Energy Policy Advocates v. Ellison

The district court denied Energy Policy Advocates' motion to compel the production of documents requested in December 2018. The court found that some records were shielded as "data on individuals" or investigative data, while work-product privilege protected other records from disclosure based on the common interest privilege, including "work-product communications with attorneys general in other states regarding litigation in which each are involved or in which they each have an interest." The court stated: "The extension of privilege to communication between attorneys general who are sharing litigation work-product in matters where their state clients share common interest makes sense. Energy Policy has not advanced a convincing argument to counter the application of the common interest privilege to the data at issue."

A nonprofit corporation filed a lawsuit against Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to compel the production of documents related to “a major political donor’s program to place privately hired attorneys” in the offices of state attorneys general “to initiate investigations of perceived opponents” of policies and actions to address climate change. The information sought included correspondence between the Office of the Attorney General and a plaintiffs’ law firm and an individual in another state attorney general’s office. The plaintiff alleged that through similar requests to other state attorneys general it had obtained information demonstrating “clear relationships” between state attorneys general and the program to place private lawyers in their offices. The plaintiff asserted claims under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.