BALTIMORE (WBFF) — In the latest development in an ongoing legal battle between City Hall and its own watchdog, Baltimore City is asking a judge to clarify how quickly it must produce responses to outstanding subpoenas from the Office of Inspector General and whether the city can continue withholding or redacting certain information.
The Mayor and City Council filed a motion Monday seeking clarification of Judge Pamela White’s Aug. 14 order, which denied the city’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Inspector General Isabel Mercedes Cumming and members of the OIG Advisory Board.
White also ordered the city to “promptly identify and produce” the entirety of its responses to specified OIG subpoenas and to subpoenas issued by the Inspector General to any city agency or governmental unit since April 10.
Now, the city says it is “unclear what precisely” White is ordering it to do.
In its new three-page filing, the city asks White to clarify two portions of her order – the timing of the required production and what the judge means by the “entirety” of each subpoena response.
On timing, the city notes that White gave it 15 days to file an additional response to the OIG’s pending motion for summary judgment. The city wants to know whether that same 15-day deadline applies to the subpoena responses or whether White intended a different timeline.
The city argues clarification is needed because “promptly” could otherwise be interpreted to require immediate production.
The question could affect dozens of subpoenas. At the most recent hearing in the case, there were at least 49 outstanding OIG subpoenas, according to testimony and discussion surrounding the dispute.
David Williams, president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, argues the new motion is an effort to buy more time.
“This is a delay tactic,” Williams told FOX45.
“The Scott administration does not want to respond to these subpoenas, even though they’re legally required to,” Williams said.
The City characterized its filing differently, saying the motion is limited to seeking clarification about the scope and timing of White’s order.
Williams argued the administration already knows what it needs to do.
“The city wants to delay this as long as possible, but what they need to do is stop the process, save taxpayer money and give access back to the Inspector General,” Williams said. “A subpoena is straightforward. It asks for information and you have to respond to it. This one-page clarification is nothing more than a delay tactic.”
The larger lawsuit centers in part on whether Baltimore’s Inspector General must operate within the restrictions of the Maryland Public Information Act, or MPIA, when obtaining information from other parts of City government.
The City has argued the OIG cannot have unrestricted access to City information systems and that information provided to the watchdog can be subject to legal protections and redactions.
White rejected the City’s broader attempt to apply MPIA restrictions to the OIG’s investigative and subpoena authority.
“The jurisdiction of the OIG to perform its work, including the issuance and enforcement of its subpoenas, is not in conflict with or restricted by the MPIA,” White wrote.
“The City’s arguments subjecting OIG subpoenas and investigatory requests to MPIA exclusions are inapt,” White continued.
Later, White distinguished an OIG subpoena from an ordinary public records request.
“OIG investigatory functions and subpoenas are not mere requests for public information from other government units or employees,” White wrote.
The dispute intensified as Cumming’s office investigated the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement, MONSE, including the youth diversion program known as SideStep.
According to White’s ruling, OIG subpoenas issued to MONSE were heavily redacted by the City Law Department because of MPIA and attorney-client privilege concerns.
Williams argued the City could avoid further litigation by restoring the OIG’s previous access to City information.
“There’s one way to stop this whole judicial process from moving forward, and that is for the Scott administration to give access back to the inspector general, the same access the office had before all of this happened,” Williams said.
He also raised concerns about what the continued litigation could cost Baltimore taxpayers.
“By fighting this in court, the city is taking on a lot more expenses, a lot more legal expenses, and they could top, you know, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on how long this lasts,” Williams said.
White has not yet ruled on the City’s request for clarification.
The underlying lawsuit also remains unresolved. While White denied the City’s motion to dismiss, she reserved consideration of the OIG’s motion for summary judgment.
Follow Political Reporter Mikenzie Frost on X and Facebook. Send tips to mbfrost@sbgtv.com.
Local Story
