Judge Switches Show Cause Hearing to ‘Landscaping’ Exercise as Lawyers Plead for Release of Ruling, Leahy Still in Legal Jeopardy

The Show Cause Hearing scheduled Monday by Tennessee Chancery Court Judge I’Ashea L. Myles concluded after the judge repeatedly referenced her prior order in which she explained the possibility of appointing an outside attorney to investigate and prosecute possible contempt charges against Michael Patrick Leahy, the editor-in-chief of The Tennessee Star and the CEO of Star News Digital Media, Inc. (SNDM).

Myles (pictured above) ordered on June 10 for Leahy to appear in court for the Show Cause Hearing after a source familiar with the Covenant investigation provided The Star with a journal written by Covenant School killer Audrey Elizabeth Hale, as well as police documents related to the Covenant investigation, and The Star began reporting Hale’s own words and the contents of investigative documents.

Both Leahy and SNDM are plaintiffs in the Tennessee lawsuit which seeks to compel Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD) to release Hale’s full writings, including those sometimes called a manifesto, which is overseen by Myles. Leahy and SNDM are also plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit to compel the release of the same writings.

Prior to the hearing, Myles denied a motion, submitted on behalf of Leahy by nationally recognized First Amendment attorney Daniel A. Horwitz, which raised a series of concerns about Myles’ order and asked her to set aside the Show Cause Hearing.

“I denied that motion to set aside for ripeness,” said Myles on Monday, stating for the first time she did not consider the issues raised by Leahy to be timely.

The judge continued, “We are not there yet, in regards to the arguments you presented in your motion. Not necessarily saying that we won’t get there, but for right now, this court needs to understand what has happened in this case.”

In his motion, Leahy argued that Myles’ initial order should be set aside because the judge failed to identify which previous court orders SNDM and Leahy allegedly violated, stepped outside the bounds of existing Tennessee laws, failed to offer Leahy due process, and did not adhere to Tennessee laws designed to protect journalists from government overreach.

After stating that Leahy’s concerns are not yet appropriate, Myles indicated she was ready to make her final ruling on the open records case prior to learning about the publication of numerous articles about Hale by The Star from WSMV reporter Stacey Cameron.

“Last week I was prepared to issue a 60-plus page ruling on the ins and outs of this particular case,” stated Myles. “I was ready to issue my ruling when I was informed that perhaps something had come about in this case,” she continued.

Myles added that the court needed clarification from the other parties in the lawsuit about whether the articles published by The Star pose “such a significant change” to the open records lawsuit that would make her ruling unnecessary.

Myles then seemed to indicate Leahy’s motion, which she denied, could become “ripe for adjudicating” after she issues “a separate ruling in regards to what the next steps will be” in the lawsuit.

When Horwitz asked Myles for clarification about her initial order, which specifically warned Leahy could be subject “to contempt proceedings and sanctions,” the judge referenced her subsequent order.

“I put down a subsequent order,” Myles argued, “which denied your motion to set aside,” and “set forth what we are doing today.”

She then told Horwitz that she could order a subsequent hearing to discuss the issues raised by Leahy in his motion.

The judge confirmed, “Depending on what I hear today, there may be a subsequent hearing and or motion where your motion would perhaps come back to life and we would have a discussion in regards to a show cause or contempt hearing,” then stated that her primary objective was “to understand, first, what the landscape is, and that’s what we’re going to do.”

Metro Legal, through attorney Lora Fox, argued that the court did not have sufficient jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings against retired MNPD Lieutenant Garet Davidson, who MNPD stated in a Friday legal filing had access to at least a portion of the materials published by The Star.

The Star has not identified the individual or group who provided Hale’s writings nor the tranche of documents related to the Covenant investigation.

Fox suggested that Davidson could be made an involuntary plaintiff to the lawsuit, which would then subject him to Myles’ orders.

Myles also heard from the attorney representing the other plaintiffs, who argued against adding additional plaintiffs, that Leahy’s reporting at The Star has not changed the basic facts in the lawsuit, and urged the judge to release her final ruling.

Attorney Richard Hollow, who represents plaintiffs The Tennessean, reporter Rachel Wegner and State Senator Todd Gardenhire (R-Chattanooga) in the lawsuit, argued specifically that reporting about Hale by Leahy and The Star is based on lawfully obtained materials and is protected speech.

“In the old days, they used to call it a Transom Package, because the newsrooms and newspapers all had transoms over the doors. So when someone wanted to leak information, they would toss it into the transom, and that’s how the word Transom Package came into existence,” Hollow argued before Myles.

He continued, “This is very much like a Transom Package. Someone has come into possession of information which was otherwise not public and it has come into the possession of the media,” he noted.

Hollow explained, “There’s been no allegation” that Leahy “broke the law in terms of a criminal violation by obtaining that information, so therefore the information was lawfully obtained by the media.”

