Montana
Law firm asks judge to compel Gianforte, Brereton to produce communications – Daily Montanan
Attorneys for a Helena law firm have asked for summary judgment in a lawsuit against Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte and Department of Public Health and Human Services Director Charlie Brereton in an effort to compel them to produce records the firm requested but have been denied over claims of executive and attorney-client privilege.
Upper Seven Law asked Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Christopher Abbott to grant its request in a filing Thursday, which came three months after the firm first sued Gianforte and Brereton in an attempt to obtain the records.
“The governor believes that holding the highest office in the state insulates him from the Montana Constitution’s transparency provision,” said Upper Seven Law Executive Director Rylee Sommers-Flanagan. “But the power of this office is precisely what the framers contemplated when they guaranteed Montanans a right to know. The governor’s policy decisions go to the heart of his service to Montana.”
The law firm in August asked the Governor’s Office and DPHHS for correspondence involving Gianforte’s General Counsel Anita Milanovich that referenced Senate Bill 458, a bill Gianforte signed that defines Montanans’ sexes as either male or female only, or SF-424 forms, which some state departments are required to fill out when applying for federal grants.
The form requires applicants to attest they will follow federal laws and standards, including anti-discrimination laws.
The firm specifically asked that the records custodian exclude communications directly from Milanovich to Gianforte and didn’t ask for emails exchanged with Brereton to try to avoid attorney-client privilege claims, according to court filings.
Upper Seven Law was looking for the communications because the firm was preparing to possibly sue over SB 458 (it did so in October) and had learned from social media posts that Milanovich had possibly “instructed Montana agencies to refuse to assure compliance with federal nondiscrimination law,” according to the lawsuit.
But the legal counsel for the Office of Public Information Requests denied the firm’s request, saying executive privilege had been asserted and that there were possibly documents that would be covered by attorney-client privilege. The governor is appealing a 2022 decision out of Lewis and Clark County District Court in which a judge ordered Gianforte to release records requested about bill tracking in the 2021 legislative session.
“We are aware that executive privilege is the subject of litigation and will reconsider this response if necessary on the final resolution with the Montana Supreme Court,” Office of Public Information Requests legal counsel Rebecca Narmore wrote, according to exhibits contained in the lawsuit.
DPHHS also denied the request on claims of executive and attorney-client privilege.
When the firm sued in October, it said the Governor’s Office and DPHHS had not provided any redacted documents or privilege logs — a list of records it considers private — and there was thus no way they could know if the documents were truly privileged or being withheld illegally on executive privilege claims the firm says do not exist under Montana law.
Three months later, the firm says nothing has changed, and Gianforte and Brereton continue to violate the public’s right to know under the state constitution.
The firm asked Judge Abbott to order they provide the court with the documents requested in camera so he can review them and see if any are truly covered under attorney-client privilege. It also asked him to order the two to produce a privilege log for any privileged documents and to provide any that are not covered to the firm.
In the request for summary judgment this week, the firm again asserted there is no executive privilege in Montana, that attorney-client privilege only shields legal advice between an attorney and their client and not all communications between them, and that even if there are privileged records, Gianforte and Brereton’s offices need to provide a privilege log or redacted responsive records under the law.
The request says the 1972 Constitutional framers did not contemplate any sort of executive privilege and the same court has recently upheld that notion, saying if there was executive privilege, it would be unclear whether any documents involving the Governor’s Office could be subject to the right to know.
“While the attorney-client privilege could theoretically protect a responsive email or a portion of the contents of the withheld communications, that possibility does not justify Defendants’ outright refusal to respond to Upper Seven’s requests and concomitant failure to produce a privilege log and redacted documents,” the filing says. “Twice in the last year, this Court has ordered that the executive branch must produce privilege logs in response to right to know requests.”
It also notes that lawmakers passed a bill in the 2023 session that further clarified how public information requests must be fulfilled, including procedures for the executive branch.
