Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Energy Policy Advocates v. Attorney General’s Office

About this case

Filing year
2020
Status
Trial court determination shielding Attorney General's Office communications affirmed and award of attorney fees to plaintiff reversed.
Docket number
22-AP-202
Court/admin entity
United StatesState CourtsVermont Supreme Court (Vt.)
Case category
State Law Claims (US)Freedom of Information/Public Records (US)
Principal law
United StatesState Law—Miscellaneous StatutesUnited StatesVermont Public Records Law
At issue
Lawsuit seeking communications and other records, including emails regarding climate change, from Vermont attorney general's office.
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
08/04/2023
Trial court determination shielding Attorney General's Office communications affirmed and award of attorney fees to plaintiff reversed.
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed a trial court’s determination that communications between the Vermont Attorney General’s Office and other state attorneys general were shielded from disclosure under Vermont’s Public Records Act (PRA). The plaintiff had filed PRA requests seeking common interest agreements between the Vermont Attorney General’s Office and the other state attorneys general that mentioned carbon dioxide, greenhouse gas emissions, or national ambient air quality standards, as well as related communications. The trial court ordered the Attorney General’s Office to produce the seven common interest agreements but concluded that the work-product doctrine shielded communications and other documents from disclosure. The Supreme Court agreed, rejecting the plaintiff’s contention that ongoing litigation was required for the work-product doctrine to apply. The Supreme Court also concluded that the Attorney General’s Office did not waive the doctrine’s protection by sharing documents and communications with other attorneys general. The Supreme Court found that the documents were shared “in an effort to unify … strategy and conserve resources with regard to environmental litigation that the [Attorney General’s Office] has considered pursuing or predicted defending against.” The Supreme Court also found that the trial court should not have awarded the plaintiff attorney fees because the plaintiff had not substantially prevailed in the proceeding that consolidated four underlying lawsuits.
Decision

Summary

Lawsuit seeking communications and other records, including emails regarding climate change, from Vermont attorney general's office.

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Finance