PRR mandamus MSJ hearing (Judge leaves unexpectedly)

Discussion on legal motions, public records compliance, and mandamus proceedings in Jill Bong vs. Douglas County School District case.
Highlights
1. Case 25 CV 20641: Jill Bong vs. Joe LaFontaine
• The case involves Jill Bong filing a mandamus proceeding under ORS 34.110 to compel Douglas County School District 15 to comply with public records laws.
• Jill Bong alleges that the district failed to respond to two public records requests submitted in March and April 2025, violating ORS 192.324 and ORS 192.329.
• The district did not provide any records, cite exemptions, or acknowledge the requests, leading to the mandamus filing.
• Jill Bong argues that summary judgment is appropriate under ORCP 47, citing Dewberry v. Kolonsky, which supports the applicability of summary judgment in mandamus cases.
• Brett Mersereau, representing the district, argues that mandamus is not appropriate due to the availability of a statutory remedy under ORS 192.411, citing Jordan v. Motor Vehicles Division as precedent.
• Mersereau claims that some of the issues raised by Bong have already been litigated or dismissed, including case 23 CV 45433, which he states was resolved via summary judgment.
• Bong disputes Mersereau’s claims, asserting that the public records requests at issue are new and not previously litigated, and emphasizes the district’s pattern of obstructing access to public records.
2. Summary Judgment in Mandamus Proceedings
• Jill Bong argues that summary judgment is a valid mechanism in mandamus proceedings, citing ORCP 47 and Dewberry v. Kolonsky, which supports its applicability.
• Brett Mersereau counters that summary judgment is not allowed in mandamus cases, citing ORS 34.190, which limits pleadings to petitions, answers, motions to dismiss, and writs.
• Mersereau emphasizes that the statute explicitly excludes other pleadings, including summary judgment motions, from mandamus proceedings.
• The court deliberates whether summary judgment is appropriate, with Mersereau asserting that even if it were allowed, Bong does not qualify due to the availability of a statutory remedy under Chapter 192.
3. Adequacy of Statutory Remedy for Public Records Disputes
• Brett Mersereau argues that ORS 192 provides a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy for public records disputes, making mandamus inappropriate.
• Jill Bong counters that the statutory remedy is not speedy in practice, citing her experience with case 24 CV 52569, where a $36 fee dispute has been litigated for over six months without resolution.
• Bong highlights the district’s repeated refusal to comply with public records laws, forcing her to file multiple lawsuits for each violation, which she argues is burdensome and inefficient.
• Mersereau asserts that the adequacy of the statutory remedy is a legal question, not a factual one, and that subjective beliefs about its speed are irrelevant to the analysis.
4. Motion for Protective Order and Discovery Scope
• The court addresses Jill Bong’s motion for a protective order regarding request for production 4, which she argues is overbroad, vague, and seeks irrelevant documents.
• Bong raises concerns about privileged communications with her friend Ronald Thompson, including discussions about litigation tactics, health, and finances.
• Brett Mersereau clarifies that he is only seeking communications relevant to the case, specifically public records requests quoted in Bong’s complaint.
• The court narrows the scope of discovery to communications between Bong and Thompson that are relevant to the proceeding, granting the protective order.
5. Scheduling Future Hearings and Dispositive Motions
• The court discusses scheduling a hearing to address pending motions, including Bong’s renewed motions and Mersereau’s anticipated dispositive motion.
• Mersereau requests time to review discovery documents from Bong and prepare his motion, suggesting a hearing date approximately 30-45 days out.
• The court tentatively schedules the hearing for August 5th at 9:30 AM, allowing for remote participation and allocating 1-2 hours for the session.
6. Allegations of Improper Representation and Transparency Issues
• Jill Bong raises concerns about Brett Mersereau’s representation of the district, alleging that no engagement records or documentation authorizing his representation have been produced.
• Bong highlights systemic failures in transparency and accountability, including inflated fees for public records requests and the district’s reliance on Mersereau for statutory processes without valid contracts or coverage.
• Bong argues that these issues underscore the need for mandamus to remedy the district’s lack of compliance with public records laws.
7. Motion to Disqualify Judge Robert Johnson
• Jill Bong renews her motion to disqualify Judge Robert Johnson, citing procedural concerns and objecting to the denial of her disqualification motion.
• Bong formally states that she does not waive her objection and requests that her motion be heard.
Next steps
1. Provide the public records request document that constitutes the basis for the lawsuit to the defense (Mr. Mersereau): Jill Bong
2. Contact Ron Thompson to obtain communications or public records requests relevant to the case and provide them to the defense: Jill Bong
3. Prepare and file a dispositive motion after receiving the public records request document from Ms. Bong: Brett Mersereau
4. Schedule a hearing for August 5th at 9:30 AM to address motions and arguments related to the case: Court (Judge Robert Johnson)