IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE

UNITED STATES

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel.,
E. SCOTT PRUITT,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
Defendant.

Case No. _____________

PETITION
COMES NOW Plaintiff, The Humane Society of the United States (Plaintiff or
HSUS), by and through its attorney W.A. Drew Edmondson, and for its Petition and cause
of action against Defendant State of Oklahoma ex rel., E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General of
Oklahoma (State or Defendant), alleges and states as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. HSUS is registered as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and is headquartered in
Washington D.C. HSUS was incorporated under Delaware Law in November, 1954, and has
been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service since 1956 as an organization for the
prevention of cruelty to animals under Int. Rev. Code 501(c)(3). (Its original name was the
National Humane Society, which was changed to The Humane Society of the United States in
1957). HSUS is a national membership organization, and has close to seven thousand (7,000)
members in Oklahoma.

{S286721;}

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of Plaintiffs cause
of action pursuant to 12 O.S. 2004(f) and 12 O.S. 1381 et seq.
3. Venue is proper with this Court pursuant to 12 O.S. 139.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
4.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 3 above as if fully restated herein.

5.

While acknowledging privately that the Attorney Generals Office has not

received a single complaint from any contributor to The Humane Society of the United States
alleging they were misled by any HSUS advertisement or solicitation, Attorney General E. Scott
Pruitt (Attorney General Pruitt) is continuing a nearly year-long campaign of legal harassment
and public vilification of this organization for political gain. This petition seeks injunctive relief
from this honorable Court to prevent further damage to the reputation of The Humane Society of
the United States and further expenditures of time and resources in defense of baseless claims.
6.

On or about February 20, 2014, the State issued to HSUS a Request for

Information pursuant to the Oklahoma Solicitation of Charitable Contributions Act (Act), 18

Okla. Stat. 552.1 et seq. Attorney General Pruitt stated concern in the Request for Information
allegedly related to HSUSs advertisements, particularly after the May 20, 2013 tornado in
central Oklahoma.
7.

Between February 21, 2014, and March 27, 2014, HSUS fully responded to the

States Request for Information and specifically informed Attorney General Pruitts Office that
HSUS did not conduct fundraising related to the May 2013 tornado and provided additional
information of HSUS activities in Oklahoma during that time, including all print, mail and
electronic advertisements.

{S286721;}

8.

Through press releases, public appearances, and even tweets, Attorney General

Pruitt has publically referenced HSUS and called into question HSUSs solicitation practices,
even prior to his office receiving and reviewing information provided by HSUS in response to
the Request for Information.
9.

On July 1, 2014, despite HSUSs full compliance with the Request for

Information, Attorney General Pruitt issued an Investigative Demand to Produce Documentary

Material or Physical Evidence, Furnish a Report and/or Appear and Testify Under Oath
(Investigative Demand). The stated purpose of the Investigative Demand is to investigate
HSUSs charitable solicitations conducted within Oklahoma. However, in response to the
Request for Information, HSUS had already produced extensive information relating to its
solicitation, advertisement and direct mailings in Oklahoma from 2011 to 2013. Inexplicably, the
Investigative Demand asks for far more information relating to the governance and operation of
HSUS generally.
10.

Attorney General Pruitts interrogatories seek information completely unrelated to

Attorney General Pruitts concern alleged in his Request for Information. The Investigative
Demand seeks information such as: employee compensation; associations of officers and board
members, employee handbooks, identification of financial institutions holding HSUS assets and
production of financial statements, and detailed accounting of funds and grants.
11.

The Investigative Demand similarly includes burdensome requests for irrelevant

documents such as: organizational documents, meeting minutes, board notices, HSUS expenses,
balance sheets, income statements, and audits. These document requests seek information
through the present date, over a year after Attorney General Pruitts alleged concern occurred,
on or around May 20, 2013.

{S286721;}

12.

