Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 203

RESPONSE to Motion re 202 MOTION in Limine filed by Bitterroot Public Library, City of Hamilton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E) (Crowley, William)

William L. Crowley
Natasha Prinzing Jones
Thomas J. Leonard
BOONE KARLBERG P.C.

201 West Main, Suite 300
P.O. Box 9199

Missoula, MT 59807-9199

Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for City and Libraiy Defendants
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,
Plaintiff,

Cause No. CV-11-064-M-DWM-JCL
CITY AND LIBRARY
DEFENDANTS' LIABILITY
EXPERT DISCLOSURE

v.

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 BRUNERMURPHY, RYAN OSTER,
KENNETH S. BELL, and JENNIFER
LINT,
Defendants.

FAFtles\4293\4085\0022l248.WPD

EXHIBIT A

In accordance with the Court's Scheduling Order (Doc. 182) and Rule

26(a)(2)(C), Fed. R. Civ. P., the City and Library Defendants disclose the liability
experts whom they expect to call as witnesses atthe trial, if any, in this matter.
The people listed below were not retained or specially employed by the City or

Library Defendants to provide expert testimony in this case. Also, their job duties
as an employee of a party do not regularly involve giving expert testimony. Rule
26(a)(2)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P.

A.

Trista Smith, c/o Boone Karlberg P.C., 201 West Main, Suite 300,

Missoula, Montana 59802:

1.

Subject Matter of Opinion Testimony: The application of the

right or freedom to read statements of the American Library Association("ALA")
to the collection decisions for the Bitterroot Public Library ("BPL").

2.

Opinion and Basis: The decision not to add Mr. Pilkey's letter

to President Obama ("the Obama letter") did not violate BPL policy, and the
ALA's right or freedom to read statements do not apply to a decision whether or
not to add an item to BPL's collection. The ALA's right to read statement applies

to prisoners. Further, the ALA's right or freedom to read statements relate to
access to information without censoring due to content. The ALA's statements do
not relate to a decision on whether to add an item to BPL's collection. That

F:\Filcs\4293\4085\00221248.WPD

decision is a discretionaiy decision which involves a consideration of a numberof
factors unrelated to the ALA statements.

The criteria for deciding whether ornot to add an item to BPL's collection
includes:

a.

relationship and importance to the entire collection

b.

authoritativeness, reputation or qualification of the author,
artist, publisher or producer

c.

significance of subject matter, permanence or timeliness of
subject

d.

relevance to the needs ofthe community

e.

current demand

f.

accuracy, objectivity, clarity and logic of presentation

g.

suitability and format to library purposes; that is quality of
technical production (binding, margins,typography, quality of
paper, etc.)

h.

extent of publicity or critical review

I.

facility of use, difficulty of comprehensiveness

j.

inclusion of title and standard or special bibliography or
indexes

k,

availability of material elsewhere

F:\Piles\4293\4085\00221248.WPD

3

1.

date of publication

m.

price

n.

shelf space

0.

hard covers are preferred although some neededtitles are
available only in paperback

p.

duplicates may be added for high demand titles and children's
classics, shelf space and budget allow

B.

Dr. Robert Brophy, c/o Boone Karlberg P.C., 201 West Main, Suite

300, Missoula, Montana 59802:

1.

Subject Matter of Opinion Testimony: Whether the decision to

exclude Plaintiff from the BPL premises and building violated BPL policy.
2.

Opinion and Basis: The decision to exclude Plaintiff from

BPL's premises and building did notviolate BPL policy and was not an abuse of
discretion. BPL's Board ofTrustees adopted rules for the government of the

library and the effective use and management ofthe libraiy. Those rules prohibit
disruptive behavior. Further, the Board delegated the authority to BPL's Director
to carry out the day-to-day management of BPL and to enforce the rules.
BPL exists to facilitate learning, cultural enrichment and quite

contemplation. The BPL rules relating to disruptive behavior and the specific
actions taken with regard to Plaintiff serve those purposes. Those actions were not

F:\FHcs\4293\4085\0022l248.WPD

employed because of the content of Plaintiffs viewpoints, and Plaintiff has
alternative means to express his thoughts, ideas and opinions.

