BALTIMORE (WBFF) — Baltimore City Hall is again asking the Appellate Court of Maryland for emergency relief in its months-long fight with the city’s inspector general, this time raising a new dispute over what the City says its own computer systems can and cannot do.
The Scott Administration said it has been working to comply with Circuit Court Judge Pamela White’s order requiring restoration of the OIG’s previous access. But City attorneys now argue they cannot restore that access while walling off emails, files, and attorney work product related to the ongoing litigation.
“The City cannot restore such access in this way,” according to the latest filings.
ALSO READ | Baltimore City loses latest bid to pause OIG records order
The City asked the appellate court to restrict OIG permissions involving systems that could allow access to attorney-client privileged communications or products involving attorneys, paralegals, and others connected to the appeal until the litigation is resolved. City attorneys also argued there is no way for the City to detect whether that material has been accessed.
However, the Office of Inspector General disputed that claim in a filing responding to the latest effort from the Scott Administration.
Assistant Inspector General of IT Operations Bryan Bartsch, whose system permissions are at the center of Judge White’s order, submitted a sworn affidavit saying his activity is logged and can be audited.
“The assertion that the permissions restored to me as the OIG’s Assistant Inspector General of IT Operations are so clandestine that they would be beyond discovery is fundamentally untrue,” Bartsch wrote.
ALSO READ | In Depth: Baltimore inspector general’s court win sets up fight over next steps
Bartsch said actions taken using administrative permissions are recorded in system or file logs and that the City’s Splunk system retains archived activity.
“Contrary to any suggestion that such access cannot be detected, my use of these permissions is not undetectable,” Bartsch wrote
Bartsch also addressed the City’s concern that restoring access could allow the OIG to see legal strategy in the very case it is litigating against City Hall.
He said under oath that he has not reviewed such material and will not do so.
“The OIG and I understand that, during this litigation, it would be professionally unbecoming to conduct any review relating to the attorneys representing the City or any materials they have produced,” Bartsch wrote. “I have not done so, and I will not do so.”
The Scott Administration said the potential exposure of privileged material is serious enough that it is also asking for permission to add a warning to its legal communications.
The proposed disclaimer would tell recipients:
“This communication may not be secure. By Court Order dated September 21, 2026, the Inspector General may have access to it.”
It would then advise recipients who prefer to communicate orally to call the attorney and say they would be notified when “confidential communication returns.”
The OIG argued that warning is unnecessary, pointing to the City’s existing technology policy, which it says already informs employees that their communications can be subject to disclosure to the OIG.
Baltimore-area attorney Jeremy Eldridge, who is not affiliated with the litigation, said the continued filings show how far the dispute has escalated.
“The city is simply refusing to turn that faucet on, meaning the flow of information to the Office of the Inspector General,” Eldridge said.
The City disputes that characterization and says Baltimore City Information Technology began working with the OIG at 8:34 a.m. Monday to facilitate restoration of Bartsch’s access.
The OIG acknowledged BCIT began coordinating with Bartsch Monday, but said full access was not restored. In its latest filing, OIG attorneys said they still had not received final confirmation from either BCIT or City lawyers that every permission required by Judge White’s order had been restored.
Eldridge said he views the repeated court filings as a new stage in the dispute.
“It appears as though we’re now in essentially the fourth quarter of this process, where once again, the mayor’s office is unhappy with the court’s decision and is trying to find every legal exception,” Eldridge said.
The appellate fight is unfolding while a separate contempt dispute remains pending before Judge White.
The OIG filed a petition Monday asking Judge White to hold the City in constructive civil contempt, alleging the City’s failure to completely restore access was “willful.”
The OIG asked Judge White to consider a daily fine for every day the required access remains unrestored. So far, the City has not been found in contempt, and Judge White has not imposed any fines.
ALSO READ | Baltimore Mayor Scott says he’s ‘not hiding anything’ as OIG court fight continues
The Scott administration has now added outside attorneys to its legal team specifically for that dispute.
In a statement to FOX45 News, the Mayor’s Office said attorney Billy Murphy was brought in after the contempt petition was filed.
“Once the OIG filed its baseless request for a civil contempt finding, the decision was made to bring on outside counsel to prevent the appearance of any conflict for City attorneys,” the Mayor’s Office said.
The administration called Murphy a leader “in the Baltimore legal community with unparalleled experience.”
The Appellate Court has not yet ruled on the City’s latest request for a protective order.
Follow Political Reporter Mikenzie Frost on X and Facebook. Send tips to mbfrost@sbgtv.com.
Local Story
