chan ?Full list of antifa members? dossier is that it surfaced within Louisiana State Police?s email server in response to a search query for four far-right ?white genocide,? ?love your face,? ?race traitor,? and ?we wuz kangs.? None of 4 A sampling of the STORMFRONT responses includes: 0 ?We are de?nitely in a race war now. We are also at war with inferior, crazy, seleCted communist whites.? ?All anti-white racist domestic terrorist should be identi?ed. They should have Federal charges.? 0 ?Reads like names from a Jewish telephone book.? 10 these phrases appear in the body of the emails turned over to Mr. Most, meaning that at least one of the appears Within the ?full list of antifadocx? attachment itself. Conspicuously, the term ?white genocide? appear as a comment on the 8Chan ?Full list of antifa members? posted on August 18, 2017. See (?All these were to be sacri?ced by the jews to be massacred by heavily armed militia . . . all to get Trump out of of?ce and to continue white genocide?). This is consistent with Mr. Most?s informed belief that the Louisiana State Police intelligence report?supposedly supplied by a Con?dential informant and now Circulating amongst high-level Louisiana State Police investigators_is simply a modi?ed version of the 8Chan dossier. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMU 1. The right to examine public documents is constitutionally protected under the guaranteed ?right to direct participation? under Article 12 section 3 of the Louisiana Constitution. Under this provision, person shall be denied the right to observe the deliberation of public bodies and examine public documents, except in cases established by law.? 2. The Louisiana Supreme Court has repeatedly and emphatically adopted a broad reading of Article 12 section 3: Th[is'] provision of the constitution must be construed liberally in favor of free and unrestricted access to the records, and that access can be denied only when a law, speci?cally and unequivocally, provides otherwise. Whenever there is doubt as to Whether the public has the right of access to certain records, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the public?s right to see. To allow otherwise would be an improper and arbitrary restriction on the public's constitutional rights. In Re Matter Under Investigation, 15 So.3d 972, 989 (La. 2009) (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted); see also Capital City Press v. East Baton Rouge Parish Metropolitan Council, 696 So.2d 562, 564 (La. 1997); Title Research Corporation v. Rausch, 450 So.2d 933, 936 (La. 1984). I 3. The provisions of the Public Records Act, La. RS. 44:1 et seq, implement this constitutional right and create an enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance. In enacting these provisions, the legislature did not intend to qualify or limit the constitutional right of access. Landis v. Moreau, 779 So.2d 691, 694-95 (La. 2001); see also Treadway v. Jones, 583 ll So.2d HQ, 121 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1990) (?The Public Records Law must be liberally interpreted to enlarge rather than restrict the public's access to public records?) On the contrary, ?[t]he legislature, by the public records statutes, sought to guarantee, in the most expansive and unrestricted way possible, the right of the public to inspect and reproduce those records which the laws deem to be public.? Landis v. Moreau, 779 So.2d at 936 (quoting irle ReSearch Corp. v. Rausch, 450 So.2d at with its constitutional counterpart, all doubts regarding public records under the statute ?must be resolved in favor of the right of access.? [51.5 4. Defendant has completely withheld access to hundreds of records responsive to the Plaintiff?s initial and modi?ed request, but this lawsuit deals only with the inspection of ?ve (5) speci?c records, the attachments to the ?ve emails identi?ed in ?l19 of this Petition. Defendant has withheld these records after months of arbitrary and capricious stalling and delay; ?rst negligently, apparently, then intention-ally; despite multiple offers by Mr. Most to accept redacted portions of the record; and notwithstanding good-faith pre?litigation efforts by Mr. Most to explain to Louisiana State Police why the records are not exempt from disclosure. 5. The Louisiana State Police ?rst claims that the records are exempt ?om disclosure under La. RS. which provides an exemption for ?Records containing the identity of a con?dential source of information or records which would tend to reveal the identity of a con?dential source?of information.? See La. RS. Louisiana State Police has said there is no way to redact the records to eliminate this concern. 5 I1: is precisely because the right of public access is deemed so fundamental that requests like this one are treated with urgency: In any case in which a record is requested and a question is raised by the custodian of the record as to whether it is a public record, such custodian shall within three days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays, of the receipt of the request, in writing for such record, notify in writing the person making such request of his determination and the reasons therefor. Such written noti?cation shall contain a reference to the basis under law which the custodian has determined exempts a- record, or any part thereof, from inspection, copying, or reproduction. La. RS. After ?ve days, a person who has been denied the right to inspect or copy records, either by the agency?s ?nal determination or by the passage of time, may institute expedited proceedings for the issuance of a writ of mandamus and attorney?s fees and costs. La. R.S. Any lawsuit instituted under these provisions must be ?tried by preference and in a summary manner.? La. RS. This lawsuit, therefore, must be ?conducted with rapidity,? and ?by preference over ordinary proceedings.? La. CC. P. art. 2591, 2595. 12 Louisiana courts subject to careful scrutiny claims under La. RS. that records are exempt from the Public Records Act to protect con?dential informants. In the leading case on the topic, the Louisiana Supreme Court explained: [We feel compelled to make the further observation that access to such reports may not be blocked by a simple statement from. one of the investigators that persons furnishing information were assured of con?dentiality. To permit such actions by the Attorney General or any other of?cial would be, in effect, to allow bureaucratic procedures to abrogate the intent and purpose of the Public Records Act. We repeat that the act protects the identity of the confidential informant. We define a ?confidential informant? as one who has or claims to have knowledge of a particular criminal matter or event and is only Willing to give such information to representatives of a law enforcement agency provided his identity is kept secret or in con?dence. Fryar v. ,Guste, 371 So.2d 742, 745 (La. 1979) (emphasis added) (ordering disclosure of records); see also Freeman Guaranty Broadcasting Corp, 498 So.2d 218, 224 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1986) (holding that La. does not exempt records from disclosure ?when the law enforcement agency or informant [has already] publicly release[d] the identity of the Here, the Louisiana State Police has not asserted that the source of the ?full list of antifadocx? is an individual who. (1) has or claims to have knowledge of a particular criminal matter or event; (2) was only willing to give such information to representatives of a law enforcement agency provided his identity is kept secret. Indeed, it seems highly unlikely that such a privilege would protect the source of the withheld record, because there does not appear to be any ?particular criminal matter or event? referenced by the document. If the Louisiana State Police asserts that the source of the document meets the legal de?nition of a ?Con?dential Informant? established in ryar v. Guste for Public Records Act purposes, that claim should be subject to careful scrutiny at an adversarial proceeding. 