Attorney Rocklan King, who represents Covenant Presbyterian School after it was allowed to intervene in the open records lawsuit by Myles, also expressed a desire for the judge to release her final ruling.

“​​The salient issue is that the documents that rest in your possession, which I believe from what you’ve heard today, truly are more than the 80 or so pages that the Star boasts that they have in their possession from the individual that wrongly the appropriated them, far exceeds what’s out there,” stated King.

He told the judge, “I believe that clarity on whether those documents that you still have in your possession that have not been disclosed to media outlets deserves a ruling on whether they are open records, subject to the production.”

As the Show Cause Hearing began to conclude, Horwitz again questioned Myles about its purpose.

Myles explained, “When I was informed that there was perhaps an issue in this case, the best thing for me to do was hear from the folks involved and then see what next steps need to be.”

This prompted Horwitz to ask whether Myles has concluded gathering information from attorneys. In response, the judge revealed she “accomplished my purposes for today,” but nonetheless suggested Leahy could be called to appear for additional proceedings.

“I have accomplished my purposes for today, and should there need to be a separate hearing after the court issues a ruling on this particular matter, you know, you’re a counsel of record, you’ll get that ruling, and then we may be back here,” stated Myles before asking Horwitz if he planned to raise “a separate issue.”

When Horwitz, in response, began reading from the judge’s June 10 order which established the Show Cause Hearing, Myles cut him off.

“I am aware of my order,” said Myles. “Again, I am going to truncate your argument, you can take it up on appeal if you need to.”

The judge reiterated, “as I said in the order denying your motion to set aside, your arguments aren’t ripe yet. I’m not saying that they won’t become ripe,” before Horwitz again attempted to speak.

Horwitz explained, “We were initially ordered to be here to show cause why Mr. Leahy did not violate orders of this court. This court has not identified any such order that was violated, neither has any party.”

Myles acknowledged, “We are not having those proceedings today,” likely referencing her subsequent order.

Nonetheless, Horwitz pressed on with his description of the events that preceded the court case.

“This court then expanded the order it put down to say that it was going to inquire into alleged violations of orders or Tennessee’s general contempt statute, and then everybody got up in here today, and all of the parties agreed, no party maintained that Mr. Leahy or The Tennessee Star violated the contempt statute or any order of this court,” stated Horwitz.

In response, Myles claimed the real purpose of the Show Cause Hearing was to establish “the lay of the land” following the reporting about Hale by The Star.

“I will determine based on what I’ve heard today, in a subsequent order, whether or not there will be other proceedings, and so again, I understand your desire to educate the court on your client’s position,” stated Myles. “It simply is not ripe yet, and I am not saying that it will not become ripe, but for right now, I have the information that I need.”

Possibly referencing the number of constitutional, due process and legal issues raised by Leahy in the now-denied motion, the judge told Horwitz that any “subsequent proceedings” would adhere to the rights afforded to Leahy through Tennessee statutes and precedent. Myles stated:

If you would like to confirm and or deny that perhaps your client did what the allegation, at least out there, outside of the record, are, I guess I’m happy to entertain that, but there are certain rights that have to attach to your client and I have not put down an order which delineates those rights, which before I can have any subsequent proceedings on contempt or show cause or anything like that, those rights have to be distilled down into an order, so I want to ensure that your client, should there be subsequent hearings in this matter, that your client has all of his rights and its rights as set forth in the case law and in our statutory schematics so that he can come into court and properly do what he needs to do, and we’re simply not there yet.

Despite Horwitz repeatedly asking the judge to clarify what Leahy was meant to show at the hearing, the judge remained committed to “understanding the landscape.”

He explained, “there is still a show cause proceeding, and I don’t know what cause you are asking me to show.”

Myles replied that she learned from the other parties “the information that I need to know.”

The judge told Horwitz, “If there is a subsequent show cause hearing, I will ensure that it is delineated in a very clear and crisp manner so that your client can prepare with you, his counsel, and come in and show whatever he needs to show. But before I can do that, I had to get an understanding of the landscape. I have that understanding, I will distill these proceedings to an order of the court, wherein you and your client can take next steps if need be.”

After Judge Myles adjourned, renowned constitutional scholar Randy Barnett rebuked the unusual proceeding as a “landscaping hearing.”

It was a “landscaping” hearing. https://t.co/exFVq2laIg pic.twitter.com/OPKXiGZ8UG

— Randy Barnett (@RandyEBarnett) June 17, 2024

Watch the full hearing:

– – –

Tom Pappert is the lead reporter for The Tennessee Star, and also reports for The Pennsylvania Daily Star and The Arizona Sun Times. Follow Tom on X/Twitter. Email tips to [email protected].
Image “Judge I’Ashea Myles” by Fox News 17.