STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF STEARNS SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CIVIL DIVISION
Case Type: Other Civil
______________________________________________________________________

Patty Wetterling and Court File No. 73-CV-17-4904

Jerry Wetterling,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Stearns County, Stearns County

COMPLAINT IN
Sheriffs Office, et al.,
INTERVENTION
Defendants;

Minnesota Coalition on Government

Information, Silha Center for the Study
of Media Ethics and Law, Society of
Professional Journalists-Minnesota Chapter,
Minnesota Newspaper Association,
Minnesota Broadcasters Association,
KSTP-TV, LLC, WDIO-TV, LLC,
KAAL-TV, LLC, Minnesota Public Radio,
and St. Paul Pioneer Press,

Proposed Intervenors.

___________________________________________________________________

For their Complaint in Intervention, the Minnesota Coalition on Government

Information (MNCOGI), Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law, Society of

Professional Journalists-Minnesota Chapter (SPJ), Minnesota Newspaper Association

(MNA), Minnesota Broadcasters Association (MBA), KSTP-TV, LLC, WDIO-TV, LLC,

KAAL-TV, LLC, Minnesota Public Radio (MPR), and the St. Paul Pioneer Press, state

1
and allege as follows:

APPLICANTS FOR INTERVENTION

1. The Minnesota Coalition on Government Information (MNCOGI) is a non-

partisan, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that promotes openness and transparency in

government.

2. The Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law is located within

the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota. It

focuses on the School's interest in the ethical responsibilities and legal rights of the mass

media in a democratic society, and its functions include conducting research in areas

where legal and ethical issues converge, monitoring changes in law or in journalistic

practice that may result, sponsoring public forums on a variety of topics related to its

mission, and publishing a media law and ethics Bulletin. The Silha Center has long

maintained an interest in laws protecting public access to government records.

3. The Society of Professional Journalists-Minnesota Chapter (SPJ) exists to

support the First Amendment rights of journalists in Minnesota, to promote the sound and

ethical practice of journalism, and to advocate for public access to government

information that benefits not only journalists but the public at large.

4. The Minnesota Newspaper Association (MNA) is a voluntary trade association

of all of the general-interest newspapers and most of the special-interest newspapers in

the state. It is the principal representative of the organized press in Minnesota, with

nearly 400 newspaper members.

2
 5. The Minnesota Broadcasters Association (MBA) is a voluntary trade

association representing more than 300 radio and television stations in Minnesota. It is

the principal public representative of the states licensed broadcasters.

6. KSTP-TV, LLC is a limited liability company, and operates television station

KSTP-TV, which serves the Minneapolis-St. Paul market area.

7. WDIO-TV, LLC is a limited liability company, and operates television stations

WDIO-TV and WIRT-DT, which serve the Duluth-Superior market area.

8. KAAL-TV, LLC is a limited liability company, and operates television station

KAAL-TV, which serves the Rochester-Mason City-Austin market area.

9. Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) operates MPR News, a non-profit, multi-

platform news service providing news coverage on 45 stations serving Minnesota and its

neighboring communities and 39 translators providing additional local coverage. It also

operates APM Reports, a national investigative news and documentary group.

10. The St. Paul Pioneer Press, whose roots trace to the first daily newspaper in

Minnesota, is a general-interest news organization that publishes a newspaper daily and

on the Internet, at TwinCities.com, continuously. Its journalists are routinely engaged in

public affairs reporting and rely on the principles and laws related to open government to

keep members of the public informed of what government agencies are doing on their

behalf.

BASIS FOR REQUESTING INTERVENTION

11. Plaintiffs have commenced this action seeking, among other relief, a

declaration that certain records maintained by defendants may not be publicly disclosed

3
because such disclosure would violate a right to privacy that plaintiffs claim exists under

the state and federal constitutions. Plaintiffs Complaint asks the Court to [e]nter

judgment declaring that the documents identified by Plaintiffs are constitutionally

protected personal data that is not required to be disclosed by the MGDPA, and to issue

a permanent injunction prohibiting such disclosure. Complaint, 7.