6. The other basis Louisiana State Police has cited for withholding the record is that it is exempt pursuant to La. RS. which exempts from disclosure ecords pertaining to pending criminal litigation or any criminal litigation which can be reasonably anticipated.? 6 It is not entirely clear whether the Louisiana State Police has already publicly identi?ed the informant. The ?rst email containing the list was sent by Troy Dupuis; if that is the individual whose identity Louisiana State Police is ostensibly protecting, Freeman v. Guaranty Broadcasting Corp. makes clear that the defendant cannot rely on La. R.S. to justify its nondisclosure. 13 Again, Louisiana courts have made clear that a record is not exempt from disclosure under RS. merely because, as Louisiana State Police claims here, it may be somehow connected with an ongoing criminal investigation. Rather, whether a record ?pertain[s] to . . . any criminal litigation which can be reasonabiy anticipated? is a fact-specific determination that ?requires more than a judicial acceptance of an assertion of privilege by the [state actor].? Cormier V. In re: Public Records Request of Giulio, 553 So.2d 806, 807 (La. 1989). ?Criminal litigation?means ?an adversarial contest begun by formal accusation and waged in judicial proceedings in the name of the State, by the district attorney against the defendant.? Nix Daniel, 669 So.2d 573 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1996). The determination ?must be made on a case?by- case basis in the context of a contradictory hearing wherein the opportunity to present evidence and cross?examine witnesses is present.? In re Matter Under Investigation, 15 So.3d 972, 992 (La. 2009). At this contradictory hearing, the court must be. guided by ?objective factors? including: whether criminal litigation may still be initiated given the prescriptive period of the offense to be charged; the temporal and procedural posture of each case; whether criminal litigation has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled; the assertion of the prosecutorial authority as to its intent or lack thereof to initiate criminal litigation; whether the prosecutorial authority has taken objective, positive and veri?able steps to preserve its ability to initiate criminal litigation, including, but not limited to, preserving evidence, maintaining contact with witnesses, and continuing an investigation; the time it would take to appropriately investigate and try an offense; the prosecutor's inherent authority to determine whom, when and how he will prosecute, art. 61; the severity of the crime; the availability of witnesses, Victims and defendants; the spoilation of evidence; the reasonable likelihood . that a missing witness or an absconded defendant might be found; and the reasonable likelihood that additional witnesses might be willing to come forward with the passage of time. As always, the burden of proving that the record is not subject to inspection, copying, or reproduction by a member of the public rests with the custodian. La. R.S. 4431(3). Id. If the ?hill list of antifadocx? remotely resembles the document it is suspected to be, there is no way it pertains to ?reasonably anticipated? criminal litigation. The document does not identify any criminal offenses or anyone known to be a Louisiana person. Indeed, it claims to identify the membership of an organization (?Antifa?) that does not exist. It is a dossier of private citizens who have committed no offense other than to engage in core First Amendment activity and have been targeted by neo?Nazis; now, it appears, they are being targeted by the Louisiana State Police as well. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays: 14 1. That a writ of mandamus be issued directing Defendant to disclose the records requested, or Show cause why they should not be ordered to do so; 2. Declaratory relief that the Defendant?s conduct in this case violated the Public Records Act, and injunctive relief ordering prospective compliance with the same; 3. For an award of attorney?s fees and other costs of litigation. 4. Civil penalties not to exceed one hundred dollars per day, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays for each day the custodian arbitrarily or capriciously has withheld the requested record or unreasonably or arbitrarily failed to respond to Mr. Most?s request as required by La. R.S. 44:32. See La. R.S. 5. All other general and equitable relief this Honorable Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted, Thdmas Frampton #35775 Climenko Fellow Lecturer on Law Harvard Law School Griswold Hall 106 Cambridge, MA 02138 tframpton@law.harvard.edu 202.352.8341 Af?liation for identi?cation only PLEASE SERVE: Kevin W. Reeves Custodian of Records Louisiana State Police 7919 Independence Blvd. Baton Rouge, LA 70806 15 NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT STATE OF LOUISIANA WILLIAM MOST Plaintiff V. Civil Action No. KEVIN W. REEVES, in his of?cial capacity as Custodian of Records for the Louisiana State Police, Defendant 4: Before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally came and appeared: Thomas W. Frampton who, after being duly sworn, did depose and say that he is currently representing William Most in the above captioned civil action, that he has read the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and that all of the allegations contained therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and beliefThomas Frampton Date Sworn to and subscribed before me, the Notary Publlc, on the SQ day of ,Axugobk? ,2018. ?gj?/Q 3s 0 . tary Public ?0~r a 2' rI [593? 