“Without a privilege log — or even a recognition that attorney-client privilege is distinct from the rejected executive privilege — it is impossible to know whether any of the requested documents may be shielded from disclosure,” Upper Seven Law attorneys wrote in Thursday’s request. “It is exceedingly unlikely that the requested documents are privileged.”
The law firm said that state agencies’ decisions not to comply with federal antidiscrimination law would also be a political decision and not legal advice, and that the right to know as it applies to the executive branch would be gutted if everything subject to potential future legal action triggered attorney-client privilege.
“The governor and DPHHS cannot withhold documents merely because they were produced by lawyers or discuss the law,” the filing says. “Here, the purpose of any guidance regarding SF-424 forms was to further the executive branch’s policies on discrimination — not to provide privileged legal advice.”
DPHHS and the Governor’s Office have said regarding the case that it does not comment on pending litigation.
In addition to the request that Abbott order a review of the documents and their release, the law firm has asked for a hearing in the event Abbott rules in their favor to ask for attorney’s fees.
2024-01-18 – SF-424 Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgement – FILED
Montana
Montana State doctoral student awarded national research service grant for gut microbiome, arsenic research
MISSOULA — Four out of five members of Montana’s Public Service Commission were in a federal courtroom in Missoula Thursday morning, as the PSC’s former president challenges the disciplinary action taken against him earlier this year. Now, newly released documents are shedding more light on to what led up to this point.
(Watch the video for a closer look at the case.)
New documents shed light Montana PSC dispute
Commissioner Brad Molnar has sued President Jeff Welborn, Vice President Jennifer Fielder and Commissioner Annie Bukacek – the three PSC members who voted in May to require him to work remotely, after an investigation into complaints about his workplace conduct. Molnar has claimed he is being unfairly punished for constitutionally protected speech, and he asked Senior U.S District Judge Donald Molloy to allow him to return to the PSC offices.
Matthew Monforton, Molnar’s attorney, told the judge that barring Molnar from the building was limiting his ability to do his job.
“He has not been officially kicked out of office, but his voice has clearly been diminished,” said Monforton.
But Natasha Jones, an attorney representing the other three commissioners, said the findings were about behavior, not just speech, and that the PSC’s action was a reasonable response.
“These are serious concerns about a pattern of conduct that has made employees quit,” she said.
Jonathon Ambarian
On Tuesday, Molloy ordered the release of redacted versions of two full investigative reports into Molnar’s conduct – more than 100 pages of documents. Monforton had moved for the full reports to be made public, and Molloy ruled attorneys for the other PSC members hadn’t shown a compelling reason to keep the documents under seal as long as the names of people involved in the investigation were obscured.
While the names remained redacted in the investigation reports, the attorneys for Welborn, Fielder and Bukacek also filed additional documents – including a public declaration from Bukacek and from former PSC executive director Alana Lake, providing information about their allegations against Molnar.
The two reports, from an outside investigator, cover Molnar’s alleged actions over two periods: the first from February to August 2025, and the second from August to October 2025. The investigation began after the first formal complaint, filed by Bukacek in May 2025 – though the reports say employees had been bringing up concerns about Molnar’s behavior informally for several months prior.
Bukacek’s complaint claimed Molnar had repeatedly made what she called “sexualized and demeaning comments.” The examples she cited included saying the PSC should replace “Taco Tuesdays” with “Topless Tuesdays,” reminiscing about watching girls in bikinis as a teenager, and commenting about the beauty of women in areas of China who didn’t get “old and wrinkly.”
In her declaration, Bukacek also claimed Molnar had “maliciously disseminated false information” about her and “engaged in behavior that was dismissive, derisive and otherwise abusive.”
“My primary concern now is not for my safety nor my feelings, but for the rest of the staff who may not have the temperament to speak up or may feel too intimidated to speak up given concerns over job security,” Bukacek said in her declaration.
MTN News
The investigators determined Molnar had violated the PSC’s code of conduct by making comments of a sexual nature, and that it appeared his behavior had continued for some time after he was warned about it. They also found he had behaved unprofessionally and in a belittling manner toward Bukacek, though they said Bukacek herself had at times used “language that could be considered inappropriate” in emails to staff or other commissioners. Bukacek told MTN she “readily self corrected” any behaviors that were brought to her attention.
