Judge refuses to toss lawsuit against Blunt

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- A judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit by a former aide to Gov. Matt Blunt claiming defamation and other wrongdoing in his September 2007 firing.

Scott Eckersley, the former staff attorney in Blunt's office, sued the governor and four past and current staff members claiming he was fired for suggesting the governor's administration was destroying e-mails in violation of the state's record retention laws.

Eckersley also claimed he was defamed when Blunt's administration provided reporters with letters and packets of information defending the firing.

Blunt's office has denied that assertion and said Eckersley was fired for other reasons including doing private work with state resources.

Ruling last week on a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Jackson County Judge Michael Manners tossed out Eckersley's claim that his firing violated public policy. But the judge said the lawsuit could proceed on Eckersley's other claims, including that he was defamed and that the firing violated the state's whistleblower protections.

Blunt's attorneys had argued for dismissal on the ground that executive privilege bars defamation lawsuits over statements made by Blunt in his official capacity.

But Manners, in his 21-page ruling, wrote that allowing Blunt to use the executive privilege defense could help "mask official misconduct."

"If high government officials have immunity to ruin the reputation of potential whistleblowers when they dare to reveal corruption or wrongdoing, then who can doubt that the effect will be to inhibit the revelation of corruption or wrongdoing?" Manners wrote.

Limited immunity

Manners concluded that the governor was entitled to limited immunity from defamation claims, meaning Eckersley would have to prove that Blunt knew any defamatory statements were false or that he acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Blunt spokeswoman Jessica Robinson on Monday called Eckersley's claims a "political lawsuit" and said the governor continues to believe that executive privilege requires the lawsuit's dismissal.

"We are concerned for future governors that they will be dragged into court to defend political lawsuits on a regular basis, which hurts the public's interest and wastes taxpayer dollars," Robinson said in a written statement.

Jeff Bauer, an attorney for Eckersley, said it was important to keep Blunt as a defendant in the case to demonstrate that everyone is accountable to the law.

"It's important that anybody who had anything to do with actually trashing Scott Eckersley's reputation be involved -- and our information is the governor was involved in that -- so obviously we wanted the governor to continue to be a part of that lawsuit," Bauer said.

Documents sent to reporters by the governor's office after the firing last year claimed Eckersley had registered for a "group sex Internet site" and had been questioned by the governor's chief of staff about illegal drug use.

Eckersley's lawsuit denies the charges, calling them "patently false" and "designed to injure, defame and smear."

Manners ruled that Eckersley could proceed with a claim against Blunt that the firing violated Missouri's whistleblower protections, but the judge dismissed the four other defendants from that claim.

Blunt's administration also is facing a lawsuit from a bipartisan team of court-appointed lawyers to determine whether the governor's office violated open-records laws by deleting e-mails. A hearing in that case is scheduled Wednesday.

Case is Scott Eckersley v. Matthew Blunt, 0816-CV00118