0895 0805 l6 NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DESTRICT COURT STATE OF LOUISIANA WILLIAM MOST 7" Plaintiff v. Civil Action No. KEVIN W. REEVES, in his of?cial capacity as Custodian of Records for the Louisiana State Police, Defendant $64696 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED TO PRODUCE PUBLIC RECORDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC RECORDS Ag, Considering the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Declaratory, and Injunctive Relief: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant cause on the day of 2018 at why he should not be ordered to provide the records sought by Plaintiff in this matter; IT is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant further show cause on the above stated date and time Why judgment should not be rendered against him for attorney?s fees and costs of this civil action, as well as any civil penalties provided for by law. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this day of 2018. District Judge Competency 17 EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EX. EXHIBITS A (PRA Request, May 25, 2018) (Emails, June 4, 2018) (Letter, June 12, 2018) D. (Email, June 12, 2018) (Report and Order, June 17, 2018) (Emails, July 17, 2018) (Emails, August 6, 2018) (PRA Search Results Denial, August 13, 2018) (Emails, August 13?14, 2018) (Emails, August 14, 2018) (Email, August 20, 2018) (Email, August 22, 2018) M. (Public Records Disclosed, originally sent August 21, 2017) (Email, August 27, 2018) 0 (Email, August 27, 2018) (Email, August 27, 2018) (Email, August 28, 2018) (Email, August 28, 2018) (Email, August 28, 2018) (Email, August 28, 2018) (Email, August 29, 2018) (Email, August 29, 2018) (Email, August 29, 2018) EX. A (PRA Request, May 25, 2018) Law Office of William Most 201 St. Charles Ave, Ste. 114, 101 0 New Orleans, LA 70170 (504) 509-5023 williammost@gmail.com misiana State Police May 25, 2018 Via email Faye.Morrison@la.gov Re: Public Records Act Request To Whom It May Concern, Pursuant the Louisiana Public Records Act, La. R.S.44: 1, 61?5qu I am writing to request the following categories of documents: 1. Any correspondence, including emails, from, to, or between employees of the Louisiana State Police that include one or more of the following words or phrases: ?Alt-right? ?Alt right? ?Watermelon? ?Love your race? ?Pepe? ?Safari? ?Nigger? ?Race traitor? G?Red Pill,? ?Monkey? ?We wuz kangs? CGChimp39 ?Chimpanzee? ?White genocide? Under the provisions of RS. 44:32, if you raise a question as to whether the record requested is a public record, you are required to notify in writing the person making the request Al your determination and the reasons, including the legal basis, therefor. Said notice shall be made Within three days of the receipt of the request, exclusive of weekends and public holidays. Under the provisions of RS. 44:33, if the public record is not immediately available you are required to certify this in writing in your certi?cate ?x a day and hour within three days, exclusive of weekends and public holidays. If all or part of the request is denied, please provide the name, address, and telephone number of the agency of?cial responsible for the denial, and the of?cial responsible for the appeals of denied requests. Also, if portions of the requested records are exempt from release, I request that all reasonably segregable, nonexempt portions of those records be released. In . addition, if records are withheld, I request that you speci?cally identify those records by providing a list of records being withheld with an accompanying explanation of the exemptions being used to withhold the requested records. This list should include the title and brief description of each of the withheld records, any date or dates associated with each of the withheld records, and a list of attachments, appendices, amendments or other materials included with each of the withheld records. If your search fails to identify the requested records, I ask that you (1) describe in detail the search procedure, including the information about the ?les that were searched, (2) identify the person or persons who conducted the search, and (3) explain why a more comprehensive search of your of?ces would be unreasonable. Per RS I request a waiver of any and all costs associated with the satisfaction of this request. Please advise me of any informational or other procedural requirements that you may have in order for this request to qualify for a fee waiver. If you are unable to provide a fee waiver, please notify me in advance of any payment required before incurring the cost. I am requesting electronic copies of any of the above-referenced documents. Upon identifying the records, please contact me at williarnmost?zlgmailcom or (504) 509?5023 to make plans to inspect and copy the records. Thank you for your help and cooperation with this request. Sincerely . g; .5 :gfie E?Ea?rrwm fajj?g?? 2: gar? William Most EX. (Emails, June 4, 2018) On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Faye Morrison wrote: ldid not see your 5/25 email to that was sent after hours. i apologize for the delay in responding. i am not the custodian of the records you seek. assist the records custodians with requests but i am not the custodiari of the records you seek. The only records over which i am custodian are those maintaiced by the office of iegal affairs. That being said, i wiil route your request for handiiog. Based on what i see, it appears that you are asking for ali employees? emaiis to be searched for an indefinite amount of time forthe search terms. is that correct? From: M. Sqawsan Barner Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 11:39 AM To: Faye Morrison Cc: William Most Subject: Re: PRA Request Hello Faye, I hope you're well this morning. i am emailing to follow up on this PRA request. As you know, a pubiic entity has three days to respond to a PRA request if the entity has any reason to believe the records in question are not public records. RS. 44:32. It has beer: four full business days since the request was made. When can we expect a response to the request? Feel free to call me it necessary: 5- 612-8020. Best, Meghsha Bamer Law Of?ce oi William Most, LLC EX. (Letter, June 12, 2018) 3222222522 E822i22222 8:222 22 2222?. 2322222; {222222222 ?22222722282 522222222 2 .. 22222322222222.2222 ?8?222222222222 23592252222 3852222 8222? 522222222 22'222 2 23223222: 222222 22222222223822 June i2. 2918 GLAIPDM 1 8?2 1263 M2. Mast V28 wiilimestg?ggmaii?em RE: M832 25- 22318 2222828: records 282188.31 28 38 $8208 OLA File 85 828$ 362$ Mi. M032: is 'm rssgiensa ?tCe your ysb?c 2820255 for 8222' smaiis. ?20m t0 b?twses 8222;103:2683 8f the LSP 3:333? {2226 or mom 0? {has feiiewing words 01' phrases; 832:- iight, 812 righ?i, 82.828222222212322 i028 328222" 2803. ivnch. 92226: safari, 22222?, 2888 22821202. 223d 2228222822. 2222 222228 kangs 0:282:23, chimyanzee, 22222126 gsnoci?e. it 88:; 882222. 28 82} 2882 32 0.12 f?pf?S??t Blair ?82882 2222 E28828. at 82 Ci?ty {2238208 Raga at 813 :i7?cswii?439- in tile i822?suii {wading 222 Eil? U?i?i?i?i Swiss ?ismst C8122: {232? the 325152828 Bistrici? 