Handy v. Lane County
360 Or. 605
Or.2016Background
- In May 2012 a county official received a letter from a private attorney alleging ethics/campaign violations by Commissioner Handy and enclosed documents; a media public-records request for that letter followed.
- The county administrator, the district attorney, and three commissioners (Bozievich, Leiken, Stewart) exchanged calls/emails in the ~18-hour window before a 9:00 a.m. emergency public meeting at which three commissioners voted to release the letter; Commissioner Handy and Sorenson did not attend.
- Handy sued Lane County and three commissioners, alleging (1) defects in notice/minutes for the emergency meeting, (2) that a quorum met privately in violation of ORS 192.630(2) via seriatim communications to decide (a) whether to hold an emergency meeting and (b) whether to release the letter, and (3) injunctive relief for repeated violations.
- Defendants moved to strike under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, ORS 31.150; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed all claims for lack of sufficient evidence to meet the plaintiff’s burden under ORS 31.150(3).
- The Oregon Court of Appeals (en banc) reversed in part: it held a quorum may “meet” seriatim and found Handy’s evidence sufficient regarding the decision to release the letter; it also held the decision to call an emergency meeting was not a “decision” covered by the public meetings law.
- The Oregon Supreme Court granted review, held that even assuming seriatim meetings can violate ORS 192.630(2), Handy failed to present evidence that each member of a quorum decided or deliberated toward releasing the letter, and remanded for consideration of Handy’s request for further discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard under ORS 31.150(3) once defendant shows anti‑SLAPP applies | Plaintiff must show probability of prevailing by presenting substantial evidence supporting a prima facie case (i.e., meet burden of production) | Defendants argued for stricter weighing; trial court applied statutory test | Court: Oregon legislature intended plaintiff to make a prima facie showing—present substantial evidence sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to find plaintiff met burden of production (not weighing evidence) |
| Whether a quorum can “meet” by seriatim communications | Handy (and Court of Appeals majority) argued a quorum can meet through a series of communications if each member communicates with the others to decide/deliberate toward a decision | Defendants (and Court of Appeals dissent) argued “meet” requires contemporaneous gathering (in person or electronic) and seriatim contacts cannot constitute a meeting | Supreme Court assumed, for purposes of its sufficiency analysis, that seriatim meetings could violate ORS 192.630(2), but did not definitively resolve the statutory meaning because it found Handy’s evidence insufficient under that assumed rule |
| Sufficiency of Handy’s evidence that a quorum met (to decide whether to release the letter) | Handy contended emails, calls, and the administrator’s statements show the three commissioners collectively deliberated toward releasing the letter | Defendants argued communications show concern about county liability but not deliberation/decision on disclosure; no evidence that Stewart expressed views or that the administrator acted as his agent; district attorney made initial disclosure decision | Held: Evidence insufficient—Leiken only expressed concern about liability (not disclosure), no direct statements from Stewart on disclosure, and administrator’s statements do not prove she was Stewart’s agent or that each commissioner deliberated toward releasing the letter; no reasonable trier of fact could find a quorum met to decide release |
| Discovery denial below (request to permit further discovery despite anti‑SLAPP stay) | Handy argued he needed further discovery to establish facts supporting the seriatim‑meeting claim | Defendants opposed discovery while anti‑SLAPP motion pending | Supreme Court remanded to Court of Appeals to consider whether Handy showed good cause for specified discovery and whether trial court abused discretion in denying it |
Key Cases Cited
- Handy v. Lane County, 274 Or App 644 (Or. Ct. App. en banc 2015) (Court of Appeals decision addressing seriatim‑meeting theory and anti‑SLAPP issues)
- State v. Rainey, 298 Or 459 (Or. 1985) (discussion of "prima facie" meaning and burden of production)
- ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 93 Cal. App. 4th 993 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (California decisions interpreting anti‑SLAPP plaintiff burden influenced Oregon legislative drafting)
- Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim, 42 Cal. App. 4th 628 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (California anti‑SLAPP precedent on prima facie showing)
- Matson v. Dvorak, 40 Cal. App. 4th 539 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (California discussion of establishing a "probability" of prevailing under anti‑SLAPP jurisprudence)