4—Buffalo Field Campaign Petition for Writ of Mandamus
such plans, and records documenting costs and expenses related to MDOL helicopter hazing
activities in the Horse Butte area. The letter requested that the MDOL “[p]lease notify me in writing
when the Department can opganize these records and allow me to inspect and copy them.”
On April 30, 2001, Mr. Geist telephoned the MDOL because he had not received
any response, written or otherwise, to his request made over a month previously for the public
information. Mr. Geist subsequently spoke with the MDOL’s attorney, Bernie Jacobs, who
informed Mr. Geist that he would not like the MDOL’s response, because MDOL did not intend to
provide him or his organization with the information. Again, Petitioners received no response to
their request for information.
On June 7, 2001, Mr. Geist again wrote to the MDOL reiterating Petitioners’
request for public information, and included a copy of the initial request. Again, he received no
On June 19, 2001, Petitioners’ counsel, Brenda Lindlief Hall wrote to the MDOL
on behalf of Petitioners again requesting that the MDOL comply with the March 26, 2001 request
for public information. In that letter, she made it clear to the MDOL that the request for information
was made pursuant to Article II, Section 9 of the Montana Constitution, §§ 2-6-102, et seq., MCA.
Also in that letter, Petitioners’ counsel made it clear that the request was for public information that
did not affect any individual privacy rights, and she further requested that if the MDOL claimed any
privacy privileges regarding the requested information, that such privileges be specifically stated
On June 28, 2001, MDOL’s attorney, Bernie Jacobs, wrote to Petitioners’ counsel
“DOL’s position that the lawsuit which you filed on behalf of the Buffalo Field
Campaign, Cold Mountain, Cold Rivers, and the Ecology Center modifies the
‘right to know’ relationship which would otherwise exist
between individual who
are members of your client organizations and DOL.”
In his letter, Mr. Jacobs went on to state that it is DOL’s belief that the Rules of Civil
Procedure’s discovery process was the appropriate method for obtaining information
