OTA Loses Jurisdiction Battle

A lot has happened since we last covered the OTA lawsuits. There are four (4) pertinent ones: the Pike Off OTA suit, which alleges that the turnpikes planned to through Norman are illegal to build; the Open Meeting Act violation suit, which claims OTA did not fully disclose the ACCESS Oklahoma plans in agendas for public meetings; the OTA’s Application to the Supreme Court to issue bonds for the ACCESS projects; and the newest one, an Application for a Writ of Prohibition, by the OTA against Judge Timothy Olsen. If you want to know more, we have plenty of blog posts covering each of the first three (3) cases in more depth. Here is a brief rundown of the important events that have happened recently, and upcoming dates.

Pike Off OTA

The previous judge in the Pike Off OTA suit, Judge Lori Walkley, recused herself from the case on August 18th. It was reassigned in late August to Judge Timothy Olsen, who is also the presiding judge in the Open Meeting Act (OMA) lawsuit. The hearing on OTA’s Motion to Dismiss is set for November 4 at 2 p.m.

Open Meeting Act

Speaking of the OMA lawsuit, a scheduling order was released on August 19th setting its trial dates for December 12th and 13th. In early September, subpoenas were issued and depositions were requested of the OTA’s Board of Directors. Judge Timothy Olsen denied the OTA’s request to stay (pause) the proceedings until the Supreme Court case is resolved. He also slightly limited the discovery scope based on the OTA’s Motion for Protective Order, but, ultimately, Judge Olsen allowed most of the Plaintiffs’ requests for information. 

Writ of Prohibition

The OTA responded by filing an Application for Original Jurisdiction for Writ of Prohibition as to an Order of the Honorable Timothy L. Olsen with the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Essentially, this application seeks to convince the Supreme Court to assume original jurisdiction of the OMA lawsuit and prohibit Judge Olsen “from exercising any jurisdiction in the action in excess of his lawful authority.” This is the second Supreme Court case to arise out of the turnpike pushback. A Journal Entry from October 24th states that M. John Kane IV, Vice Chief Justice, had recused himself from this matter.

The OTA hasn’t been too keen on letting anything happen in any of the cases before the Supreme Court issues an order ruling on its Application for Original Jurisdiction. A Response to OTA’s Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction For Writ of Prohibition, filed in both the OMA case and the Writ of Prohibition Supreme Court case by Plaintiffs’ Counsel, alleges that the OTA has not complied with the scheduling order mentioned above for deadlines like initiating discovery and exchanging witness and exhibit lists, and reiterates the claim that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter. Oral arguments were held on October 11th, but other than Vice Chief Justice Kane’s recusal on October 24th, nothing else has been filed.

More OMA Updates

The Oklahoma State Courts Network (OSCN) has released a couple of court minutes from early October in the OMA case; one provided new dates for the Defendants to respond to Plaintiff discovery and set times for depositions, and one ruled on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider their limited discovery scope, granting the Plaintiffs a wider scope to conduct discovery within. There is a Response from the OTA on the Motion to Reconsider, which raises the argument that motions to reconsider do not technically exist in Oklahoma statutory nomenclature. The OTA also states that Plaintiffs have not offered a valid reason for the court to reconsider the scope of discovery, and that the requested documents are not relevant or necessary to the case.

Two more court minutes were filed on the specifics of the depositions and discovery, on October 18th and October 21st. The OTA filed another Motion for Protective Order, alleging that Plaintiffs were ignoring court orders on prohibited discovery and burdening non-parties with litigation. The Oklahoma Department of Transportation and Jessica Brown, and Poe & Associates, Inc., an engineering firm working with the OTA, both filed separate but similar Motions to Quash Deposition Subpoena and for Protective Order with Brief in Support as non-parties. They both state that Plaintiffs seek information that can be obtained through the Defendants and that they overreach the previous court orders entered. Jones Public Relations, Inc., a PR company employed by the OTA, also filed a Motion to Quash their subpoena. Jones PR claims the requests violate a previous court order limiting discovery and they cause an undue burden on the company. In the case of ODOT and Jessica Brown, they argue that service of the subpoena on Brown was not personal and therefore invalid. Poe & Associates, Inc. argues that the information requested is proprietary and prohibited from disclosure by professional conduct rules.

On October 27th, Plaintiffs replied, alleging “extrinsic fraud” and “spoliation of evidence”, and offered corroborated accounts that the OTA uploaded expanded, 50+ page agendas during the course of this litigation (sometime between June and October), replacing the smaller, 5-page agendas originally uploaded for the January and February meetings in dispute. They allege that the only proper sanction against the OTA would be a judgement entered in Plaintiffs favor.

Supreme Court Application

Finally, we come to the original Application filed by OTA in the Supreme Court. On October 3rd, a Journal Entry stated that Vice Chief Justice, M. John Kane IV, has also recused himself from this matter. Even so, an important decision came from the Court on October 10th, when a separate Journal Entry confirmed that the Supreme Court would be assuming original jurisdiction for the bond approval, but that their “jurisdiction does not extend to the matters now pending before the District Court, nor does our assumption of jurisdiction serve to stay the issues now pending before the District Court”. 

What’s Next

The Journal Entry mentioned above sheds a lot of light on where things might go from here: the District Court lawsuits will not be stayed or thrown out, which means they’ll continue on their respective schedules.

The next hearing for the Pike Off OTA lawsuit is on November 4th. That hearing will focus on the OTA’s Motion to Dismiss. The motion, filed back in June, was predicated on the idea that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The motion is all but guaranteed to fail, given that the Supreme Court declined to assume jurisdiction over the District Court matters. Because Judge Olsen took over the Pike Off OTA lawsuit, it will likely move forward similarly to the OMA lawsuit, allowing discovery and depositions as a next step.

The next hearing in the OMA lawsuit is also set for November 4th. This is a hearing on all three non-party motions and the protective orders OTA has requested for them.

No further dates have been set in the Supreme Court cases as of yet, so it’s unclear when the Court might issue a ruling on the bonds.