02/09/2026
LAWSUIT AGAINST MOUNTAIN LINE MUTD WON COSTING $25,952.11 IN FAVOR OF PUBLIC RECORDS AND TRANSPARENCY .
Norman v. Missoula Urban Transportation District, Cause
No. DV-32-24-243,
Montana Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, Dept. 5, Hon. Shane A. Vannatta
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
WHERE HAVE WE BEEN?
We're back. And we have a lot to tell you. If you've been wondering why this page has been silent for over a year, here's why. We were in the middle of a lawsuit against the Missoula Urban Transportation District (MUTD), doing business as Mountain Line, and it would not have been wise to post publicly while the case was actively being litigated. That silence wasn't a choice we wanted to make, but it was the responsible one. Now that the dust has settled, the public deserves to know what happened because this was always about you.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
-------------------------------------------------------------------------⠀
THE SHORT VERSION: WE WON, MONTANA WON, AND GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY WON!
On February 24, 2025, the Honorable Judge Shane A. Vannatta of the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court issued an Opinion and Order granting summary judgment in favor of Petitioner Austin Norman and denying MUTD's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment in Cause No. DV-32-24-243. The Court ruled that MUTD's blanket denial of public records I.E. specifically, security camera videos from buses operating on public roads, funded by public dollars and recording in public spaces was a violation of the Montana Constitution, Article II, Sections 8 and 9, which protect every Montanan's fundamental right to know and right to participate in government.
The Court ordered MUTD to produce the requested videos, and awarded attorney's fees and costs to the Petitioner. Let that sink in. A public transit agency, funded by taxpayer money, denied a lawful public records request, fought it in court for over a year, and lost. These are public records. The public has a right to see them. We have a right to see how public employees like supervisors handle situations and events etc.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
-------------------------------------------------------------------------⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
WHAT MADE THIS WORSE: THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE VIDEOS ANYMORE
Here is where this story goes from concerning to deeply troubling. After the Court's order was issued directing MUTD to produce the videos, MUTD revealed that the videos no longer existed. They had been overwritten. The videos requested in January 2024, some of which captured events from just one day prior to the request were allowed to be recorded over on a self-overwriting cycle. MUTD made a deliberate choice not to preserve them after denying the records request. Their own pleading states: "Respondent believed there was no reason to retain the video after denial of the request and the security videos were systematically overwritten as normal procedure." They denied the request, but didn't bother preserving the records that were asked for.
This fact was not disclosed to the Court or to the Petitioner during more than a year of litigation. It wasn't until after the summary judgment ruling and at an in-person meeting on April 1, 2025 that MUTD finally admitted the videos were gone. The Court took this seriously. On June 9, 2025, Judge Vannatta issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring MUTD to appear before the Court, present sworn testimony about how the videos were handled, and explain what steps it would take to prevent this from happening again.
At the July 1, 2025 hearing, while the Court acknowledged MUTD's efforts to revise its Security Camera Policy, Judge Vannatta found those efforts did not go far enough to protect the public's constitutional right to know. The Court ordered MUTD to continue revising its policies and make physical changes, if necessary, to its recording and storage systems to comply with the law, with a follow-up hearing scheduled for October 17, 2025.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
-------------------------------------------------------------------------⠀
THE COSTS TO MUTD AND POTENTIALLY TAXPAYERS
The Court ordered MUTD to pay a total of $25,952.11: that's $24,815.15 in attorney's fees, plus $1,054.14 in costs, plus an additional $82.82 in costs accrued after the original order. Dollar that comes from you, the taxpaying public. That is money that did not need to be spent. A straightforward public records request could have been honored. Instead, MUTD chose to fight it, and the taxpayers are footing the bill for that decision.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