0f L08i5i888.?081' public rewards request appears dirsctiy I?iai?? ?20 the 228822812 sf {2282 ?rst 282288222 is 328?: is 2813263822266 83' camisei, Mr. Dennis- P12285282 8:81 2282' {13:22:62 262.2282: with iaiated 222 ?825: iigaiien may be i?a?p20??at? Aciditismiiv it is my sn?srstanding' 1:222 in the iiagaii 8:2 is Easing 388g: 8228 i 828 cencemed 1:882; iitiga?oa 22282221 eutside: his owrsight 122,22 be considered 88 888mg}: 23 circumveni the discovery 33286635 1 83% 2.1182 3288 (iiraci 88} ?s?fher rsia?ieei ii?gaiias 28 Dennis ifyeii ha 228 8223 8228380223. pieass de 2102; hesitate to. 8982832 828 82 {2.25} 325?6133 {32' via ?i??ii 8,2 2 af?igg?f?ia??pg?} 4% .. With kindast professionai regar?s, i am, G?ice 3f 2.2222 ?888 Ce: 222222 E28328: 52222222232 2 22:22: 22:22 2 32232252? ?.222 23222222 ?22222222222222 22222322822822? F. 52332 2223532 2i .. 7232332 EX. D. (Emai1,June 12, 2018) From: William Most Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 11:19 AM To: Gaytha Christmas Cc: Dennis Phayer; Faye Morrison; 38 Slaton; John Adcock; M. Sqawsan Barner; Michelle Rutherford Subject: Re: Emailing: William Most LSP emails Mr. Phayer and Ms. Morrison, I appreciate you reaching out to me with your concerns. 1 am con?dent, however, that this Public Records Act request is not barred by Imani for three reasons. First, the PRA request isn't relevant to any claims in lmani. The PRA request asks for emails containing speci?c white supremacist and racist terminology. Imani, however, has no claim for discrimination on the basis of race. You may be thinking of some of the MacArthur Justice Center's cases, which do have racial discrimination claims; our case does not. (Frankly, if we were to request these documents in discovery in lmani, I would expect you to object on the basis of relevance.) Second, while you are correct that the judges in Imani are "overseeing" discovery, they explicitly ruled that written discovery between plaintiffs and LSP may proceed. lmani, R. Doc, 118 at 13 ("the court will allow such written discovery to proceed") So even if this were related to the litigation, it would not be barred. And third, the Fifth Circuit has explicitly rejected the idea that litigation stops a party from conducting public records requests. RSR Corp. v. Brock, 764 F. 2d 355 (5th Cir. 1985) ("We certainly did not hold in Murdock, however, that the existence of the discovery provision of the Federal Rules precluded resort to the FOIA as an alternative means of obtaining the documents); see also the Seventh Circuit's broad survey in American Bank v. City of Menasha, 627 F. 3d 261 (7th Cir. 2010) The case law uniformly refuses to define requests for access to federal or state public records under public records laws (such as the federal Freedom of Information Act and state public records laws including Wisconsin's) as discovery demands, even when as in this case the request is made for the purpose of obtaining information to aid in a litigation and is worded much like a discovery demand") Finally, you alluded to the idea that me sending a public records request to Mr. Slaton might be inappropriate. As you know, Louisiana Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 only bars contact with an employee of a represented entity if the employee (1) supervises, directs or regularly consults with the organization?s lawyer concerning the matter; (2) has the authority to obligate the organization with respect to the matter; or (3) whose act or omission in connection with the matter may be imputed to the organization for purposes of civil or criminal liability. I think it unlikely that Lt. Slaton meets those criteria; however, I am happy to defer to your assessment if you disagree. Please just let me know what of?cer I should send public records requests in the future. I am happy to discuss with you the scope and intent of the public records request, so we can ensure it is ful?lled it while also minimizing the burden on the State Police. I look forward to the prompt execution of this Public Records request. Please let us know if you have any other concerns or other questions. Thank you, William EX. (Report and Order, June 17, 2018) Case Deeumeet 12B 827317.318 Page 3, of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BLAIR IMANI, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. CITY OF BATON ROUGE, ET AL. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE REPORT AND ORDER A telephone conference was held before Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on July 17, with the following participants: PRESENT: William B. Most Courtney Humphrey John Adcock Counsel for defendants, Michelle M. Rutherford City of Baton Rouge, er Counsel for plaintiff, Blair lmani, er (11.1 Dennis J. Phayer Counsel for Louisiana Catherine St. Pierre State Police defendants Counsel for defendants, Sid J. Gautreaux, et at]. Craig E. Frosch Counsel for Louisiana Sheriffs? Association Defendants The parties discussed the Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiffs? Attorney Has Not Violated the Stay Order (the ?Motion?)2 filed by defendants, Sheriff Sid J. GautreauX, H1, in his of?cial capacity as Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish and AIX Group, doing business as Nova Casualty Company, Defendants?). 1 Meghsha Earner also participated in the call on behalf of plaintiffs; however, Ms. Barner has not enrolled as counsel in this matter. 2 R. Doc. 121. C: cv38a; Case Basement .126 Page 2 er 3 On May 14, 2018, this Court entered an Order staying all discovery between Plaintiffs and the EBRSO Defendants (the ?Stay Per their Motion, the EBRSO Defendants assert that after entry of the Stay Order, counsel for Plaintiffs sent a public records request to the East Baton Rouge Sheriff? Of?ce ?requesting correspondence, including e-mails that are directly relevant to the Plaintiffs? claims in this case.?4 During the telephone conference, counsel for Plaintiffs argued that the documents sought via the public records request were not particularly relevant to the instant lawsuit and that the weight of authority treats public records requests as separate and apart from discovery requests issued pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel for the EBRSO Defendants asserted that the information sought via the public records request could be relevant to Plaintiff?s claims of racist policies and procedures and that the request was meant to circumvent the Stay Order. Following additional discussion, counsel for the EBRSO Defendants agreed that if someone who was not involved in this lawsuit had sent?the public records request, the request would be proper. Counsel for the EBRSO Defendants stated that if counsel for Plaintiffs agreed to not use the documents produced in response to the public reCOrds request in this litigation, the East Baton Rouge Sheriff Of?ce would not object to responding to the request. Plaintiffs and the EBRSO Defendants agreed that the East Baton Rouge Sheriff Of?ce would respond to the public records request and would label documents produced in response to the public records request to so indicate. The parties further agreed that should Plaintiffs wish to use documents produced in response to the public records request in this lawsuit, Plaintiffs would 3 R. Doc. 118, p. 1 IS HEREBY ORDERED that discovery in this matter, with the exception of written discovery between Plaintiffs and the non-moving defendants (126., parties other than EBRSO Defendants), is STAYED pending resolution of the issues raised in the Motion to Dismiss?). 