finding, as a matter of public policy, that questioning judges regarding their thought process is “unacceptable” and holding “that judicial officers are immune from testifying as to information surrounding their conduct during an official proceeding”
How later courts described this case
- finding, as a matter of public policy, that questioning judges regarding their thought process is “unacceptable” and holding “that judicial officers are immune from testifying as to information surrounding their conduct during an official proceeding”
- “the deliberative process privilege has been determined to meet the importance prong of Rule 313”
- “It has long been recognized that attempts to probe the thought and decision making processes of judges and administrators are generally improper.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY
KLEIN, J.:
¶ 1 I fully join in the thorough and cogent opinion of my distinguished colleague. I agree that (a) one may not probe into the deliberative process of a judge; (b) a magisterial district judge is a “judge” for these purposes; and (c) judges should be treated differently and not subject to broad subpoenas for testimony regarding cases over which they presided and that could relate to the deliberative process.
¶ 2 I write separately to note that there are other avenues available to get the information sought by Appellee, and this opinion does not necessarily preclude using them. It is true that proceedings before a magisterial district judge are not generally recorded, and it may be appropriate to ask what was testified to at such a proceeding. Likewise, it may be appropriate to ask if there is a special list of officers not believed by the judge. However, these questions and others are best asked by written interrogatories without subjecting the judge to a full-range deposition that could intrude on the protection for the deliberative process. Objections to the questions could be raised in writing and then decided in a reasonable manner. That is far preferable to “on the spot” objections during an oral deposition.