A meeting has been called for tonight where the Township Board will enter closed session to discuss the purchase of real property and discuss the CPARD litigation. As to the property purchase, if this is in reference to the two old growth lots on the REIS land they may want to investigate the actual condition of the lots as they are today. They are fairly decimated from the photos I have been shown.
As to the CPARD litigation, it is my belief that a trustee or multiple trustees want answers as to why a subpoena was sent to my employer (me being Steve Emsley) on their behalf and why extensive written questions were sent to me. I do not have an electronic copy of the subpoena to post at this time, however, there are several issues with this action. To us it amounts to nothing short of a fishing expedition designed to harass, intimidate, embarrass, annoy, oppress, silence and cause undue financial burden and stress on myself and my employer. My private and/or corporate communications cannot vindicate the Township in this matter. I am thankful for the full support of my employer in this matter.
At this time they have NOT requested cpardinfo@gmail.com nor any other address and I assure you those will be vigorously defended also. It is “interesting” they have only gone after my employer.
Motion for protective order is as follows. Several motions and objections were necessitated by these punitive actions by the Township Board.
Plaintiffs’ Motion For Protective Order and Order to Quash Subpoena
Plaintiffs say:
1) A motion for summary disposition has been scheduled for March 25, 2009. There has been no pretrial. There has been no scheduling order regarding discovery.
2) This case involves a simple issue of whether the defendant Northville Township violated the Open Meetings Act by twice failing to post notice of special meetings for the required 18 hours prior to the special meetings. The notices were posted inside the township hall in places that could not be viewed by the public when the hall closed between 4:30 pm and 8:00 am. Plaintiffs’ position is that of the Michigan Attorney General: the 18 hour requirement is not fulfilled if the public is denied access to the notice for any part of the 18 hours. This is the basis for summary disposition.
3) Northville Township issued a subpoena (Exhibit A) to the employer of one of the plaintiffs, Stephen Emsley. It commands the employer to allow an inspection by a Northville Township forensic expert of employers complete computer system. Northville Township also requests employer to produce over 8000 emails sent or received by plaintiff Emsley. This includes emails sent to his attorney subject to the attorney-client privilege. The subpoena also asks for all emails 1) to and from any of the other nine individual plaintiffs and 2) all emails relating to any of the plaintiffs, Northville Township, REIS, Citizens for Public Accountability and Responsible Development, and any past or present member of the Township Board.
4) Northville Township will not be prejudiced if its subpoena to produce documents (for February 6, 2009) is quashed until a hearing on this motion for a protective order. Employer filed an objection to inspection under MCR 2.305(B) temporarily suspending inspection without an order of the Court. (Exhibit B)
5) Plaintiffs move for a protective order under MCR 2.302(C) and for the Court to quash the subpoena until a hearing on the motion. Plaintiffs will schedule the motion to be heard immediately after the MSD on March 25, 2009.
6) MCR 2.302(C)(1) provides that on motion by a party or by person from whom discovery is sought and on reasonable notice and for good cause shown, court may issue any order that justice requires to protect party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including order that discovery not be had.
7) If plaintiffs’ MSD is granted the case will be over and no discovery will be needed. Discovery will be moot. The discovery will be a wasted expense.
8 ) The subpoenaed documents are neither relevant to the subject matter involved nor are reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. It is designed to harass.
9) The discovery requests are designed by the government to annoy plaintiffs and retaliate against them for exercising their rights under the Open Meetings Act. This is an abuse of governmental authority and an abuse of power to harass citizens who disagree with the present government. Through their attorney, plaintiffs asked that defendant delay its request for production of documents until after the motion for summary disposition, but refused to do so in a letter dated January 29, 2009. (Exhibit C)
10) The request is unduly burdensome, is not relevant to any issue in the case, and is designed to annoy and embarrass the plaintiffs and is expensive to both the plaintiffs and plaintiff Emsley’s employer.
11) A delay in receiving any documents will not prejudice the Northville Township. Timing is not an issue. Defendant cannot demonstrate a need to have any requested document before the time set for MSD. The documents shall exist after March 25, 2009. There is no need to have any document at the present time.
12) None of the requested documents is relevant to an issue in the case or will lead to any admissible evidence. The requested material:
a) Is subject to the attorney client privilege,
b) Is subject to the right to privacy and HIPPA,
c) Is voluminous, burdensome and expensive,
d) Will create an annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden and expense,
e) Contains sensitive corporate and business information,
f) Contains trade secrets and business oriented information including personnel file information, personal financial, medical, and legal communications,
g) Is overly broad and conducive to Northville Township mischief if anyone is allowed to access employers computers.
Relief Requested
1. Plaintiffs request a protective order denying defendant’s requested documents in its subpoena.
2. Plaintiffs request an order quashing the subpoena until a hearing on the motion for a protective order.