4R. Doc. 121, p. 1. C: cv38a; i Case Document 126 :G?l?iS Page 3 e? 3 make a discovery request for such documents pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if and when discovery is opened. Based on the agreement of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiffs? Attorney Has Not Violated the Stay Order-?7 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 17, 2018. ?m Ui?dm 'Agiwh ERIN WILDER-DOONIES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 Doc. 121. C: cv38a; EX. (Emails, July 17, 2018) 8/30l2018 Gmail - Fwd: Imani PRA request Thomas Frampten Fwd: lmani PRA request 7 William Most Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 8:27 AM To: Thomas Frampton Forwarded message From: Faye Morrison Date: Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:05 PM Subject: RE: lmani PRA request To: William Most Cc: ?Dennis Phayer William: we will resume e?erts en cendectieg the search. advise if we need te earrew sccpe. From: William Most Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 11:31 AM To: Dennis Phayer Cc: M. Sqawsan Barner; Faye Morrison; John Adcock; Michelle Rutherford Subject: Re: imani PRA request Dennis, Based on Judge Wilder-Doomes ruling this morning, I presume that LSP will provide documents responsive to the Public Records request. is that right? Can your clients provide an estimate of when that will be? We will honor with LSP the same agreement as with EBRSO - that any documents that plaintiffs intend to use in Imam; they will separately make discovery requests for. If the search turns up an excessive number of documents, l'm happy to discuss modifying the scope of the PRA: Thank you, William [Quoted text hidden] 1/1 EX. (Emails, August 6, 2018) From: William Most Sent: Monday, August 06, 2018 9:17 AM To: Faye Morrison Cc: M. Sqawsan Barner Subject: Re: PRA Request Faye, Under the public records law, if a record is not immediately available, it is to be provided within three business days. R.S. 44:33. And after ?ve business days, if a requestor has not been provided "an estimate of the time reasonably necessary for collection, segregation, redaction, examination, or review of a records request," the requestor can immediately ?le suit and receive penalties and attorneys fees. R.S. 44:35 (A). It's been three weeks since the judge issued her ruling, and you haven?t even begun searching"hope" that the search will begin this week? I am generally pretty forgiving about PRA schedules, but that strikes me as not even making a good faith attempt to comply with the law. Please give me an estimate of when the records will be available for review. Thank you, William On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Faye Morrison wrote: We were not gathertng during the interim that objected to the request as being part of the iawsuit you have against us. At this point, due to the rating of the judge on the City?s objectien, we are going to gather. Gnce the search starts and we see what it is returning, wilt advise. i hope that it wilt get started this week. From: William Most Sent: Monday, August 06, 2018 5:40 AM To: Faye Morrison Cc: M. Sqawsan Barner Subject: Re: PRA Request Faye, Where do we stand with this You told us you needed sixty days from June 5, and that time is up. Thank you, William EX. (PRA Search Results Denial, August 13, 2018) Forwarded message From: Faye Morrison Date: Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:58 PM Subject: RE: PRA Request To: William Most Co: Sqawsan Barner" JB Slaton William: "the search has been conducted and the resoit is very iarge. (32 GB) To complete the review necessary to protect non public portions of these emails is too overly burdensome to complete. 1 am providing you the preiiminary resorts of each query beiow to demonstrate the volume of your request. We are denying your request at this time as overiy burdensome. de Keyword Hits Mailboxes 144469 2122 MONKEY 60670 1691 WATERMELON 9512 965 6948 1240 6948 1240 PEPE 2042 417 1739 220 NIGGER 1456 263 CHIMP 557 157 550 165 57 26 YOUR EX. I (Emails, August 13?14, 2018) On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Faye Morrison wrote: William: The fact that you have reduced an unreasonable request does not transform it to reasonable or not burdensome. The volume is still huge. It will shut down my office to review what you are asking me to review. Your request is not a request for a particular identifiable document under the public records act. lt is a fishing expedition. I do not believe that the Public Records Act requires an agency to perform this type of search and review under the circumstances. We performed the search you requested and provided you with the preliminary results for your reference. However, the review necessary to make certain no non public documents are released is overly burdensome. The Public Records Act does foresee and allow for segregation of records where public records contain non-public information. La. R.S. La. R.S. Association for Rights of Citizens, Inc. v. Parish of 81?. Bernard, 557 So. 2d 714. Under the parameters of your request, the work necessary to review and redact the emails so that you may review them, is considered overly burdensome for the agency to perform. Please see Beckett v. Serpas, 112 So. 3d 348.?Your request is denied. From: William Most [mailtozwiliiammost@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 7:06 PM To: Faye Morrison Cc: M. Sqawsan Barner; JB Slaton Subject: Re: PRA Request Actualiy, how about Pepe down plus any emails containing both "monkey" and "watermelon." That should narrow it substantially. Thank you! William On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 5:10 PM, William Most wrote: agree that it would be overburdensome to review all of those. Perhaps there are people named which is generating all those hits. Why don't we just do from Pepe down? That's a 97% reduction in the work for you. EX. (Emails, August 14, 2018) 011 Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Faye Morrison wrote: William: I can iive with that request. 