6—Petitioners’ Prehearing

Brief

II.

ARGUMENT

As evidenced by Mr. Jacobs’ own admissions that the requested

information was for the most part available on the internet or contained

in other accessible public documents, the information that Petitioners

have repeatedly requested is public information. See Exhibit 4. Further,

Petitioners notified the MDOL that the documents sought did not implicate

any privacy interests, and were, therefore, not protected. MDOL’s counsel

concurred that the documents were not covered under any privacy claims.

Id. There are simply no individual privacy interests implicated in this

case. Moreover, the Montana Supreme Court has held that State agencies do

not have a cognizable right to privacy, and that they may not assert a right

to privacy as a means to refuse to disclose public information. See

Pacificorp v. Department of Revenue,254 Mont. 387, 395,838 P.2d 914,
Even so, the MDOL persists in denying Petitioners’ requests to

918-19 (1992). Simply put, State agencies are not "individuals" under
inspect public documents and requests for copies of public documents.

Montana law--they are government entities. See Pacificorp v. Department
Such conduct openly violates the Montana Constitution, Article II, Section

of Revenue,254 Mont. at 395,838 P.2d at 918-19.
9, wherein the public is granted a fundamental “Right To Know.”

Article

II, Section 9 provides:No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents
or to observe deliberations of all public bodies or agencies of
state government and its subdivisions, except in cases in
which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the
merits of public disclosure.
Further, § 2-6-102, MCA, provides that all citizens have the right to

inspect and copy any public writings, and additionally provides that