Boushie v. Windsor
2014 MT 153
| Mont. | 2014Background
- Windsor, a vexatious litigant, traveled from multiple states to Montana to seek a temporary order of protection (TOP) against Boushie after online conflicts and a cease-and-desist letter.
- Boushie and Windsor had no in-person meeting; Windsor posted defamatory content and harassed Boushie online and in person, including video surveillance at Boushie’s workplace.
- Municipal Court granted a TOP with several protective conditions; Windsor later sought to affirm and extend the TOP in district court and requested extensive discovery.
- The district court denied Windsor’s discovery requests and ultimately affirmed the Municipal Court’s TOP, finding Windsor had engaged in stalking-like behavior and engaged in harassment against Boushie and his wife.
- The district court also issued a pre-filing injunction against Windsor, requiring leave of court to file future actions, and conditioned a potential sanction bond if an action naming judges or court employees were filed.
- This appeal challenges (a) the district court’s affirmation of the TOP and the injunction, and (b) the bond requirement; the Montana Supreme Court affirms the TOP and the injunction but strikes the $50,000 bond condition as overbroad.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court abuse its discretion re: TOP affirmation and remand? | Windsor argues the TOP was improperly affirmed and that discovery and motions should have been granted. | Boushie contends the TOP was properly supported by the record and that the district court acted within its discretion. | TOP affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
| Was the pre-filing injunction properly imposed and tailored to Windsor’s conduct? | Windsor challenges the injunction as overbroad and tantamount to a restriction on access to courts. | Boushie asserts the injunction is warranted to curb frivolous filings and protect the judiciary. | Injunction upheld; bond condition struck as not closely tailored. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lear v. Jamrogowicz, 370 Mont. 320 (Mont. 2013) (TOP proceedings require swift protection; broad discovery is limited)
- Motta v. Granite County Comm’rs, 370 Mont. 469 (Mont. 2013) (pre-filing sanctions for vexatious litigants; five-factor test)
- Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (five-factor test for pre-filing orders; vexatious-litigant standard)
- Lockhead v. Lockhead, 373 Mont. 120 (Mont. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for TOP decisions)
- Gladue, 293 Mont. 1 (Mont. 1999) (credibility and weight of conflicting evidence in district court)
- Albrecht v. Albrecht, 363 Mont. 117 (Mont. 2011) (continuation or termination of TOPs; statutory authority)