Rose v. State, 2012 MT 55N

Roses petitioned for writ of injunction or declaratory relief alleging MDOC violated open meetings/public participation laws.
Board meets regularly, posts agendas one week in advance, and meetings are open to the public with minutes available.
District Court granted summary judgment for MDOC; Roses appealed claiming ongoing secrecy and denial of participation.
Court treats the case as a noncitable memorandum opinion and affirms the district court’s judgment.
Board has no agency rulemaking/adjudicatory authority; pre-2009 meetings are time-barred; generalized secret-meeting claims fail on evidence and law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Open meetings violation—did MDOC Board comply with statutes?	Roses argues Board operated in secrecy.	MDOC showed meetings are open and properly noticed.	No violation; Board meetings open, agenda posted, and minutes available.
Discovery request under Rule 56(f) warranted?	Roses sought additional discovery to defeat summary judgment.	Discovery would not create a material factual issue; speculative.	denied; no basis to compel further discovery.
Inmate rights to participate limited by penological interests?	Roses contend broad rights to participate in staff decisions.	Rights may be limited for legitimate penological interests.	Court recognizes limits but finds no legal authority for Roses to participate in those MDOC staff meetings.

Worden v. Mont. Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 289 Mont. 459, 962 P.2d 1157 (Mont. 1998) (inmate rights may be limited by penological interests; open meetings context)
In re Estate of Harmon, 360 Mont. 150, 253 P.3d 821 (Mont. 2011) (summary judgment standards; evidence requirements)
Rosenthal v. Co. of Madison, 339 Mont. 419, 170 P.3d 493 (Mont. 2007) (discovery and evidence considerations in withholding information)