Nevertheless, HSUS complied with the States Investigative Demand, submitting

its answers to interrogatories and document production on July 28, 2014, and sending additional
documentation on or around August 27 and 28, 2014.
13.

Pursuant to the Act, a responding party is only obligated to produce relevant

nonprivileged material. 18 Okla. Stat. 552.14a(F). HSUS claims privilege with regard to a
limited number of documents based on attorney client privilege and proprietary protection.
HSUS submitted a privilege log to the Attorney Generals Office on October 15, 2014,
identifying a limited number of documents it considered privileged.
14.

On Thursday, November 13, 2014, the Attorney Generals Office faxed a letter to

HSUS demanding the privileged documents, and threatening legal action with fees and penalties
for failure to produce the privileged material.
15.

In a telling move, just one day after threatening a lawsuit, Attorney General Pruitt

appeared before the Oklahoma Farm Bureau on Friday, November 14, 2014, to once again
publically make false statements relating to HSUSs solicitation process and the Attorney
Generals Offices investigation. Specifically, Attorney General Pruitt stated:
And this Humane Society of the United States came into the state of Oklahoma
last year after the tornados in Moore and elsewhere and they raised substantial
monies across our state as they have done in other states and if you, you know
this, but if you look at their materials that sometimes are published, you know, in
the mail or the mail pieces that are sent or if you watch commercials, obviously
on television, very emotional features of that displacement of animals in local
shelters and how money can be raised to assist those local shelters. Well, they
came into the state of Oklahoma raising money last year as they have done
elsewhere and we are concerned that perhaps as they did that in 2013 and as they
have done that historically, those monies that have been raised in fact have not
gone to local shelters.
***

{S286721;}

In fact, the feeling is that those monies were spent on initiatives like we saw in
California to go out and raise money to pass a law in the state of California that
tries to dictate how we produce eggs.
***
And we think that much of the money used to advance that particular proposition
was money that was raised by HSUS under the guise that, what?, spending that on
local shelters across the country. Thats not right. In fact, as a result of that, not
only will we press the issue with HSUS, we have sent subpoenas out to them to
require them to provide financial information. . . . I know this is going to shock
you, but they were less than forthcoming and so we have sent a follow-up letter to
them to say provide the information or else we are going to take legal action to
force you to do so. And I actually sent that follow-up letter out yesterday to
HSUS and we are going to continue pressing that to find out the truth to see if
they took advantage of Oklahomans.
***
16.

These remarks are not only false and defamatory, but have been proven as false

by documentation provided by HSUS to Attorney General Pruitt. Such slanderous remarks have
been made with the intention of damaging HSUSs goodwill and donor prospects.
17.

The Act specifically states that, information obtained pursuant to the powers

conferred by this act shall not be made public or disclosed by the Attorney General . . . .
Id. 552.14a(G).
18.

The statements made by Attorney General Pruitt to groups such as Oklahoma

Farm Bureau violate the Act and call into question the legitimacy of both the Request for
Information and the Investigation Demand. The public nature in which Attorney General Pruitt
is pursuing what is alleged to be a confidential process completely undercuts any claims of actual
confidentiality being maintained in the Investigative Demand process.
19.

HSUS is extremely concerned about the prospect of disclosing proprietary,

confidential information relating to its future plans to Attorney General Pruitts Office,

{S286721;}

considering Attorney General Pruitts failure to adhere to the confidential nature of the
Investigative Demand process and Attorney General Pruitts continued politically-motivated
public statements.
20.

In an attempt to continue to comply in good faith with the Act, HSUS notified the

Attorney Generals Office on November 26, 2014 that it would agree to produce proprietary
information pursuant to a confidentiality agreement. The Attorney General, by letter dated
January 8, 2015, and received January 12, 2015, rejected that offer, refused to sign a
confidentiality agreement, and set a deadline of January 16, 2015, for delivery of the privileged
documents.
21.

