Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 147

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 134 Motion to Strike. Signed by Jeremiah C. Lynch on 11/14/2011. (TCL, ) Modified on 11/15/2011 to reflect copy mailed to Spreadbury this date (APP, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
_____________________________________________
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,

CV 11-64-M-DWM-JCL

Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,
CITY OF HAMILTON,
LEE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
BOONE KARLBERG, P.C.,
DR. ROBERT BROPHY, TRISTA SMITH,
NANSU RODDY, JERRY STEELE,
STEVE SNAVELY, STEVEN BRUNER-MURPHY,
RYAN OSTER, KENNETH S. BELL, and JENNIFER LINT,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
Defendants Bitterroot Public Library, Dr. Robert Brophy, Trista Smith,
Nansu Roddy, City of Hamilton, Jerry Steele, Steve Snavely, Steven BrunerMurphy, Ryan Oster, Kenneth Bell and Jennifer Lint move to strike Plaintiff
Michael Spreadbury’s Exhibit B (Dkt. 130-2) attached to his “Notice of National
Security Clearance, Information on Non-Probable Cause Felony Charge” filed
October 26, 2011. Exhibit B is a copy of a blog on a website purportedly written
by Plaintiff, and the blog includes a copy of a police report prepared by an officer
of the City of Hamilton Police Department. The police report pertains to an

1

incident which occurred on November 4, 2009, where Plaintiff allegedly
threatened and intimidated Defendant Nansu Roddy. Plaintiff also refers to Roddy
in his blog discussion. Defendants assert these matters contained within Exhibit B
should be stricken because Plaintiff’s disclosure of them violates Montana law,
and the matters also constitute violations of provisions of an order and a criminal
judgment entered in the district courts of the State of Montana.
The police report contained within Plaintiff’s Exhibit B was at issue in a
civil action prosecuted by Plaintiff in the Montana Twenty-First Judicial District
Court, Ravalli County captioned as Spreadbury v. Bell and City of Hamilton, DV
2010-639. The state district court entered an order on June 28, 2011, in that case
finding that the police report contained criminal justice information protected as
confidential under the Montana Criminal Justice Information Act of 1979, Mont.
Code Ann. § 44-5-101 et seq., as well as other information protected from
disclosure by individual privacy rights of third parties. The court redacted the
private and confidential information contained in the police report, and sealed the
report from public view. The copy of the police report submitted by Plaintiff in
Exhibit B, however, allegedly discloses information redacted and sealed by the
state court. Consequently, Defendants argue the police report should be striken as
filed in violation of the state court’s order, Montana law, and individuals’ privacy
rights.
2

Additionally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s conduct in filing Exhibit B
violates a condition of Plaintiff’s probation imposed in a criminal judgment and
sentence filed against Plaintiff in the Montana Twenty-First Judicial District
Court, Ravalli County in a case captioned as State v. Spreadbury, DC 09-154.
Specifically, the referenced probation condition required Plaintiff to remove any
reference to Defendant Nansu Roddy from any website to which Plaintiff
contributed. Thus, because both Plaintiff’s blog filed as Exhibit B and the police
report contained within Exhibit B refer to Roddy, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s
conduct reflected in the blog demonstrate that he is in violation of his probation,
and Exhibit B should be stricken.
The grounds for relief on which Defendants rely in support of their motion
to strike are insufficient to warrant an order striking Plaintiff’s Exhibit B. There
exists no legal authority for this federal court to enter an order striking a document
merely as a means of enforcing either an order in a civil case or a criminal
judgment, both of which were entered by a court of the State of Montana.
Furthermore, Defendants have not independently established that the copy of the
police report filed by Plaintiff contains information protected as confidential under
the Montana Criminal Justice Information Act. Defendants’ motion is denied in
this respect.

3

Notwithstanding, the police report in Plaintiff’s Exhibit B contains personal
and private identifying information such as individuals’ dates of birth, social
security numbers, home addresses, and home phone numbers which must be
redacted. Although Plaintiff has redacted some of that information, Plaintiff’s
Exhibit B is blurry and it is not clear if he sufficiently redacted all of that personal
information. Therefore, the personal information needs to be protected from
disclosure to the public to the extent it is not already redacted.
Furthermore, the police report in Exhibit B is also one of the police reports
which Defendants separately moved to file under seal. The Court has granted that
motion on the grounds that Plaintiff perceives that the police report contains
information that is defamatory to him thereby giving rise to compelling reasons to
seal the police report. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006).
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is
GRANTED to the extent that Exhibit B shall be filed under seal. The Clerk of
Court is directed to seal Exhibit B (Dkt. 130-2).
DATED this 14th day of November, 2011.

/s/ Jeremiah C. Lynch
Jeremiah C. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge
4