Gregory suggests Open Govt Act request

Attorney General Matthew T. Gregory suggested that Superior Court Associate Judge Kenneth Govendo submit instead an Open Government Act request if he really wants to know the attorney billings incurred in the lawsuit against the defunct Marianas Public Lands Authority.

Gregory asserted that Govendo has no authority to request production of attorney billings in Henry Hofschneider’s lawsuit against MPLA and its board of directors because the case was already settled and subsequently dismissed.

“This is not to say that there are no other avenues for the judge in this case to obtain the information requested in his personal capacity as a citizen of our Commonwealth,” said Gregory in his opposition to Govendo’s April 13, 2006, order to disclose attorneys’ billings in the lawsuit.

The attorney general said that Govendo could submit an Open Government Act request to the Division of Public Lands.

“Others have done so and have had access to this billing information,” said Gregory, stressing that he is opposing Govendo’s order “in order to protect the integrity of the judicial system.”

Govendo originally issued an order on April 13, 2006, for the disclosure of the billings. Gregory filed a request to continue the hearing because he was out of town. He then filed an opposition.

The hearing on the billing issue was scheduled on May 26, 2006, but Gregory was not present. This prompted Govendo to give the attorney general until June 16 to submit his attorney’s billing statement for his previous private representation in the lawsuit.

Govendo said that, if Gregory fails to file such billings, he should explain to the court why he should not be held in contempt.

“Mr. Gregory is not above the law,” said the judge after learning that the attorney general did not appear in court for the scheduled hearing.

The judge had stated at the beginning of the proceedings in the MPLA case that he would ask for a disclosure of all attorneys’ fees.

But in his opposition to the April 13 order, Gregory said Govendo does not cite any authority for the production of billings, nor is there any rational basis for the order.

Gregory said the information requested by the judge is not relevant to any case or controversy in the lawsuit.

Furthermore, Gregory said, he is not a party or an attorney in this case.

“The fact that a person charged with contempt for violation of an order was not a party to the proceedings in which the order was issued has been regarded as a ground for absolving him of the charge of contempt on the ground that as to such person the order was void for lack of jurisdiction or power in the court,” Gregory said, citing previous court rulings.

Even assuming that the court did have authority to issue such an order, Gregory said the judge no longer has jurisdiction over the matter.

He pointed out that a stipulated dismissal was already filed on April 3, 2006.

He said a release has been signed and the settlement has been paid by the defendants.

Gregory asserted that there is nothing for Govendo to decide.