1 respectfuily disagree with your timing objection. get someone on this review ASAP. From: William Most [mailtozwiliiammost@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 9:20 AM To: Faye Morrison Cc: M. Sqawsan Earner; JB Slaton Subject: Re: PRA Request Faye, in that case, will you please review and send me the emails from "white genocide" and down? (Surely reviewing 111 emails will not "shut your office down") And then we?ll do some research on our end about burden and ?gure out whether a lawsuit will be needed for the remainder. While it is true that documents can be withheld if not public, you missed the deadline for raising that argument several months ago. Thank you, William EX. (Email, August 20,_ 2018) From: Wiliiam Most Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:28 PM To: Faye Morrison Cc: M. Sqawsan Earner; JB Slaton Subject: Re: PRA Request Faye, What's the ETA on those emails? Thank you! William EX. (Email, August 22, 2018) On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Faye Morrison wrote: They are ready. Do you wan? to come View them in person? Ne redaciions. From: William Most Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:28 PM To: Faye Morrison Cc: M. Sqawsan Bamer; JB Slaton Subject: Re: PRA Request Faye, What's the ETA on those emails? Thank you! William EX. M. (Public Records Disclosed, originally sent August 21, 2017) mama? gammy gamma? ?"3me .mdw. 9%me ?amnm? 3% Mmumw Mm? ?53$.me mum mm,? mm mama mm Wm Wm $de mam ?mmw?wmm ?mm mm. Em mm,? mm mammamnm 23me Mo ??3me 33$me ?mmw wmmammw mm 3%??me $3me ?mum mm ?mm m?mmw?m?m. mam?. .8 39m guwmm ?wax wmwmumm mm?? ?mum, ?muwgu Wm mgm?mwmh hm Magma m??w?m mm?? ?mammMm ?mwm? PM. $me W0 3 WE "mam Mm mmwm?m? Mamm mm m?m? mm .39., ?mm "mm?mm ?gm mmumm mam ?Mm gamma ??me mam? ?Ema Ememww? ?mw?mwmm W0 ?mm mum. Wm mm 33% ?Em "mm. Maw an? mam Am Emma wagon.? ?aw 5&0qu "?ux mama? ?$meme mum?Bax Muwmmw mwu wwuww an? an? 53%. mm?mw? mg" Em mm? mm mama? ?mew ?amm? Mmumw WE we? mm?mn? mam ?me om ?mam. mm a wm ?mm mm mum mm.? mm zmwm? .3 magma. gamma m?mw mam?am Ema unmamaw Q. ?mnm?mm nm?mma ?Qumw am 9me 3% @?mm Mm. mum mama? wwumw ME Mm" goomnmm mmem?w 3a? Mam mm.? mm mum mm mm Wand" mmemm mew wwuwm WE Mm? momw gnaw rm?mw mm?m m?m? mm? mm mdm? ?ow mm? wwumw mam mm? ?ammamwm mm?m?" mm? mm 45mm 93mm 8%?me 33$ka @3me Haw mm. $3?me mm mama.? Wan?. m?gmm Mm gamma. ma?a m?amn ?nmwamg Kmmumw ?~me WK Wm?mmw mam mm a W?m?w?mww? mam mm. mm Mammy? ?aw my. 3an ME mum mm.? mm gm?. mm Mm mm ?g mm mm. m?mmw?mmww mm 4m 99me 83%me ?Mammy @3me mamma?m ?mw. 0w ?mwmm?ww $3me 0% mm @3me Mm mm? ?mama my wwuwm wm? mm? A. mama whammy. mm?m 3mm? Mum mm 0% mm?m?o? Km mm? ??3me 3.0% mm?. wmumw w? Mm" ?4me mm warm. mm Hm mm ?mm 91%me mam mm? 3mm? 40 m??mm ?mw am, mm $3me mm?mmw Mm ??me mam mama? ?nm?mwm mm; mew mm? gnaw En?mmw mm" mm?m?m mm?83? mm." 3an Km Mm? mm?m$3me ?u mamm? n??m?mw m?wmm amw mm mm mm m?mmwammwm. ?wm?w ?mam. m?wm Mm ym? m?mnmm?mmwm mam mw ?mmuwm mm?? .mmom Mummu Wm m??mwm?m mm m?mhm?m mm?? ?mwm?mm memm?? mmwm? "?ax we. mam Mm m?m?m? ?g mm my, mm ?may ?gmm?am E, ?6 mm WE. ?ww?wm "aw ?q mag mam ?Mm Ema? @me 53? EX. (Email, August 27, 2018) 81?30/2018 Gmail - Public Records Compromise Thomas Frampton Public Records Compromise William Most Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:40 PM To: Thomas Frampton Forwarded message From: Faye Morrison Date: Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:06 PM Subject: RE: Public Records Compromise To: William Most i will eosi?riireiy look into the ae?faeecx. i have ea idea wear it is era? wili fled set. i are eels: the cesiediee fer Gr??ee of legal Affairs. The Ceienei is the ef?ciai easterlies e? all eise BEES ee?i he relies en {ire heads 9? size sec?ees re maiereie see gather. The emails are aereailig he? heesed at they are acreaiiy er?ee e? ieeiseelegy services which is rise emery the? res the search fer me. They beieeg ?e tire Divisiee e? Adminisrra?ee. i are bases is get see what year need on iris? earl; iiseeks. ides From: William Most Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 9:33 AM {Quoted text hidden] 1/1 EX. 0 (Email, August 27, 2018) 8/30/2018 Gmall Public Records Compromise Thomas Frampton qublioReoo-rds Compromise William Most Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:26 PM To: Thomas Frampton Forwarded message From: Faye Morrison Date: Mon, Aug 2018 at1:11 PM Subject: RE: Public Records Compromise To: William Most William: {he mfos?ma?jen i am gating on {he document is $13? it was pmvi?ed 3:0 by {l dur?eg an inves?ge?en. have looked as: it and appears to be from an eetslde source. 1 am frying to jusi?fy release yeu bu: {is :30? teen? to jeoeaz?d?ze an Enves?o'gai?on. 1 am waking ea gef?ng addi?one? infog?ma?en and will? do what 3 tea do lega??y to Set you have a peek at it. the other gear?: is making certain the}: release does no? tend to idee?fy a source. Those are my two concerns. l?d like :0 thmugh ihem wi??h yes. Theeks. From: William Most Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 9:33 AM {Quoted text hidden] . . 1/1 EX. (Email, August 27, 2018) 8130/2018 Mail - Most PRA Request Hampton, Thomas Ward trier; 8;2?;?28?i8 8:35 ?at Sen: items re:iayeh?iorrison?iiagoy ?i?ee $?2?52?i 3 ii?i?? are rezirarnpioo, ihemas Ward en: irerneien: ?r?en are cerreet teat i did ne?i eniriget dens en: seest?s etiereei to seinereinise eed reseise tins see. as; geei is to get west {neg need wiser: tees; reaite reenest.- inie eerie neser coedested tins tigee e? eeiere. are do not maintain tire emaiis nere at 25?. Eire? are mainteieed be tire Sieisien ei edreieistretien. tires eeieng is ere ernnio?gees, we were in as? teen?; re tenders tee seercii. signer: i agreed to de sire snert iisi enieiis, i did net knee; wear decnrnents wenid ieeir or if tees: wenici ee deernee reseensise. signer: i asses es, isiesi to ieei: at the resnense iirs?e en; geai eras te determiee ii size seereii we was nrier to agreeing re resiesv aeetiier sees ereeiis ei tine reseagers oest. resterdae i twise ire en. neesigs reeresenian?en the: ire weeid eernerernise tee and isetiz iirnes i indieated teat i woniei de wires i were in tire deenrneei end deierrniee weetner it sees i ease sinee iearnee tiiat size desen?ieni at issne is eer?r e? ee engeieg erireinai insestigeiien. ii: was ereeided er; a {en?dentiai informant end reiease ei tee deenn?seni ease tire neteniiei te enderrniee ?ne inses?rigeiien and rises in; {eniideniiei inierrnanr. 535 seen; ties decerneni: is net eensidered eneiie eeder is. RS. sagging} and "fins is a eerieet eseineie ei wire we need re reeiew and redeer erier te reieese. Ger ernaiis ineiede eein dearer matters nei aise readers see-ii as wires eecerred eiaese. i renieie ie inesing ierseard to try "to reseiee inis ens reitn see and en: sans: ides w? .r museum x. may irern: Frampton, ibnrnas Ward Sees: Monday, 2:318 5:35 Pie Faye Merrisen seem: Mess sea Request Dear Ms. Morrison: 1 am attorney retained by Mr. Most to handle his pending PRA request, originally dated May 25, 2018 and most recently updated (?Proposed Compromise?) as of August 23, 2018. I am writing to clarify that Louisiana State Police has denied Mr. Most's reqnest for records as modi?ed on August 23, 2018. So there is no ambiguity: On August 23, 2018, Mr. Most offered to limit his (already reduced) request to "emails from ?red pill? and down.? Based on your previous August 22, 2018 production, which i understand to include all responsive records from ?white genocide" and down, the request of August 23 was for the following records: Bits Maiihexes ?Red Pili" 12739 22%} Nigger sass 2&3 Chirnp 15? Chimpanzee 55% 165 1/2 EX. R(Emai1, August 28, 2018) 8/30/2018 Mai! - Re: Most PRA Request Herniated Themes Ward Eire 8523f2i?i?i8 ?22:23 i?iei Seer items errete; Dear Ms. Morrison: I are atterney retained by Mr. Most te handle his pending PRA request, erigirially dated May 25, 2018 and most recently updated ("Prepesed Compremise") as efAugust 23, 2018. i are writing to clarify that Louisiana State Police has denied Mr. Mest?s request fer records as modi?ed on August 23, 2018. Se there is no ambiguity: - On August 23, 2018, Mr. Most offered to limit his (already reduced) request to "emails frem ?red pill? and dawn.? Based 011 your previeiis August 22, 2618 predectien, which i understand te include all resperisive retards from ?White genecide? and down, the request at August 23 was for the feliewing recerds: Hits Mailbexes ?Red Pill? 1739 220 Nigger 1456 263 Chimp 557 157 Chimpanzee 550 165 Your response efAugust 24, 2018 (which consisted, in its entirety, of "Please review the return and then we can discuss further?) did not expressly state that you were denying the request, but nor did yea provide immediate access to the requested records. 