An Orange County Superior Court judge ruled on Thursday that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill does not have to release any of its 400-page, $1.2 million investigation into allegations of retaliation, hiring irregularities, and other issues at the School of Civic Life and Leadership.
The Assembly and other outlets asked for the report in March under public records laws. After the university refused to disclose any part of it, we filed a lawsuit with five other newsrooms to force its release. Judge John H. Morris personally reviewed the report before granting UNC-CH’s request to dismiss the suit.
As is typical in summary rulings, Morris did not explain his reasoning. But at a hearing earlier this month, Wes Camden, an attorney at Williams Mullen representing the university, argued the report was covered by attorney-client privilege because it was produced by an independent law firm and consisted entirely of “advice and analysis regarding potential legal claims related to the School of Civic Life and Leadership.”
“This report is not subject to production pursuant to the Public Records Act because its contents—literally from cover to cover—constitute attorney work product in the form of trial preparation materials,” Camden said.
Mike Tadych of the Stevens, Martin, Tadych & Vaughn, who is representing The Assembly and our partners, argued that the report can’t be trial preparation material because, as far as we know, there is no trial.
“To date, we don’t know of any pending claims,” he said in the hearing, adding that the university never produced a written explanation of why the records requests were denied.
The ruling came as a shock to Hugh Stevens, a partner in the firm.
“Judge Morris’ decision is the most inexplicable and unexpected decision that I have encountered in almost 50 years of litigating public records cases,” he said in a written statement. “Given the applicable law, it is unfathomable to me that every page, every line, and every word of a 400-page investigation that was conducted at significant public expense and that concerns a manifestly public matter–i.e., the establishment of a new and controversial school at our flagship university–is exempt from public disclosure.”