-------------------------------------------------------------------------⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
A NOTE ON HOW WE GOT HERE
I want to be transparent about how this case was handled on our end. Attorney James P. O'Brien represented me at the beginning of this case and put in significant work during the early stages corresponding with MUTD's counsel, researching the legal issues, and laying the groundwork. I'm grateful for that work. Around October 2024, I began representing myself pro se. Through careful legal research I was able to draft and file the motion for summary judgment and the supporting briefs that ultimately won this case. I don't say that to pat myself on the back. I say it because everyday people should know that the legal system, while difficult to navigate alone, can work for you when the law is on your side and you're willing to put in the effort. This was not easy, but it was necessary.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
THE JUDGE DID THE RIGHT THING
I want to say clearly: Judge Vannatta did the right thing here. In a world where it sometimes feels like the little guy can't win against large entities, this Court carefully examined the law, applied it faithfully, and ruled that the constitutional rights of the people of Montana cannot be brushed aside by a blanket security policy with no case-by-case analysis. The Judge didn't just grant summary judgment, he held MUTD accountable after the fact through the show cause process, demanded real changes. Justice won. That is rare, and it matters.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
-------------------------------------------------------------------------⠀⠀
WE'RE NOT DONE
Transparency won today, but there is still work to be done. There are ongoing concerns with MUTD operations that we will be addressing in future posts including a bus fire incident and how those situations were handled by supervisors. We owe it to the riders, the drivers, and the community to keep asking hard questions. This page exists because the public has a right to know how their transit system is being run. That right was affirmed by the Court. We're back, and we're not going anywhere.
Stay tuned. More to come.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
DOCUMENTS INCLUDED HERE
Of course the documents for this case can be seen publically at the courthouse in the Clerk of District Court, but I've included the judge's original order granting summary judgment, the order for costs/fees, my original brief in support of a motion for summary judgment, and the judge's order to show after MUTD failed to preserve the public records originally asked for.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
CONCLUSION
As I put in my Pre-Hearing Memorandum filing seen below in the conclusion, I feel the same way:
In an era where public discourse is too often detached from factual grounding and policy decisions are made on assertion rather than evidence, this Court's steadfast adherence to evidence has not merely been a procedural formality but rather a vital safeguard for the rule of law. Throughout this litigation, MUTD has demonstrated a troubling preference for acting on its own unsubstantiated beliefs without solid evidence, from its legally baseless security claims to its concealment of spoliation in evidence. It cannot be permitted to operate in a reality of its own making that is immune to the evidentiary and legal standards for truth to which all other parties, and indeed our system of justice are held.
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Throughtout this lawsuit I heard without supporting evidence a lot of "I believe," "we believe," "MUTD believes," or some combination permutation of the phrase "we believe,". This is exactly what's wrong with bureaucracy today that hasn't had enough accountability. A sprinkle of "we believe," is good enough without supporting evidence if those listening presume their beliefs are to be held sound by default, however their beliefs still don't change reality, no matter how hard they want to "believe" it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGE'S ORDER AND GRANTING OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
https://1drv.ms/b/c/074c84788a548b52/IQD8QBdzyVzZQL7XpAz1NlzUAUInCqMvNgwmMNiSZ-mUYg0?e=sqzKMA
JUDGE'S ORDER GRANTING COSTS AND FEES FOR CAUSE
https://1drv.ms/b/c/074c84788a548b52/IQC6vR3GmU50T4AD8QJuqIZUAYWEgsCSaDT6c0KqxwOjezI?e=xzgMiT
JUDGE'S ORIGINAL ORDER FOR SHOW CAUSE HEARING AFTER MUTD STATES THEY NO LONGER HAVE THE VIDEO INFORMATION ORIGINALLY REQUESTED
https://1drv.ms/b/c/074c84788a548b52/IQBLLyRqbYp8SqNztcLsRd0RATSppHmKntSPpnmBnOibeiQ?e=zNfPGI
MY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
https://1drv.ms/b/c/074c84788a548b52/IQAraHUbkxEUToQrWg8ZLonTAVLIKmHKRjOvTKNdlkUpS8k?e=xRZRVg
MY PRE-HEARING MEMORANDUM TO SHOW CAUSE
https://1drv.ms/b/c/074c84788a548b52/IQD4OxomjGMiTLrM46oEEMIFAVrPzjUGHjDbjdy0PxK1JIE?e=kdhfq1