Plaintiffs behavior was disruptive to BPL staff and patrons. On May 29,
2009, Plaintiff entered BPL. He wanted the Obama letterto be placed in the

Library's reserve collection. Staffmember Nansu Roddy refused. Plaintiff
became angiy. He raised his voice and acted angrily. He said he had already

posted on his blog website that the Obama letter would be available atthe BPL.
He told Ms. Roddy that he would go to the next Library Board meeting to

complain. He scared Ms. Roddy, enough that she reported the incident to BPL's
Director, Gloria Langstaff.

Plaintiff sent a letter, dated June 8,2009, to Ms. Langstaff and the Director

ofthe North Valley Public Library concerning a refusal to add the Obama letter to

the library's collections. The letter references a letter from the Unibomer "which
advocated violence and condoned murder." The letter bothered both Directors.

The Director of the North Valley Public Library contacted the Stevensville Police
Chief about concerns for libraiy staff safety.

On June 9, 2009, Ms. Langstaff wrote to Plaintiff again denying his request

to submit the Obama letter to the libraiy's collection. Ms. Langstaff s letter cited
BPL's collection management policy. Ms. Langstaff welcomed Plaintiff to attend
a Library Board meeting and address his request.

F:\Fflcs\4293\4085\00221248.WPD

On June 11,2009, Plaintiff cameto the BPL. He demanded to see Ms.

Langstaff. He raised his voice and began atirade about wanting Ms. Langstaff
fired. His conduct intimidated BPL staff. They felt anxious and unsafe. One
member described Plaintiffs conduct as despicable. Another staff member went

home to compose herself. As a result, the incident was reported to the Hamilton
Police Department. Also, Ms. Langstaff sent Plaintiff a letter that he was excluded
from the libraiy premises and building for behavior which was disruptive to

library users and staff. The action was taken to protect BPL staff from Plaintiffs
confrontational and intimidating behavior which disrupted staff and patrons. It

was taken to protect the enjoyment of the library by other patrons and to guard
against another disruption.

Plaintiffs behavior following Ms. Langstaffs letter further supports

Plaintiffs exclusion from the libraiy. On June 12,2009, Plaintiff went to the

Hamilton Police Department about the library. He became agitated and loud. He
warned Officer Auch that he was running for mayor and might be Officer Auch's
boss in November.

On June 15,2009, Plaintiff was seen outside the libraiy building requesting

patrons to deliver a message to Ms. Langstaff. On June 16, 2009, Plaintiffphoned
the libraiy asking to meet with Ms. Langstaffoff premises. He also called the

Libraiy to have"his property" returned to him. On the same day, he emailed a
F:\Filcs\4293\4085\00221248.WPD

Library Board member. He said he was banned from the libraiy because he told
Ms. Langstaffthat he would present information resulting in her termination. He
stated that the Director was committing a crime with the Board acting as an

accomplice. He warned that his computer page gets 500 hits a week and the page
could be updated about the libraiy.

On July 15,2009, Plaintiff confronted a library patron to have a letter
delivered to Ms. Langstaff. Among other things, Plaintiff stated in bold print that
he was reinstating his own libraiy privileges. The matter was reported to the
Hamilton Police Department. In a phone message to Officer Auch on July 16,
2009, Plaintiff reaffirmed that he was reinstating his own libraiy privileges. As a

result, on July 23, 2009, the Library Board voted unanimously to support seeking
an order of protection against Plaintiff.

On August 20,2009, Plaintiff was seen in the libraiy gazebo. Officer

Snavely contacted Plaintiff and warned him notto come back. Later, Plaintiff
came back when three women were sitting in the gazebo. One woman, the woman

who was present when Officer Snavely contacted Plaintiffearlier, refused to give
Plaintiff her name and phone number. When she acknowledged that she gave her
name to Officer Snavely, Plaintiff became angiy. He yelled at the woman that the
cops were the bad guys. He again left the area, but he came back with a video

camera. He began filming the woman. The woman was taken aback. All three
F:\Filcs\4293\4085\0022l248.WPD

women were nervous, and they felt threatened. As a result of the incident,
Plaintiff was charged with trespass. The Library Board also sentPlaintiff a letter
that it supported the decision to exclude Plaintiff from the library.

