958 N.W.2d 496
N.D.2021Background
- The North Dakota Board of Chiropractic Examiners filed an administrative complaint against Dr. Jacob Schmitz; the ALJ recommended summary judgment for the Board but did not recommend disciplinary sanctions.
- In April 2020 the Board held a special meeting (listed on the agenda) and went into a ~1 hour 45 minute executive session; afterward the Board assessed large fines, costs, attorney-fee recovery, and ordered monitoring of Schmitz’s practice.
- Schmitz requested recordings of the executive sessions; the Board denied the requests.
- At a May 2020 meeting the Board again went into executive session and then voted to confirm the sanctions; Schmitz again was denied the recordings.
- Schmitz sued, alleging violations of the open meetings and public records laws; the district court granted the Board’s N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
- The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, holding Schmitz’s complaint alleged provable facts that could show the Board exceeded attorney-consultation and work-product exemptions and remanded for further proceedings and in camera review as appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board’s executive sessions exceeded the attorney-consultation exemption under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-19.1(2) | Schmitz: executive discussions went beyond attorney advice and thus must be public | Board: executive sessions were protected attorney consultation/work product | Court: Complaint plausibly alleges the sessions exceeded the exemption; dismissal was improper and matter remanded for further fact-finding |
| Whether recordings of the executive sessions are public records subject to disclosure under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18 | Schmitz: recordings (or portions) must be produced if not exempt | Board: recordings are exempt (attorney consultation/work product) | Court: Complaint adequately alleges a public-records claim; district court should conduct in camera review and disclose only non-exempt portions |
| Whether the district court properly granted dismissal under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) | Schmitz: court failed to accept well-pleaded allegations as true and improperly dismissed | Board: some allegations are conclusory/speculative and insufficient | Court: applied Rule 12(b)(6) incorrectly; must construe pleadings liberally and accept well-pleaded facts — reversal and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Krile v. Lawyer, 947 N.W.2d 366 (N.D. 2020) (standard of review and Rule 12(b)(6) pleading rules)
- Rose v. United Equitable Ins. Co., 632 N.W.2d 429 (N.D. 2001) (pleadings should be construed deferentially to plaintiff)
- Johnson & Maxwell, Ltd. v. Lind, 288 N.W.2d 763 (N.D. 1980) (dismissal on pleadings only when impossible to prove claim)
- Brakke v. Rudnick, 409 N.W.2d 326 (N.D. 1987) (conclusory, generic allegations against unspecified defendants insufficient)