BALTIMORE, Md. (WBFF) — Baltimore City is asking a judge to throw out a lawsuit brought by City Inspector General Isabel Cumming, members of the Office of the Inspector General Advisory Board and taxpayer plaintiffs, arguing the case is an attempt to win powers the inspector general does not have under current law.
In its legal response, the city frames the dispute as a fight over how much authority the Baltimore Office of the Inspector General has to obtain records from other city agencies. The inspector general contends her office has subpoena authority that the city must honor, that the city cannot treat subpoenas as Maryland Public Information Act requests, and that the OIG should be able to obtain records, including privileged records, to conduct investigations.
The city argues the opposite: that requests by one city agency to another are governed by the Maryland Public Information Act, that the OIG is subject to the same laws as other city agencies, and that privileged and confidential records remain protected.
ALSO READ | OIG report: Unsafe working conditions found at DPW Patapsco Wastewater treatment plant
A central argument in the city’s filing is that the Maryland Public Information Act controls when one government agency requests records from another, meaning statutory exemptions still apply. The city points to exemptions it says would continue to limit disclosure, including attorney-client privilege, personnel records, confidential investigative material and other protected information. The city also relies on Maryland appellate decisions it says prevent local governments from overriding state public-record laws through local charter provisions.
The city also disputes the inspector general’s position that she effectively has custodial authority over city records. The city argues each agency is the custodian of its own records, and that while the OIG investigates agencies, it does not own or supervise their records.
On attorney-client privilege, the city rejects the idea that the inspector general may review privileged communications. The city argues it never waived privilege, that prior access to certain files does not permanently waive privilege, that technology policies allowing system monitoring do not eliminate attorney-client privilege, and that any waiver would be limited to specific documents rather than future communications.
The city also challenges whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring some of the claims. It argues the inspector general cannot sue the city “as though she were legally separate from it,” that advisory board members lack taxpayer standing, and that the requested declaratory judgment is improper because there is no legal controversy that would authorize the court to rewrite existing law.
The filing also argues the inspector general’s request for writs of mandamus, which would compel government officials to act, is not appropriate. The city contends there is no mandatory legal duty requiring unrestricted access to records, and that decisions involving privileged documents require legal judgment and are discretionary, not ministerial.
ALSO READ | Court documents allege Baltimore IT accessed OIG servers 400 times before hearing
Another issue raised by the city is outside legal representation. The city argues the charter requires approval by the mayor, approval by the Board of Estimates and conflict determinations by the city solicitor before outside counsel can be retained, and it says the OIG bypassed those procedures.
The city’s response also points to the inspector general’s prior efforts to change the law, saying she supported state bills and city charter amendments that would have expanded her authority, but those proposals failed. The city argues that history shows the powers sought in the lawsuit do not already exist under current law and should not be created through judicial interpretation.
The city further disputes factual claims tied to access to legal files. It says OIG employee Bryan Bartsch originally had broad server access because he previously worked in the city’s IT department, and that his access was later restored after discussions involving the then-acting city solicitor. The city says that in 2026 it discovered Bartsch had administrator-level access to cloud storage containing attorney-client privileged legal files and then restricted that access. The city argues the restriction was not retaliation over inspector general investigations but was intended to protect privileged legal materials.
Ultimately, Baltimore City is asking the court to grant its motion to dismiss, deny the inspector general’s motion for summary judgment, dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice, rule that OIG requests remain subject to the Maryland Public Information Act, and reject claims that the OIG has unrestricted subpoena authority or automatic access to privileged records.
The city’s filing lays out its position that any expansion of the inspector general’s authority must come from the Maryland General Assembly or the Baltimore City Council, not the courts, while the inspector general maintains her existing charter authority already entitles her to broader access.
Local Story