12. Plaintiffs appear to recognize that the records in question are classified as

public under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), Minn. Stat.

chapter 13.

13. The MGDPA regulates the collection, creation, storage, maintenance,

dissemination, and access to government data in government entities, and establishes a

presumption that government data are public and are accessible by the public for both

inspection and copying unless there is federal law, a state statute, or a temporary

classification of data that provides that certain data are not public. Minn. Stat. 13.01,

subd. 3.

14. Applicants seek to intervene in this action for the purpose of challenging

plaintiffs claim that there is a right of privacy arising under the state or federal

constitutions that takes precedence over the public access requirements of the MGDPA.

Applicants are not aware of any legal authority suggesting that records subject to the

MGDPA and classified as public can be withheld based on a purported constitutional

privacy right.

15. Applicants emphasize that in seeking to intervene, they do not intend to argue

that there are no other possible grounds which might allow the records contested by

4
plaintiffs to be withheld, but only that restricting public access to those records cannot be

based on a purported constitutional privacy right.

16. Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01 (Intervention of Right) states that [u]pon timely

application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action when the applicant claims

an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the

applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair

or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is

adequately represented by existing parties.

17. Applicants have a strong and substantial interest in the subject matter of this

action, which focuses on the issue of public access to records created, collected, and

maintained by government agencies. That interest has been acknowledged many times

by the Minnesota Supreme Court. See, e.g., Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v.

Schumacher, 392 N.W.2d 197, 207 (Minn. 1986) (holding that in the analogous context

of access to court records, a legally protected interest under Rule 24.01 can be found in

the public's right to access under the Supreme Court Interim Rules on Access to Public

Records).

18. Should this Court accept plaintiffs argument that they have a constitutional

right of privacy which supersedes the public access requirements of the MGDPA, it

would severely impair the ability of Applicants and their members to protect their interest

in public access to government records, because it would create enormous uncertainty

about when and under what specific circumstances public records could be withheld

based on the constitutional privacy right. And since that issue would necessarily be

5
decided on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis, it would, at minimum, often impose substantial

delay and expense on those requesting public access to government records.

19. It is clear that the interest of Applicants is not adequately protected by any

existing parties. The Stearns County attorney on behalf of defendants Stearns County

and the Stearns County Sheriffs Office has submitted a notice of appearance dated June

1, 2017, which (at paragraph 2) includes the following representation: "Defendants do

not stipulate or acquiesce to the claims presented by Plaintiffs, but also do not presently

intend to answer, defend or further appear in this action. Defendants do not seek to brief

the legal issues, offer argument, or participate in any evidentiary hearing on the contested

data." Thus no existing party is likely to challenge plaintiffs claim that disclosure of the

records in question is prohibited by a constitutional privacy right.

20. Applicants submit that given the basis on which they seek to intervene as

described above, they may be properly classified as Intervenors-Defendants in this action.

WHEREFORE, Applicants respectfully request that the Court enter judgment as

follows:

A. Granting Applicants request to intervene in this action pursuant to Minn. R.

Civ. P. 24.01.

B. Denying plaintiffs claims for relief to the extent based on a purported right of

privacy derived from the state or federal constitutions.

C. For such additional relief as the Court may conclude is appropriate.

6
DATED: June 23, 2017

s/ Mark R. Anfinson
Mark R. Anfinson
Attorney for Proposed Intervenors
Lake Calhoun Professional Building
3109 Hennepin Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408
(612) 827-5611
Atty. Reg. No. 2744

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements, and reasonable

attorney's and witness fees may be awarded pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section

549.211, to the party against whom the allegations in this pleading are asserted.

DATED: June 23, 2017

s/ Mark R. Anfinson
Mark R. Anfinson
Attorney for Proposed Intervenors
Lake Calhoun Professional Building
3109 Hennepin Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408
(612) 827-5611
Atty. Reg. No. 2744