O-SenseLast Thursday I was able to attend the hearing in the so-called GOP “secret society” case.
It was fascinating.
- Judge Richard T. St. Clair, a retired senior judge, had before him two issues: A motion to reconsider his previous decision to allow Bonneville County Republican chair Doyle Beck and GOP Region 7 chair Bryan Smith to depose seven local Republican activists concerning an alleged secret society, and
- A motion to quash the depositions of the same seven people.
Beck and Smith claim that there is a secret society at work, called the Idaho Prosperity Project. Their evidence of the secret society is a three page “campaign plan”. You can view it here.
Smith and Beck filed a petition to depose seven local GOP activists to determine who was behind the supposed Idaho Prosperity Project (my personal opinion is that the whole thing is a fake). Their basis was Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 27(a)(1) which provides in the relevant part: “A person who desires to perpetuate testimony or that of another person regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of the state of Idaho may file a verified petition in the district court in the county of the residence of any expected adverse party.”
Judge St. Clair had previously granted this request. Once those who were to be deposed found out about the petition and order, they filed a motion for reconsideration which, was heard last Thursday in Idaho Falls.
Unusually, Judge St. Clair was not on the bench in the courtroom. He handled the hearing via video conferencing. I’ve seen the same used in federal court, but not in state court. It added an interesting twist.
Arguing for the petition and against the motion to reconsider with Christ Troupis of Eagle, Idaho. He in 2014 ran against Attorney General Lawrence Wasden for the Republican nomination. This year he filed and withdrew as a candidate for the Idaho Supreme Court. His legal opinions are often used by Idaho legislators who disagree with the opinion of the Idaho Attorney General’s Office on a particular bill.
Opposing him was Idaho Falls attorney Tim Hopkins. He is best known for his successful advocacy in 2014 that then-GOP chair Barry Peterson’s term had ended when the Republican convention adjourned without a vote.
Hopkins led off the argument, pointing out that Rule 27 is generally interpreted as allowing pre-legal action depositions only if a witness is dying, ill or otherwise at risk of not being able to testify at trial. He noted that Idaho has no case law but the case law around the U.S., mostly in the federal courts, upholds pre-trial depositions only in those narrow circumstances.
He also pointed out that the Beck/Smith petition didn’t specify the alleged cause of action except for a vague reference to breach of duties, terming it a claim directed at “sub-rosa behavior by someone unknown”.
Hopkins ended by stating that the issue was “absolutely pregnant with political paranoia” and was an attempt to “limit freedom of association in reference to politics”.
Troupis responded aggressively by citing three New York court cases that allowed the use of Rule 27 for determining who could be sued in a future lawsuit. He claimed that Smith and Beck didn’t know whom to sue and were fearful of being held liable under Rule 11 (which makes an attorney liable for a complaint without a sound basis in fact and in law). He noted “people may be innocent of wrongdoing here” but Smith and Beck wanted to use pre-lawsuit depositions to clarify.
Judge St. Clair then weighed in by granting the motion for reconsideration, stating that such can be granted when he is presented new facts or law, such as the two legal briefs filed by the parties.
Then, the judge got to the heart of the matter. Is Rule 27 only to perpetuate testimony when witnesses are likely to disappear or their memories fade or can it be used to search for people to sue? St. Clair noted the three New York cases cited by Troupis but pointed out that in two of the three, witness testimony was in danger of being lost. He focused on the fact that the vast majority of cases limit discovery to perpetuating testimony only.
Based on that analysis, he determined that the Idaho Supreme Court, if presented with the case, would likely follow the majority of the case law and restrict Rule 27 to situations when a deponent’s testimony is likely to be lost.
On that basis, he reversed his previous ruling granting the Smith/Beck petition and quashed the depositions already noticed up.
Afterwards, in an interview in the hall with Local News 8, Christ Troupis stated, speaking of the people he wanted to depose: “It's a lot more expensive and time-consuming and involved to file motions and fight all of this if you've got nothing but a few questions to answer. Answer the questions and be done with it. I have to believe there is something more going on than, ‘we're just protecting our constitutional rights.’"
Six of the seven deposition targets released the following statement: “None of the targets of Smith and Beck's legal bullying has done anything wrong. None has anything to hide. All have every reason to resist this liberal use of the courts by Smith and Beck to engage in their political witch hunt.”
What will happen next? Beck and Smith have 42 days to appeal Judge St. Clair’s decision.
They could file suit and take the risk that they will see any such lawsuit dismissed as frivolous.
Or, Smith and Beck could just let the whole thing go. That seems unlikely.
Doyle Beck told the Idaho Falls Post Register “I was set to find the truth, and I will find the truth”.
Steve Taggart is an Idaho Falls attorney specializing in bankruptcy (www.MaynesTaggart.com). He has an extensive background in politics and public policy. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
