Weidner Letter to Judge Kerkman Objection to Sealing Order

Knuteson, Hinkston & Quinn, S.C. - a limited liability organization -

Attorneys at Law Mark R. Hinkston, J.D*.

Andrew J. Rosenberg, J.D. Matthew H. Quinn, Retired

*Also licensed in Colorado

500 College Avenue Racine, WI 53403-1058 Telephone: 262-633-2000 Facsimile: 262-633-9900 E-mail: mhinkston@khqlaw.com arosenberg@khqlaw.com

Paralegal: Kim A. Williams John W. Knuteson, J.D., C.P.A. (1949–2020) John V. Casanova, J.D. (1925-2010)

July 7, 2020

Hon. Chad G. Kerkman Kenosha County Circuit Court 912 – 56th Street Kenosha, WI 53140 Re:

Sandra J. Weidner v. City of Racine Case No. 17-CV-1644

Dear Judge Kerkman: I represent Petitioner, Sandra J. Weidner. I write regarding the Order To Seal August 22, 2017 Executive Committee Powerpoint, proposed to the Court this morning by the City and signed by the Court earlier this afternoon.

Accompanying the proposed Order was a Notice of Motion and Motion asking that the Powerpoint be filed under Seal and designated for “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” On behalf of Ms. Weidner, I object to the “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation.

Because of other legal matters, I was unable to review the Motion and proposed Order in the little time between its submission and signing. I did not actually see the submission and Order until after the Court signed it this afternoon. I have only just now had the chance to transmit the City’s motion and proposed submissions to my client, Ms. Weidner, but have not yet had the opportunity to discuss them in any detail with her.

I am aware that the Court is afforded significant discretion under sec. 801.21, Wis. Stats.

However, contrary to the City’s inference otherwise, the issue of the scope of the seal order was not one that mandated such immediacy so as to deprive Ms. Weidner of the opportunity to present her objections at a hearing or at least via written submission from her counsel.

Moreover, we object to the City’s statement: “Weidner has previously intentionally violated orders of the Court in this case to keep information she received in this case as confidential for use only in this case and cannot be trusted not to do so again.” We vehemently disagree with the City’s assessment. Ms. Weidner at the very least should be afforded the opportunity to assure the

July 7, 2020 Page 2

court, at hearing, that she is not, nor will she be, untrustworthy as to keeping the subject documents sealed for in camera review, without the need for the “Attorney’s Eyes Only” designation.

Sec. 801.21(4), Wis. Stats. Provides: “The court shall determine whether there are sufficient grounds to restrict public access according to applicable constitutional, statutory, and common law. In restricting access, the court will use the least restrictive means that will achieve the purposes of this rule and the needs of the requester.”

There are lesser restrictive means available to achieve the City’s needs during the in camera review process (for example, allowing Ms. Weidner to review the documents at her lawyer’s office or the courthouse or some other designated locale, without being provided a copy). In taking the drastic measure of not allowing Ms. Weidner to see the subject documents – the whole crux of her case – she will be severely hamstrung and deprived of her right and ability to discuss the documents with her lawyer and be involved in the process of prosecuting her Petition for relief.

Based on the foregoing, on Ms. Weidner’s behalf, I respectfully request that the Court reconsider its Order of earlier today (specifically, the Attorney’s Eyes Only designation) and either amend the Order to allow Ms. Weidner (with counsel) to view the documents (and provide them to no one else until further court order) or conduct a hearing on the issue so that Petitioner may be heard and, as a result, a less restrictive Order can be executed.

Thank you for your attention to the foregoing.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mark R. Hinkston cc: Sandra J. Weidner