Charleston, W.Va. - State Supreme Court Justice Larry Starcher said Tuesday that he has no problem giving his e-mails or other communications to Massey Energy, a few days after the coal giant sued to get them.

Starcher said Tuesday he had no idea that Massey had requested records or documents from his office until he read it in The Charleston Gazette on Tuesday morning.

Last week, Massey filed a lawsuit in Kanawha Circuit Court after Supreme Court administrative director Steve Canterbury refused to disclose the requested communications. Canterbury is the only defendant named in the suit.

Under the state's Freedom of Information Act, Massey had asked for communications to or from Starcher, his staff, the court's administrative staff and any third parties that refer to Massey or its chief executive, Don Blankenship, from January 2004 onward.

On Tuesday, Starcher wrote a letter to Canterbury, expressing his disappointment at learning of Massey's request almost two weeks after it was made.

The letter includes a proposal to give Massey the requested correspondence, provided an independent reviewer determines that it falls under Massey's FOIA request.

"I've never done anything that causes me any concern," Starcher said Tuesday. "I have nothing to hide."

Starcher's proposal would not disclose any documents related to his work as a justice, and would require Massey to pay for the independent reviewer's time.

Canterbury said that he has not discussed Starcher's suggestions with his attorneys.

"Any justice is certainly free to turn over any material they want to turn over to anybody. If [Starcher] wants to turn over his e-mails [or other communications], that's fine. That's his business," he said. But Starcher's personal decision "does not stop this office from believing in the principle that e-mails of jurists are outside the scope of FOIA requests."

Massey's request follows a similar FOIA request by The Associated Press for Chief Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard's e-mails. After Canterbury refused to disclose Maynard's e-mails, the AP sued.

An index of 13 e-mails from Maynard to Blankenship between Jan. 30, 2006, and Nov. 6, 2007, is part of the case file, but the actual e-mails have not been released and are still under review by Kanawha Circuit Judge Duke Bloom.

Maynard's relationship with Blankenship came under national scrutiny after photos surfaced in January showing the two men together on the French Riviera in July 2006.

The photos were taken while several cases involving Massey and its subsidiaries were pending in front of the state Supreme Court, including an appeal of a multimillion-dollar verdict against Massey in favor of Harman Mining Corp. Maynard voted with the 3-2 majority to overturn that verdict.

Maynard, who has acknowledged a decades-long friendship with Blankenship, has denied any wrongdoing. He later recused himself from the Harman case, and said he would withdraw from all others involving Massey. He lost his re-election bid in May.

Starcher, who has been a vocal critic of Massey and Blankenship, said Massey's FOIA lawsuit may be a response to the AP's pursuit of Maynard's e-mails.

Starcher said Tuesday he had no idea that Massey had requested records or documents from his office until he read it in The Charleston Gazette on Tuesday morning.

Last week, Massey filed a lawsuit in Kanawha Circuit Court after Supreme Court administrative director Steve Canterbury refused to disclose the requested communications. Canterbury is the only defendant named in the suit.

Under the state's Freedom of Information Act, Massey had asked for communications to or from Starcher, his staff, the court's administrative staff and any third parties that refer to Massey or its chief executive, Don Blankenship, from January 2004 onward.

On Tuesday, Starcher wrote a letter to Canterbury, expressing his disappointment at learning of Massey's request almost two weeks after it was made.

The letter includes a proposal to give Massey the requested correspondence, provided an independent reviewer determines that it falls under Massey's FOIA request.

"I've never done anything that causes me any concern," Starcher said Tuesday. "I have nothing to hide."

Starcher's proposal would not disclose any documents related to his work as a justice, and would require Massey to pay for the independent reviewer's time.

Canterbury said that he has not discussed Starcher's suggestions with his attorneys.

"Any justice is certainly free to turn over any material they want to turn over to anybody. If [Starcher] wants to turn over his e-mails [or other communications], that's fine. That's his business," he said. But Starcher's personal decision "does not stop this office from believing in the principle that e-mails of jurists are outside the scope of FOIA requests."

Massey's request follows a similar FOIA request by The Associated Press for Chief Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard's e-mails. After Canterbury refused to disclose Maynard's e-mails, the AP sued.

An index of 13 e-mails from Maynard to Blankenship between Jan. 30, 2006, and Nov. 6, 2007, is part of the case file, but the actual e-mails have not been released and are still under review by Kanawha Circuit Judge Duke Bloom.

Maynard's relationship with Blankenship came under national scrutiny after photos surfaced in January showing the two men together on the French Riviera in July 2006.

The photos were taken while several cases involving Massey and its subsidiaries were pending in front of the state Supreme Court, including an appeal of a multimillion-dollar verdict against Massey in favor of Harman Mining Corp. Maynard voted with the 3-2 majority to overturn that verdict.

Maynard, who has acknowledged a decades-long friendship with Blankenship, has denied any wrongdoing. He later recused himself from the Harman case, and said he would withdraw from all others involving Massey. He lost his re-election bid in May.

Starcher, who has been a vocal critic of Massey and Blankenship, said Massey's FOIA lawsuit may be a response to the AP's pursuit of Maynard's e-mails.

The court is already in federal litigation with Massey regarding how justices recuse themselves. Starcher said that lawsuit focuses on his refusal to step down from Massey-related cases, but does not appear to take issue with Maynard or Justice Brent Benjamin presiding over their cases, he said.

Blankenship spent millions of his own money in a successful effort to unseat Benjamin's opponent, Justice Warren McGraw, in 2004.

After Maynard recused himself in the Harman case, Starcher followed suit. He has refused to do so in other cases involving Massey.

"I did that to try to finesse Benjamin into having the common sense to recuse himself as well, but he didn't do it," he said.

Starcher said he won't step down from the other Massey cases because that would allow Benjamin, as acting chief justice, to appoint a replacement while retaining his own vote. That would not be fair to litigants, Starcher said.

"You don't have to like the litigants to be able to adjudicate them fairly," he said.

Regarding the lawsuits over justices' e-mails, Starcher said, "I don't like seeing Massey forcing our taxpayers to pay for lawyers. ... I'd hate to see us hire lawyers and throw more money down the rat hole."

Canterbury said the court's legal bills in the recusal case are roughly $300,000. The court has already spent more than $18,000 fighting the AP's lawsuit, and that just represents the first invoice, he said.

Canterbury said his staff has standing orders to inform justices any time his office receives any papers pertaining to them.

"I don't know why [Massey's FOIA request] wasn't sent up to him," he said. "I feel bad about that."

Starcher's suggestions will be taken into consideration, but will not necessarily dictate the court's response to Massey's FOIA lawsuit, he said.

"The lawsuit is against me. I'm the principal," Canterbury said. "It's my office that maintains the servers that have the e-mails, and it's my office that will respond to this in the appropriate fashion at the appropriate time."

In his letter to Canterbury, Starcher disputed that. "It should go without saying that I am the 'principal' in the case, not you," he wrote.

Reach Andrew Clevenger at

 acleven...@wvgazette.com

or 348-1723.