PROVIDENCE — Attorney General Peter F. Neronha’s office is vowing to post court documents on its website so the public can stay up to date on the lawsuit that the state has filed against 13 companies that worked on the Washington Bridge.
“The attorney general is committed to as much transparency as possible, so every public filing or pleading will be posted on the attorney general’s website as soon as possible,” spokesman Brian Hodge said Monday.
But state Senator Samuel D. Zurier, a Providence Democrat, is calling for Neronha to go further to ensure the public gets answers about what happened to the Interstate 195 bridge, which had its westbound span shut down in December because of the threat of “catastrophic failure.”
Zurier wrote to Neronha on Aug. 19, asking him to not only set up a website with pleadings and motions but to also to post any non-privileged discovery materials in the case, and to oppose any attempts to keep documents secret with a blanket protective order. Discovery is the formal process of exchanging information between the parties about the witnesses and evidence they will present in a case.
On Sunday, in his weekly letter to Senate District 3 constituents, Zurier called Neronha’s plan to post court documents “a promising first step.”
“With that said, it is a very modest first step, as any Rhode Island attorney can access the court docket to view (and disseminate) the filed documents,” wrote Zurier, who is an attorney.
Also, he noted the court docket does not include discovery materials, “which likely will include thousands of pages of documents, such as the forensic audit report, RIDOT documents, statements by RIDOT officials and the consultants, which may be critical for the public to know what happened with the Washington Bridge, how it happened and why.”
Zurier said the public should not have to wait years until the litigation is completed to get answers to crucial questions of accountability, as it did in the the 38 Studios civil lawsuit over the state’s $75 million loan guarantee for Curt Schilling’s ill-fated video game venture.
Zurier said Neronha, who serves as co-counsel for the bridge litigation, has not replied directly to his Aug. 19 letter or returned his phone call.
But Neronha appeared to be addressing Zurier in a Sept. 12 post on X.
“Reminder: Criminal prosecutions (grand jury secrecy) & even civil litigation rarely are the best means of government oversight,” Neronha wrote. “That function is best left to the legislative branch through oversight hearings. Real ones. With subpoenas issued and testimony taken under oath.”
“All lawyers know this,” Neronha wrote. “So - if the goal is to learn how something happened and let the public know about it, and you are, say, a state senator, I’d suggest, since we’re picking our own lanes it seems, getting those oversight hearings underway.”
“Btw,” Neronha added, “I tripped on a broken Providence sidewalk recently and suffered quite a cut on my knee. Not to mention a blow to my dignity. Any help on that score would be greatly appreciated.”
Zurier, who took part in a joint House and Senate legislative oversight hearing in February, noted lawmakers were assured that a forensic audit report would identify what went wrong with the Washington Bridge and why the state failed to detect the problems before the westbound span was abruptly shut down.
But now, he said, state officials are refusing to release any forensic audit findings because the state recently filed the lawsuit. That leaves legislators, as well as the public, in a “classic Catch 22 situation,” but Neronha is now in position to make key documents accessible to the public, Zurier said.
In his district newsletter, Zurier said Neronha’s social media post seems to propose legislative oversight hearings as a way to get answers without access to the non-privileged documents that the attorney general can publish if he chooses.
“The obvious flaw is that oversight hearings and the lawsuit investigation can and should work together, rather than as opposing alternatives,” he wrote. “A decision by the attorney general to disclose information gained in discovery will improve and enhance the productivity of legislative oversight hearings.”
Also, Zurier said, “The deeper flaw with the attorney general’s proposal begins with the complex and uncertain process of enforcing a subpoena, particularly if the court issues a protective order cloaking discovery materials in the lawsuit.”
Legislators could face obstacles in issuing subpoenas for documents while the litigation was under way, and witnesses could refuse to appear or cite Fifth Amendment protections, he said. Plus, lawmakers would be trying to compile those documents while the attorney general and state lawyers would already have access to them, he said.
“It is my hope that the attorney general will not let his promising first step towards transparency become a merely symbolic final one,” Zurier wrote. “The people of Rhode Island want timely answers to the questions we have had since December, rather than waiting for years until the lawsuit concludes.”
On Monday afternoon, Neronha weighed in on X again, saying, “The inability of the Senate, at least in Senator Zurier’s mind, to perform one of its core functions - oversight of the executive branch - effectively, ought, if true, trouble all RI’ers. We have a different job - to litigate cases for RI’ers zealously and effectively.”
Neronha wrote that “Posting all discovery would draw the objection of defendants, require judge’s ruling in the state’s favor, and endanger any verdict in favor of the state on appeal. It’s not worth the risk, nor needed for Senator to get the answers he seeks. That’s what leg. oversight is for.”
Zurier then posted a message, saying, “I respectfully disagree with the AG’s analysis. I do not find Twitter to be the best forum to explain legal issues. I would be pleased to have a substantive 2-way discussion with the AG (or his staff) rather than continue to read unilateral broadsides that lack nuance.”
Neronha responded, saying, “Senator - you sent me a letter that you immediately released to the press and went on the radio to discuss. That’s politics at work, nothing more. I have no interest in speaking with you. You do your job. I’ll do mine.”
Zurier had the last word, saying, “Respectfully, those aren’t the facts. I wrote you a letter on 8/19, which you still haven’t answered. I first shared it publicly 2 weeks later. When the Globe inquired on 9/4, your office said it was under review. I was on the radio 9/6. This Twitter posturing is beneath us.”
Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at edward.fitzpatrick@globe.com. Follow him @FitzProv.