1/2 EX. (Email, August 28, 2018) 8/30/2018 Mail tframpton@law.harvard.edu Re: Mest PRA Request Frametee; Themes Ward are ?22:3353 ere Eat-aye Merrlsee "it; fl) 52353328 ?3 ?:?aframrrtea Themes Ware res Frees: Frametea, E?trersas Ware Seat: wfuesu?a?g; Augest 28, 28:18 21:45 are "is: Page Marissa Sealed: Re: Mast ass Reaaest Ms. Merrisea: Yet agate; caa yea e?ease say g?res? as ?ea? teaetner yeu are Mr. East?s erepese? eeraereraise? if the aeswer is aeythieg Gazer than ?yes? {ae? hearse teat yea are ts?i?la?rau?ag gau?re ferarer eesrt?ee ea she request was usual}; burdeeserue} are afra?? i Erase as ether eet?ea thee ta seek maa?aruus relief. if he aasreer is ?yes,? I seeui? aepreeiate a fare date by Water; yea aatreipate the saga sealed. ?ask yrs};g Eraser; Seat free: my rPheae Ge Aug 2.8E 20183 at 11:21 AM, Faye. Merrisea resets: Therese: We are geiag a: ree?ees tee searee resa?ts eeiew as reaeestee. Piease eeaure?r i W?li try as make it tats week. Erase sea. fare erase: Frametes, ?greases Ware Seat: Message, August 2638 5:35 PM re: ease Merrisee Mast PEA Request Dear Ms. Morrisen: I am attorney retained by Mr, Mast to handle his pending PRA request, originally dated May 25, 2018 and most recently updated ("Proposed Compromise") as of August 23, 2018. I am writing to clarify that Louisiana State Police has denied Mr. Most?s request for records as modi?ed on August 23, 2018. So there is n0 ambiguity: - On August 23, 2018, Mr. Must affered to limit his [already reduced) request to "emails from ?red pill? and dawn." Based 0n your previous August 22, 2018 production, which I understand ts include all respensive recerds from ?white genecide" and dorm, the request ef August 23 was for the follawing records: 1/2 EX. (Email, August 29, 2018) 813012018 Mail - tframpton@law.harvard.edu Re: Most PRA Request Frarnpton, Thornas Ward titled Sf2??2?i$ era iofaye Morrison Dear Ms. Morrison: Thank you for responding and clarifying that they will be made. We have waited quite a while and i think an additional two weeks should suffice. Please let me know if you think that is unreasonable, particularly in light of the delays to this point. Additionally, i would like to request that we receive these records in digital form. There is quite a bit of information that is lost when the records are supplied in the format that was previously shared leg, the actual email addresses from which the emails are sent, whether those are LSP email addresses or external addresses, etc.). believe we are entitled to these electronic records in the format in which they are stored. See, johnson v. City ofPinevi?e, 9 So.3d 313, 319 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2009) ("We live in an age of technology in which private individuals, as well as government, can use information technology to create astronomical numbers of documents. To allow [the defendant] to create such voluminous records using information technology and then deny the use of that same technology to the public reviewing those records would strike directly at the heart of the public?s fundamental right of access to public records that is guaranteed by the Louisiana Constitution. When confronted with public records of goliath proportions, the average citizen's fundamental right of access would prove illusive if he is denied the opportunity to use the very technology which helped create the overwhelming amount of information. To reproduce over 13,000 emails on paper, when other safe, ef?cient, and reasonable means are available, is unnecessarily laborious, costly, wasteful, and conflicts with the legislative intent of making public records as available as possible"). if your position is that it is impossible to provide the records in that format, can you please let me know what efforts you?ve made to discuss the issue with professionals concerning the issue? Finally, can you please state the legal basis for denying Mr. Most?s request for the record containing the requested search terms that appears to be the ?list of antifa.docx? attachment? is it your position that no amount of redaction would allow us to view the document? Thanks kindly, Thomas Thomas Frampton Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law Harvard Law School Griswold Hall 106 Cambridge, MA 02138 202.352.8341 617.496.4660 _Facuitr&ee 1/3 EX. (Email, August 29, 2018) 8/30/2018 Mail - tframpton@law.harvard.edu RE: Most PRA Request Faye Morrison ease 852%2338 21%? tefrarnpton, Thornas Ward iheeits tier. irareetee. Two weeks steroid be eieet?g of tiree barrieg something teat cieses erg o?ce seesee and aii}. are trees tee eate tiies in reg office. ?the? are being erietee eet as i write this. to erietieg eet tee ereaiisg reg assistaet notee teat tnere were certain attachments that were weii see pages sirneig ceetaieeci eereericei inierreetiee. tseteing that i can eecioner itseeing forward, we are going to erint the entaii redact it r?recessersr aeci to tree as i are nrevieesig to ear. artest on a theme arise. To the exteet tnere are that see want to reeiese; i woeio to asi< that gee ee en a case e; case oasis. it gee hate 3 eetter idea; i are to it, i hate to ee erieting eet oi eages teat are e?i eo ese to gee. that rear; sentetiaieg we can case e; case see Fire ernaiis are goieg to toe to tree eiectreeicaiig. enterteneteig fer ore to do so, i need to erint i have discessee with ii? and at this oeint; we do eot haee aeeteer way to ceneert entaii data to a not tiie. Witt: reseect to the antita?eec; as i aeeiseci yestereag the at issee is eart oi ae oegeieg crirnieai ineestigatien. it was oroeidee e; a informant reiease of the weeid tsetse tee eeteet?iai to the ane rear; eetentiaiig ideetii?y tee interment. es sects teis is not ceesieereo eecier is. as. asserts} and ?r?estereag i was as weii trot 2 are it sees seet i5? ineestigaters tor iaw enforcement eeroeses. ?tee tact of its existeece and that we have it is eretectee at ties ?e'ree. itie core that, Thanks i tree; to ease a reseoese eet oi itere by end oi areeir. iate 33333; esen reii eet eer?eai reteres it eessieie. tern trees: irareetoe, "themes