The privileged documents and information requested by Attorney General Pruitt

are completely irrelevant to the investigation of charitable solicitation, and the requests are
political harassment at its core. Thus, HSUS seeks entry of a temporary and permanent
injunction to prevent the Attorney Generals Office from seeking the privileged documents and
documents.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Temporary and Permanent Injunction)
22.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 22 above as if fully restated herein.

23.

Attorney General Pruitt has accused HSUS of using the May 2013 tornado to

raise funds. HSUS has supplied all needed information, including all print, mail, and electronic
advertisements, for Attorney General Pruitt to concede that this is a false allegation.
24.

The Attorney General now seeks privileged information including attorney/client

communications and proprietary information concerning, among other things, the future plans of
HSUS.

{S286721;}

25.

Despite HSUSs compliance, as recently as November 14, 2014, Attorney

General Pruitt continued to make public false accusations regarding HSUSs fundraising.
26.

It is now clear that Attorney General Pruitts insistence for production of

confidential and privileged documents is nothing more than a fishing expedition.

27.

Plaintiff clearly has no other remedy at law, because any damages HSUS will

incur from Attorney General Pruitts continual public discussion of what should be a confidential
investigation is causing and will continue to cause irreparable harm to HSUS. It is impossible to
measure HSUSs damage to goodwill, lost contributions and lost opportunities caused by
Attorney General Pruitts actions. HSUS has incurred damage to its reputation, and by extension,
damage to its relationship with its members and contributors.
28.

HSUS has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claim for

injunctive relief. Attorney General Pruitts investigation is clearly politically motivated, and
HSUS has already produced all documentation needed to put this investigation to rest.
29.

HSUS will continue to suffer this injury as long as Defendants interference and

impairment are ongoing, and the harm caused by Defendant cannot be remedied other than
through injunctive relief.
30.

There will be no injury resulting to Defendant by granting injunctive relief

because Attorney General Pruitt already has all the information necessary to conclude his
investigation.
31.

There is significant public interest in maintaining the integrity of investigations

under the Oklahoma Solicitation of Charitable Contributions Act. When the process becomes
politically motivated and used for political harassment, the very purpose of the Act is
undermined, to the detriment of the public and the organizations targeted.

{S286721;}

32.

HSUS asks this Court to enjoin the Attorney Generals Office from seeking the

remaining privileged and confidential documents under the presently issued Request for
Information or Investigative Demand.
33.

Alternatively, HSUS requests the Court examine the confidential and privileged

documents in camera to determine the validity of HSUSs claims of privilege.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Judgment)
34.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 33 above as if fully restated herein.

35.

Plaintiffs Second Cause of Action is an action for declaratory judgment pursuant

to the Oklahoma Declaratory Judgment Act, 12 Okla. Stat. 1651, et seq., for the purposes of
determining a question or questions of actual controversy between the parties named in this
Petition.
36.

HSUS seeks a judgment from this Court declaring:

a. That HSUS has fully complied with the Request for Information and no
further responses or document production are required.
b. That HSUS has fully complied with the Investigative Demand and no
further responses or document production are required.

WHEREFORE, HSUS respectfully requests that the Court temporarily and permanently
enjoin Defendant from forcing production of irrelevant, privileged material, and to issue a
Temporary and Permanent Injunction accordingly. HSUS further requests the Court enter
judgment declaring HSUSs full compliance, and further that HSUS be awarded its reasonable

{S286721;}

attorneys fees, costs and all other equitable or monetary relief to which the Court deems it
entitled.
Dated: January __, 2015.
Respectfully submitted,

W.A. Drew Edmondson, OBA No. 2628

Diana T. Vermeire, OBA No. 31253
GABLEGOTWALS
One Leadership Square, 15th Floor
211 North Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
(405) 235-5500 (telephone)
(405) 235-2875 (facsimile)
WAEAG1@aol.com
dvermeire@gablelaw.com
ATTORNEY S FOR PLAINTIFF

{S286721;}