0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
525 visualizzazioni5 pagine
Judgement and Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Rep. Ron Nate, R-Rexburg, and Senate Pro Tem Brent Hill, R-Rexburg, Idaho Falls Post Register, attorney Bryan Smith
Titolo originale
Partial transcript of Ron Nate's secret recording
Judgement and Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Rep. Ron Nate, R-Rexburg, and Senate Pro Tem Brent Hill, R-Rexburg, Idaho Falls Post Register, attorney Bryan Smith
Judgement and Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Rep. Ron Nate, R-Rexburg, and Senate Pro Tem Brent Hill, R-Rexburg, Idaho Falls Post Register, attorney Bryan Smith
JAN/10/2017/TUE 03:45 PM FAK No. ?. 001/005
FILED IN CHAMBERS
at Idaho Falls
_ Bonneville County
dae fro)
Deputy Clerk rnabi(tu. eke,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MADISON
APGMEDIA OF THE ROCKIES, LLC, dba
THE POST REGISTER,
Case No. CV-2016-435
Petitioner,
v JUDGMENT
RONALD NATE,
Respondent.
Judgment is entered as follows:
‘The Petition in this matter is granted in part, and a portion of the transcript of the
recorded conversation will be disclosed as set out in Exhibit 1 attached hereto
‘The remainder of the Petition is dismissed.
Dated this. day of January, 2017.
.. TIN'
District Judge
JUDGMENT 1JAN/10/2017/TUE 03:45 PM FAI No, P. 004/005
FILED IN CHAMBERS
«at Idaho Falls
Bonneville County
“35CT COURT
1 TY. DAKO
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MADISON
APGMEDIA OF THE ROCKIES, LLC, dba
THE POST REGISTER,
Case No, CV-2016-435
Petitioner,
ys ORDER
RONALD NATE,
Respondent.
‘This matter is before the Court on Respondent’s motion for reconsideration
following the entry of the Court’s order wherein the Court ruled that certain portions of
te transcript of the subject recorded conversation would be disclosed. The Court finds
that a hearing on the motion is unnecessary.
‘At the time of the hearing on the Petition to Disclose, the Court commented that it
‘would “redact” the transcript. The Cour’s use of the word was inaccurate inasmuch as |
‘the intent was to “cut and paste” the portions of the transcript the Court concluded were |
subject to disclosure. In preparing the disclosure identified as Exhibit ! to the Judgment, |
the Court still found it necessary to redact or block out some of the statements.
Thus, the Court largely agrees with the concerns expressed in the motion for
reconsideration. Where those concems are resolved through the Court's actual
preparation of Exhibit 1, the motion is moot. However, where the Court found it
JUDGMENT IJAN/10/2017/TUE 03:45 PM FAL No. P, 005/005
necessary to redact some words in the course of disclosing the public record, to the extent
Respondent seeks reconsideration of such redaction his motion is denied,
ITIS SO ORDERED.
Dated this_1O_ day of Janvary, 2017.
Le
JOERE. TINGEY
District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thereby certify that on this_1O day of January, 2017, the foregoing document
was entered and a true and correct copy was served upon the parties listed below by
mailing, with the correct postage thercon, or by causing the same to be delivered to their
‘courthouse boxes.
Steven J. Wright
WRIGHT LAW OFFICES
477 Shoup Avenue, Suite 109
P.O. Box 50578
Idaho Falls, ID $3405
Bryan D. Smith
SMITH, DRISCOLL & ASSOCIATES
414 Shoup Ave.
P.O. Box 50731
Idaho Falls, 1D 83405
Clexk of the District Court
Bonneville County, Idaho
wy _ Wa
Deputy Clerk
JUDGMENT 2