iMarci Seat: Wednesday, eegest 29, 2818 113:5 are ?to: Faye i?sfiorrisen Seeiect: Re: Most ear-i Reqeest Dear Ms. Morrison: Thank you for responding and clarifying that they will be made. We have waited quite a while and think an additional two weeks should suf?ce. Piease iet me know if you think that is unreasonable, particularly in light of the delays to this point. Additionally, i would iike to request that we receive these records in digital form. There is quite a bit of information that is lost when the records are supplied in the format that was previously shared (tag. the actual emaii addresses from which the emails are sent, whether those are LSP email addresses or external addresses, etc). i beiieve we are entitled to these electronic records in the format in which they are stored. See, Johnson v. City of Pineville, 9 So.3d 313, 319 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2609) (?We live in an age of technology in which private individuais, as well as government, can use information technoiogy to create astronomical numbers of documents. To allow [the defendant] to create such voluminous records using information technoiogy and then deny the use of that same technology to the public reviewing those records would strike directly at the heart of 1/4 EX. (Email, August 29, 2018) 8/3012018 Mail - tframpton@law.harvard .edu Re: Most PRA Request Frampton, Thomas Ward tiger}: 8?2??2?25 Stat?3 Seer treat rezFaye Morrison Dear Ms. Morrison: This all sounds fine. Out of curiosity, What email system do you use? If it's Outlook, there is certainly a way to have the emails batched and forwarded, and I?m happy to have 13:1le folks help. But thank you for getting the ball moving on this 1 do have a concern with respect to the "complete list of antifadocx". As you are aware, there is no "ongoing criminal investigation" exception to the PRA. The question is Whether the record pertains to ?criminal litigation that is reasonably anticipated.? We are relatively certain we know What the document is: a supposed ?list of Antifa" first posted on the conspiracy theory website SChan in August 2017, the day before the emails you?ve previously disclosed. (Here's the Nee?Nazi Website "Stormfront" promoting the document shortly before your LSP emails begin; perhaps that?s Where your con?dential informant found it 841! Schanjust started doxxing antita members Stormtront its a iist oi tirst aria East tastier can he {tone saith testtheir: trees a sage tires getting Sr seeping agois anyeray. assay at their: are crazy sari tarry raisin ,4 If the LSP is actually using this for a criminal investigation wherein "criminal litigation is reasonably anticipated," I am truly horrified, because it suggests LSP takes this kind of thing seriously. But I suspect that is not at all the case: I suspect your "Con?dential Informant" is more likely just a far-right sympathizer with connections to LSP who forwarded it on to people that he/ she knows on LSP. The fact that it is making the rounds amongst hi gh- ranking LSP of?cials is noteworthy, itself, but I would ask you to strongly reconsider Whether it is truly impossible to redact this information so as not to reveal the identity of your "Con?dential informant" or Whether LSP is really claiming it is going to use this for reasonably anticipated criminal litigation. My sense is that it would de?nitely not by in interest to take that stance in any official capacity. Thanks, Thomas Thomas Frampton Clirnenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law Harvard Law School Griswold Hall 106 Cambridge, MA 02138 1/5 8/30/2018 Mail - tframpton@law.harvard.edu 202.352.8341 617.496.4660 SSRN Eacult?y Page From: Faye Morrison Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 2:18:39 PM To: Frampton, Thomas Ward Suhiect: RE: Most PRA Request "thanks in; ?iwo weeks shooid he oieoty oi time netting something onioteseeo that cioses my otiice horticene season and ail}. Rise have the data fiies in on,; otiice. ihey ate oeing etinted eat as i wi'ite this. in orinting out the eroaiis, my assistant noted that there wei'e ceitain attachments that wete weii oeet see oeges and simeie contained nameticai inionnation. that i can societies loosing toward, we ate going to etint the ernaii oodies, reeiew, tedact if necessacg and to iron as i did to as: ieiost on a townie drive. ?in the extent theta ate attachments that eon want to review, i woaici to asi< that yon no on a case i332 case oasis. it yet: have a hatter idea, i eat ooen to it. i hate to no orinting not tiioesands oi oages that are at no ose to gen. additionaiie, that may something we can facilitate, case he case emeii. the entails ate going to he etoeicieci to igoo electionicaiie. iiniottenateiyneed to otint there. i haste with it" and at this ooint, we do not hate soothe? was to conned: emaii data to a not ?le. was teseect to the antitadoc, as i adsiseti the docement at issee is east of an ongoing ciiniinai ineestigation. it was oroeiclee a; a Con?dentiai inioi?i'nant and teiease of the docoment woai? ease the oetentiai to ondei?rnine the investigation and i?i?ia? identity the {onhoentiei informant. as seen, this docoment is not ondet ta. 3.3. and ?i?esteteiae, i was thinning as weii not 3; and 2 ate it was sent among 23? inees?o?gatois to? law eniorcenient oetooses. the tact of its existence and that we hate it is eiotecteci at this time. tedaction one that. ihanics. itioiy none to haee a tesnonse ionising oat oi hate ice; end oi wees. we may even oat oattiai {stains it oossieie. ion: item: Hampton, "ihornas Watd Sent: ititlednesciay, engost 29, zeta 113% not "to: Faye ivionison Seeiect: ite: Most e353. Reooest Dear Ms. Morrison: Thank you for responding and clarifying that they will be made. We have waited quite a while and think an additional two weeks should suf?ce. Please let me know if you think that is unreasonable, particularly in light of the delays to this point. Additionally, i would like to request that we receive these records in digital form. There is quite a bit of information that is lost when the records are supplied in the format that was previously shared the actual email addresses from which the emails are sent, whether those are 15? email addresses or external addresses, etc). i believe we are entitled to these electronic records in the format in which they are stored. See, johnson v. City ofPinevilIe, 9 So.3d 313, 319 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2009) ("We live in an age of technology in which private individuals, as well as government, can use information technology to create astronomical numbers of documents. To allow [the defendant] to create such voluminous records using information technology and then deny the use of that same technology to the public reviewing those records would strike directly at the heart of the public?s fundamental right of access to public records that is guaranteed by the Louisiana Constitution. When confronted with public records of goliath proportions, the average citizen's fundamental right of access would 2/5