Case: 25CH1:17-cv-000981 Document #: 3 Filed: 07/17/2017 Page 1 of 5

IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

JOHN DOE APPELLANT

v. No. G2017-981 T/1

THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI,

STEVE ROBERTSON, and APPELLEES

MOTION FOR STAY OF COMMISSIONS FINAL ORDER

Because the Legislature crafted an affirmative route of appeal from the Mississippi Ethics

om
Commission in cases involving the Public Records Act, and because John Doe now seeks

.c
judicial review of the Commissions Final Order, a stay is proper.

ya
1. A stay of the Commissions Order should be granted so that John Does right to privacy
la
may be reviewed by the Judicial Branch. John Doe was named in the 2017 Amended Notice of
ba

Allegations by the NCAA. The University had redacted the name of John Doe from public
am

disclosure. Third parties sought to learn John Does identity. The Commission found that the
nj

University should disclose the information. John Doe appealed that decision within one business
so

day.
ck

2. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the University of Mississippi must disclose John
Ja

Does name to third parties. The Legislature provided a route of appeal from the Mississippi

Ethics Commission. Without a stay, the ability of John Doe to seek judicial review of that issue

will be irreparably damaged.

3. It is without question that in Mississippi a person has the right to privacy. Young v.

Jackson, 572 So.2d 378 (Miss. 1990). As a result, the Public Records Act specifically allows

private individuals to seek exemption from the disclosure of their information in public records.

Miss. Code. Ann. 25-61-11. In 2012, the Mississippi Supreme Court specifically addressed the

1
 Case: 25CH1:17-cv-000981 Document #: 3 Filed: 07/17/2017 Page 2 of 5

rights of third persons, and ruled that the Act does not conflict with the courts authority to

declare a public record confidential or privileged. Est. of Cole v. Ferrell, 163 So. 3d 921, 925

(Miss. 2012).

4. Just as a person has a right to privacy, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that

citizens have a property right in their lawsuit. See Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S.

422, 428 (1982) (a cause of action is a species of property protected by the Fourteenth

Amendments Due Process Clause). The Court traditionally has held that the Due Process

om
Clauses protect civil litigants who seek recourse in the courts, either as defendants hoping to

protect their property or as plaintiffs attempting to redress grievances. Id. at 429.

.c
5. Quoting Zimmerman, the Mississippi Supreme Court has recognized that [i]t is without

ya
question that a cause of action is a species of property protected by the Fourteenth
la
ba
Amendments Due Process Clause of the federal constitution. Albert v. Allied Glove Corp., 944
am

So. 2d 1, 6 (Miss. 2006).

6. Additionally, the State Constitution creates multiple guarantees for citizens seeking
nj
so

redress through the court system. See Miss. Const. of 1890 art. 3, 24 (All courts shall be

open; and every person for an injury done to him, in his land, goods, person or reputation, shall
ck
Ja

have a remedy by due course of the law, and right and justice shall be administered, without sale,

denial, or delay); Miss. Const. of 1890, art. 3, 25 (No person shall be debarred from

prosecuting or defending any civil cause for or against him or herself, before any tribunal in the

state, by him or herself, or counsel, or both); Miss. Const. of 1890, art. 3, 31 (The right of

trial by jury shall remain inviolate).

7. John Doe was also given the property right to appeal by the Legislature, which set out

this process: Any party may petition the chancery court of the county in which the public body

2
 Case: 25CH1:17-cv-000981 Document #: 3 Filed: 07/17/2017 Page 3 of 5

is located to enforce or appeal any order of the Ethics Commission issued pursuant to this

chapter, and in that appeal the chancery court shall conduct a de novo review. Miss. Code.

Ann. 25-61-13. Therefore the Legislature specifically allowed for judicial review of the

Commissions decisions regarding Public Records Act, as it has for employee matters. See Miss.

Code. Ann. 25-4-21 (allowing de novo appeal to circuit court). That sister statutes allows for

an immediate stay upon notice of appeal, since execution of the commissions decision shall be

stayed upon the filing of a notice of appeal. Miss. Code. Ann. 25-4-21. Reading the sister

om
appeal statute in pari materia with the Public Records appeal process, a stay is also proper in

these types of cases in order to allow a litigant like John Doe their full right to judicial review.

.c
8. This is further important because the Commission admittedly did notand could not

ya
address all of John Does claims, such as how they have been deprived of meaningful process by
la
ba
the NCAA. Any violation of John Does right to due process in the matter investigated by the
am

NCAA is outside the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission and will not be specifically

addressed herein. Final Order, at 8.

nj
so

9. It is without question that John Doe has a property right in their privacy, their name, their

personal information, and from being harmed by that disclosure. John Doe also has a property
ck
Ja

right in this appeal from the Commission, and a property right in access to the court system. The

Commission noted in its Final Order that it could not and did not address important Due Process

concerns. A stay is proper in order to safeguard John Does right to privacy, right in this appeal,

and right of access to the court system. If John Does private information and name is ejected

into the public, the whole process is disrupted, and property rights lost forever. The

Legislatures assurance of an appeal is also nullified.

3
 Case: 25CH1:17-cv-000981 Document #: 3 Filed: 07/17/2017 Page 4 of 5

10. For these reasons, a stay of the Commissions Final Order should be granted pending

judicial review.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Appellant John Doe respectfully

requests that this Honorable Court enter a STAY of the Final Order of the Mississippi Ethics

Commission pending judicial review.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, July 17, 2017.

APPELLANT JOHN DOE

om
s/ David Neil McCarty
DAVID NEIL McCARTY
Miss. Bar No. 101620

.c
DAVID NEIL MCCARTY LAW FIRM, PLLC
416 East Amite Street

ya
Jackson, Miss. 39201
T: 601.874.0721
la
E: dnmlaw@gmail.com
ba
W: www.McCartyAppeals.com
am
nj
so
ck
Ja

4
 Case: 25CH1:17-cv-000981 Document #: 3 Filed: 07/17/2017 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned attorney, do hereby certify that I have served by United States mail,
postage prepaid, or via hand delivery if specified, a true and correct copy of the above and
foregoing document, to the following persons at these addresses:

Counsel for University of Mississippi

Lee Tyner and Robert T. Jolly (by E-Mail and U.S. Mail)
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI
P.O. Box 1848
University, Miss. 38677
ltyner@olemiss.edu
rtjolly@olemiss.edu

om
Counsel for Steve Robertson
Casey Lott (by E-Mail and U.S. Mail)
Langston & Lott

.c
100 S. Main St.
Booneville, MS 38829-0382

ya
clott@langstonlott.com la
ba
am
nj

Administrative Agency
so

Tom Hood, Executive Director and Chief Counsel (by E-Mail and U.S. Mail)
Chris Graham, Hearing Officer
MISSISSIPPI ETHICS COMMISSION
ck

660 North Street, Suite 100-C

Ja

Jackson, Miss. 39202

THood@ethics.state.ms.us
CGraham@ethics.state.ms.us

On July 17, 2017.

s/ David Neil McCarty

David Neil McCarty

5
Case: 25CH1:17-cv-000981 Document #: 2 Filed: 07/17/2017 Page 1 of 2

m
co
y a.
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
Case: 25CH1:17-cv-000981 Document #: 2 Filed: 07/17/2017 Page 2 of 2

m
co
y a.
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja