The latest case information is in for the Virginia Supreme Court on Friday afternoon.
According to court records, the judge will issue an order that requires the Commonwealth to provide a list of all documents in the case to the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office.
The order also requires the attorneys for the Commonwealth and for the Attorney General to submit to the court an affidavit outlining any actions they took to respond to the request.
A hearing on the request is set for 8:30 a.m. on Friday.
The attorney for the attorney general, James G. Cogan, could not be reached for comment.
Virginia has a history of lawsuits over privacy issues.
In 2015, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of an Alabama man who wanted to sue the Virginia Attorney General’s Office for violating his privacy by notifying him when his information had been provided by the state.
The case involved an electronic health record, which is used by health care providers to track patient health status and monitor medical and behavioral conditions.
In 2014, Virginia became the first state to require an electronic records-management system for the use of the state’s electronic health records.
Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, a Democrat, argued the Virginia Health and Human Services Commission, which oversees the agency, did not have jurisdiction over him because he was not a resident of the Commonwealth.
State law states that the Commonwealth’s Attorney General is the person responsible for the “care and administration of the office.”
The Virginia case involved the filing of a lawsuit by the attorney of William “Bill” Epps, who was a former state employee and was charged with the felony of making false statements in his work report.
Epps had a criminal record in Alabama for theft and battery and attempted murder.
The case was later dismissed.
Epps filed a civil lawsuit against the state in federal court in Washington, D.C., claiming that the Attorney Generals Office violated his civil rights by not disclosing his information in his official report.
The lawsuit claimed that the state “failed to act timely in providing” Epp with the information.
The judge ruled in Epps’ favor, noting that the Virginia Office of Information Technology (OIT) has “a statutory duty to provide information” to the Virginia attorney general’s office.
The OIT, however, was unaware of Epps information before it was provided to him, and its actions “failed even to notify Epps that his information would be provided,” the judge wrote.
The Commonwealth’s attorney’s office has been required by the law to provide Epps with information about the electronic health systems in Virginia.
According, the attorney’s attorney, Michael M. Womack, argued that his client should be able to see what information was being provided to the attorney.
According Epps lawyer, Richard A. McBride, the Attorney’s office had to provide “the information in a form that is accessible by the public and not be subject to a FOIA exemption,” Womak wrote in his brief.
“The public and the public records law requires disclosure of any and all information related to any civil rights violation to be provided by state agencies in their public filings,” McBride wrote.
In the opinion by Judge Robert L. Lamberth, the opinion said the Attorney-General’s Office “was not properly informed of Epp’s case, and was unaware that the information contained in Epps report was being used by the Commonwealth as part of the public record.”
Epps’ attorneys asked for a temporary restraining order in federal district court in Virginia, which would bar the attorney from contacting Epps for two years.
The Virginia Supreme court declined to issue a temporary injunction.
The court also agreed to stay the hearing, but a judge set a Monday deadline for the parties to submit their responses to the injunction.
The hearing is scheduled for 8 a.M. on Monday.