Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01286-JJF Document 45 Filed 12/30/2005 Page 1 of 3
i IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
KARI M. (SMITH) PRILLER, *
Plaintiff,
1 v. * CA. No.: 04-1286 (IH?)

TOWN OP SMYRNA, ET AL., *

Defendants. *
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO NON-PART Y OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
.. GENERAUS MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TEC UM
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Kari (Smith) Priller, and respectfully requests that this
Honorable Corut enter an Order denying Non-Party Office ofthe Attorney General’s Motion to
Quash for the following reasons:
in 1.. On Sep.tember 21, 2004, Plaintiff, Kari (Smith) Priller, filed a Complaint against
the Town of Smyrna and various individual defendants. Plaintiffs complaint alleged, inter alia, P
that she was raped by Defendant Harvey Leggett on December 20, 2002.
2. On December 16, 2005, Plaintiff issued a subpoena duces rectum to the Records
Custodian for the Office ofthe Attorney General requesting the Attorney General’s file relating I
to the rape charge against Harvey Leggett. Non—party Office ofthe Attorney General has now Q
filed a Motion to Quash Plaintiff°s subpoena, contending that such information is protected by a
governmental privilege.
3. Although there is no statutory or constitutional governmental privilege pertaining Q
to investigative reports, Plaintiff acknowledges that a "qualified governmental privilege exists in
the common law for material obtained for use in prosecutions by the attorney general."

Case 1:04-cv-01286-JJF Document 45 Filed 12/30/2005 Page 2 of 3
v. Bahar, 2002 Del Super. LEXIS 5 9, at *2. When presented with a possible application of this
privilege, the Court must "weigh the competing interests ofthe State and the party seeking the
information? Id
4. Although in @a_h_a_r the Superior Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to
the subpoenaed documents, in the case of Williams v. Alexander, 1999 Del Super. LEXIS 410,
the Superior Court did order the State to turn over documents from its- investigation. In Williams,
the Superior Court performed a balancing test and found that the "Plaintiffs would suffer great
hardship in proving their case without such inferrnation." ld. at *6. Ihe Superior Court reasoned
that, because the State "has had almost three years in which to proceed with its case" and had
failed to take any action in that time, the plaintiffs were entitled to information in the State’s file.
Id. Ihe Superior Court, consequently, ordered the State to "disclose all material relating to the
factual investigation" ofthe fire at issue in the Williams case. Ld
5. In the case currently before the Court, Plaintiffhas a high interest in her civil case I
against the Iown of Smyrna and the various individual defendants. Central to Plaintiffs claims is ,
her allegation that she was raped by Defendant Harvey Leggett. Defendant Leggett, in his
deposition in other litigation, however, denies that he had any sexual relationship with Plaintiff`.
(See Exhibit A) The infermation contained in the Attorney General’s investigation, therefore, is
vital to proving Plaintiffs ongoing civil case -5
6. Further, it has now been over three years since the time Plaintiff was allegedly
raped on December 20, 2002. Ihe State has had ample time to conduct a full investigation Io
the best of Plaintiffs knowledge, the State has not taken, nor does it intend to take, any action
against Defendant Leggett. Ihe State’s investigation would not be compromised, at this point, if Z

Case 1:04-cv-01286-JJF Document 45 Filed 12/30/2005 Page 3 of 3
it is required to permit Plaintiff access to the file in her case.
7 Moreover, Plaintiff as the victim of an alleged rape, should be granted access to
here own file, particularly if the State does not intend to prosecute the alleged perpetrator of this
crime. Because Plaintiffs interests outweigh those ofthe State, Plaintiff is entitled to the
information she requested in her subpoena
WHEREP ORE, Plaintiff; Kari (Smith) Priller, requests that the Court enter an Order
denying Non-party Office of the Attorney General’s Motion to Quaslr and compelling Non-
party Office ofthe Attorney General to comply with Plaintiffs subpoena issued December l6,
2005.t
., SCHMIT at GER AND RODRIGUEZ A.
W { l . G
/. it 1/ _ I
BY: _ /_ / # 4 LLM at
LLlAl\/{Dr FL T HER, l . ( .D.= 362)
414 South State treet r.
Post Office Box 497
H Dover, Delaware 19903-0497
(302) 674-0140
DATED: l gi gg] OS Attorney for Plaintiff