06/02/2026
ANOTHER LOSS FOR MAYOR SCOTT.
Same judge. Same case. Same concerns.
The City asked Judge Pamela White to seal records from public view.
Denied.
The City claimed attorney-client privilege, work product, confidentiality, and argued the records should be hidden.
Judge White wrote the City’s motion did not “clearly or convincingly” establish why the records should be sealed. She also wrote the motion relied on “conclusory assertions.”
The bigger story is what the judge focused on.
Judge White wrote the developing legal issues involve the independence of the Inspector General, the ability to enforce subpoenas, and access to records and investigations without obstruction or limitation by the City Law Department.
WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION OR LIMITATION BY THE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT.
That’s the court’s language.
The City keeps arguing for more control. The court keeps questioning whether the Inspector General can effectively do her job if the City Solicitor controls the records, the subpoenas, and the legal decisions.
And let’s be honest about what this motion was.
The administration wanted these records removed from public view.
They wanted communications tied to this fight hidden from public scrutiny.
Once records are sealed, fewer people read them. Fewer reporters write about them. Fewer taxpayers ask questions.
The watchdog is already fighting for access to records.
Now the administration wanted records in the court file hidden too.
Judge White also wrote that the City Solicitor’s asserted powers may materially limit the Inspector General’s ability to perform her Charter duties and may create conflicts of interest.
That’s the same concern she raised during the hearing.
The same concern that led her to find an irreconcilable conflict.
The same concern appearing again in this ruling.
At what point does City Hall start paying attention?
The court keeps raising concerns about the Inspector General’s independence.
The City keeps pushing the same arguments.
And the losses keep piling up.