Appeals Court Halts Proceedings in Nashville Shooter’s Records Case as Appeal Allowing Intervention by Covenant Parties Proceeds

A man holds a large cross in front of The Covenant School in Nashville on Thursday, March 31, four days after six were killed in a mass shooting at the school. Mourners observe the makeshift memorial at the school’s entrance. (Chase Smith/The Epoch Times)

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has halted the trial court proceedings in the lawsuits against the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (MNPD) for denying open records requests in relation to the March 27 Covenant School shooter’s writings.

The appellate court on Wednesday issued an order granting an expedited hearing for those appealing the lower court’s decision to allow the Covenant School parents, church, and school to enter the lawsuit as third-party interveners. The plaintiffs filed their appeal with the higher court on May 30.

The parties suing MNPD were denied a pause in proceedings as the appeal proceeded by Davison County Chancellor I’Ashea Myles earlier this month. However, with the order from the appellate court, the lower court’s proceedings have been paused in order “to protect the rights of all parties involved.”

The appellate court said that in her ruling, Myles “intends to proceed with” a hearing on July 12 on whether or not MNPD has to release the records, “despite the pendency of this appeal.”

The higher court acknowledged that the Tennessee Public Records Act has a preference for hearings on open records lawsuits to be held expeditiously, but sided with the plaintiffs who argued to Myles if she were to let proceedings carry on the appellate court’s ruling could be rendered moot.

“However, this Court is tasked with reviewing the Trial Court’s decision to allow intervention of several parties as an appeal as of right,” the higher court wrote. “Until the appeal regarding the intervention is resolved, there is no way to know who the parties in the underlying action will be to participate in the show cause hearing. Without a stay of the trial court proceedings, this appeal would be rendered moot or the parties may be forced to conduct a new show cause hearing depending on the results of the appeal.”

Lower Court’s Denial

Myles, on many occasions during a June 8 hearing on the requested pause in proceedings, indicated the legal matters at question in this case are unlike any other case in Tennessee history, thus, precedent has not been set.

She added on various other occasions that no matter her decision, she was confident one of the many parties would appeal her decision, leaving the Court of Appeals and possibly the Tennessee Supreme Court with settling questions not answered currently through precedent.

The decision on whether to stop proceedings as appellate court proceedings were heard was something Myles and attorneys arguing earlier this month said had not been something a court has had to deal with following a new Tennessee rule of procedure set in 2018.

That rule states that when a court makes a decision on intervention, that determination is final, with attorneys for the defendants arguing the law should be construed as appeals being required immediately in the middle of the lower court’s proceedings rather than later in the case at the risk of making the entire case moot.

“Our point is, if this proceeding goes forward, it would essentially render our appeal null,” one attorney said at the time, which was a sentiment echoed in the higher court’s ruling.

Myles said at the time, the rule change was “very new,” and thus, “very little jurisprudence in how it should work in application” currently exists.

Normally, attorneys and Myles debated, appeals would all be held until the end of the case. However, the rule states orders on intervention are final, and the question remained as to whether it should be appealed upon being made or upon a final determination made in the case at large.

Myles argued the rule change, made in 2018, was really made to protect those who were denied intervention in a case, not necessarily for an original party to object to intervention being granted. She stated she had “trouble understanding” why those opposed to intervention by Covenant parties “have problems” with their arguments being heard.

An attorney argued the stay was necessary because if intervention was allowed now in a public records case where a party may or may not have standing, then “anyone who wants to shut down” public records act proceedings may now have precedent to do so.

Myles Warned of Delays

Myles said at the time of her ruling those seeking the documents were essentially stepping in front of themselves, as public records challenges are by Tennessee law to be heard on an expedited basis.

She added with an appeal very likely, it would have made sense for the whole case to go up on appeal to a higher court as a whole.

“If we have a show cause hearing, you will have an opinion from me in short order…” she said. “Then the whole case can go up on appeal, with a complete record, to the Court of Appeals and perhaps even to the [Tennessee] Supreme Court. Right now, the case is bifurcated, where we’re asking the Court of Appeals frankly to look at a singular issue while we haven’t gotten to the main issue of this case.”

She also questioned the presumption by the appealing parties that if the Court of Appeals later determined the Covenant intervenors should not have been allowed to intervene, that her court could not follow the higher court’s rule to make a decision without the argument of the Covenant parties considered.

Myles stated the appeal, which at the time had not been approved by the Court of Appeals to be heard on an expedited basis, could go on for “months,” in direct contrast to the law stating public records cases should be heard quickly.

The timeline presented by the appellate court ruling for case files and briefs to be filed could mean the appeal will not be heard for another month as trial court proceedings remain paused, further pushing the timeline to when a ruling will be made on whether MNPD must release all or some records to the plaintiffs.