The investigation also found a violation in connection with a complaint from a PSC staff member, who said he “felt bullied” by Molnar when the commissioner sent an email complaining about his team not being “people with competence.”
However, much of the first report and the entire second report was focused on conduct after the initial complaints, when Molnar was accused of retaliating against people who participated in the investigation. Lake said in her declaration that she saw “an immediate and significant change in his behavior toward staff involved in the process.” She claimed he said he would use an attorney and private investigator to go after people who filed complaints, and she accused him of publicly criticizing her in interviews and removing her job responsibilities because of her handling of the investigation.
Lake said Molnar’s actions led to “declining morale within the agency,” undermined staff members’ ability to do their jobs and damaged her reputation. She said that led her to resign as executive director.
“I believe no employee should be forced to choose between reporting misconduct and protecting their career, reputation, or personal well-being,” she said in her declaration.
Lake has since become Helena city manager.
Jonathon Ambarian
The report said there was evidence to show Molnar had retaliated, including by “making disparaging statements about investigation participants” including Lake, by sending an email warning he could file complaints of his own against people involved, and by taking other actions investigators said could dissuade employees from reporting behavior in the future.
Monforton said during Thursday’s hearing that the initial comments Bukacek complained about were jokes Molnar had admitted were inappropriate, that he regretted saying them, and that he hasn’t made any similar comments in about a year. But he argued the vast majority of the findings against Molnar were about retaliation – and that those were primarily based on speech that the other commissioners don’t have the right to interfere with.
Monforton said it’s unreasonable to punish Molnar for what he said in the July news conference where he announced he was under investigation, in interviews with the media or in commission meetings. He said Molnar’s conduct doesn’t rise to the level of actual retaliation.
“This is an elected official, engaging in speech in his forum,” Monforton said.
He said Molnar may have made harsh comments toward staff, but that he had the right to raise objections about the way the agency does business.
Jonathon Ambarian
Monforton also argued the retaliation claims no longer justify keeping Molnar out of the office, since Welborn, Fielder and Bukacek voted to remove him as president in October and he no longer has the authority he’s accused of misusing. He said there haven’t been further complaints about his behavior since that time.
“We’re not asking for the moon and stars, we’re asking for the status quo as it existed for the last seven months,” he said.
Jones said there is enough evidence to show Molnar would have been punished regardless of whether any protected speech was excluded.
“This is not about a couple of jokes,” she said.
Jones said Molnar made maliciously false statements about people like Lake, and that type of statement isn’t covered by free speech protections.
She also said Molnar’s exclusion from the PSC offices is temporary, and that the PSC will reconsider whether to let him return if he apologizes for his actions, accepts the agency’s code of conduct and undergoes training.
Molloy indicated he saw indications that there was “acrimony” on both sides of the situation, and said he was skeptical it would be resolved easily.
“It would be nice if instead of juvenile behavior, there was professional behavior,” he said.
However, the judge said there was an avenue for Molnar to pursue if he wanted to reach a resolution.
Molloy took no immediate action Thursday. He told the parties he would rule as quickly as he could.
-
South Dakota3 minutes ago
SD Lottery Mega Millions, Millionaire for Life winning numbers for June 19, 2026
-
Tennessee10 minutes agoTennessee baseball adds pitcher Ricky Ojeda, UC Irvine transfer
-
Texas12 minutes agoFans erupt as U.S. wins in World Cup and North Texas builds buzz
-
Utah18 minutes agoUnited States is flying at men’s World Cup, and Utah soccer fans are taking note
-
Vermont25 minutes agoVt. communities work to clean up after EF-1 tornadoes strike
-
Washington28 minutes agoIMPD adds third public safety camera along Washington St in three months
-
Virginia28 minutes agoVirginia Lottery Mega Millions, Pick 3 Night results for June 19, 2026
-
Wisconsin40 minutes agoWisconsin Lottery Mega Millions, Pick 3 results for June 19, 2026