On August 25, 2009, Plaintiff wrote to the Libraiy Board complaining ofthe
exclusion. On the same day, he published onhis Bitterroot Rising website that the

library was working with the Hamilton Police Department to commit crimes and
violate his rights. He said that embezzlement was occurring atthe libraiy. He said

the libraiy "was toast," He personally attacked Ms. Langstaffs personal
appearance.

On September 9, 2009, the City Court issued its Conditions of Release
relating to the trespass charge. Among other things, Plaintiff was precluded from
contacting any witnesses orvictims. Despite the conditions, Plaintiffconfronted

Ms. Roddy, a BPL staffmember, on November 4,2009. It scared her. As aresult
of the confrontation, she applied for an obtained an order of protection. Also,
Plaintiff was charged with the crime of felony intimidation. Later, he entered a
plea of nolo contendere to the charge.

Following Plaintiffs confrontation with Ms. Roddy on November 4, 2009,
Plaintiff continued to attack BPL, its Board and its staff. He contacted the

Montana Libraiy Commission and the Montana State Library attacking BPL and
its representatives. On April 25,2011, he issued a written statement on the

F:\Filcs\4293\4085\0022l248.WPD

Internet that BPL was opening a"pedophilia room" equipped to make "children
feel more comfortable."

C.

Kenneth Bell and Ryan Oster, c/o Boone Karlberg P.C., 201 West

Main, Suite 300, Missoula, Montana 59802:

1.

Subject Matter of Opinion Testimony: Whether probable cause

existed to arrest and charge Plaintiffwith trespass and intimidation.

2.

Opinion and Basis: Information existed to warrant a beliefthat

Plaintiffcommitted the crime oftrespass and felony intimidation. The basis of

these opinions is the information forming the basis of the opinions of Dr. Brophy
referred to above. That information is incorporated here by reference.

D.

Kenneth Bell, c/o Boone Karlberg P.C., 201 West Main, Suite 300,

Missoula, Montana 59802:

1.

Subject Matter of Opinion Testimony: Whether one can

trespass on public property.

2.

Opinion and Basis: A person can trespass on public property.

The fact that a person is on public property is not determinative of whether he or
she can be charged with trespass.

A person commits the offense of criminal trespass to property when he or
she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in an occupied structure or in or upon
the premises of another, MCA § 45-6-203. Further, one enters or remains
F:\Filcs\4293\4085\0022l248.WPD

unlawfully in an occupied structure or enters upon the premises of another when
he or she is not licensed, invited or otherwise privileged to do so. MCA
§45-6-201.

BPL holds its premises and building in the name ofthe City of Hamilton

and/or Ravalli County for the useand purposes of a libraiy. The library exists to
facilitate learning, cultural enrichment and quiet contemplation. At most, it is a

limited public forum. As a limited public forum, BPL's premises and building are
notopen for the use of all members of the public regardless oftheir conduct.
Members ofthe public may be excluded as long as the exclusion serves a valid

purpose, is not based on expressive content and other alternatives exist for the

person's communication. Souders v. Lucero, 196 F.3d 1040, 1043-46 (9th Cir.
1999); US. v. Adams, 388 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2004).
Here, Plaintiffs conduct was disruptive and intimidating to BPL staff and

patrons. The conduct did not serve the purposes of a public library. Further, the
ban was not based on Plaintiffs expressive content, and otheralternatives existed
for Plaintiffs communication,

DATED this 13lh day of January, 2012.

^/A, Iffr

William L. Crowley
BOONE KARLBER0HP.C.
Attorneysfor City and Libraiy Defendants
F:\Files\4293\4085\0022l248.WPD

10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on the 13th day of January, 2012, acopy of the
foregoing document was served onthe following persons by the following means:
CM/ECF

Hand Delivery

—2. 3_

Mail
Overnight Delivery Service
Fax

E-Mail
1.
2.

Clerk, U.S. District Court
Michael E. Spreadbuiy
700 South Fourth Street

Hamilton, MT 59840
3.

Jeffrey B. Smith
Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, PLLP
350 Ryman Street
P.O. Box 7909

Missoula, MT 59807-7909

William L. Crowley
BOONE KARLBERG P.C/

Attorneysfor City ana Library Defendants

F:\Filcs\4293\4085\00221248.WPD

11