11—Petitioners’ Prehearing
withhold information because such information can be sought in the
discovery process. Id. Finally, the MDOL asserted that it has the
discretion to violate its clear constitutional duty, because providing
Petitioners with the requested information would mean that the
MDOL’s attorney would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. Id.
The Montana Supreme Court has already addressed this issue, and
held than the Montana Constitution is the supreme law of the land,
and that the Rules of Professional Conduct cannot override a
constitutional mandate. See Associated Press v. Board of Ed., 
246
Mont. 386, 391, 804 P.2d 376, 379 (1991).
All of the MDOL’s assertions that is has the discretion to
“modify” the Petitioners’ fundamental rights are misguided. First,
nothing short of a compelling state interest would allow the MDOL to
modify a fundamental right. Second, the federal court case is an
administrative records review case where discovery is typically not
allowed, and even if it were allowed, the federal discovery process
does not trump a fundamental right provided in the Montana
Constitution. Finally, the Rules of Professional Conduct governing
attorney conduct do not provide the MDOL with a shield behind which
to conceal public information, the right to which is grounded in the
Montana Constitution’s Declaration of Rights.
