Former Baltimore County administrative officer sues for records tied to sealed inspector general case documents
Lawsuit challenges Baltimore County’s handling of public-records requests tied to a sealed dispute
A former senior Baltimore County official has filed suit seeking the release of public records connected to a sealed court case involving former county Inspector General Kelly Madigan and Patrick Murray, who previously served as chief of staff to then-County Executive Johnny Olszewski.
The complaint was filed by Fred Homan, a former county administrative officer, after Baltimore County denied his requests under the Maryland Public Information Act for documents related to the matter. The suit was filed on Friday, March 6, 2026, and reported publicly on March 9, 2026.
What the requested records involve
The records at issue stem from a conflict tied to a March 2021 meeting between Madigan and Murray. The dispute concerned how the inspector general’s office conducted oversight work and, specifically, the handling of an investigation involving county actions connected to developer David Cordish’s proposed construction of a tennis barn on his property.
In the wake of that meeting, Murray emailed Madigan on April 8, 2021, stating that she must request records in writing. Madigan did not ultimately follow that instruction. The disagreement later became the basis of litigation in which Madigan sued Murray. That case was resolved through a settlement, and the court file was sealed.
Key legal questions raised by Homan’s filing
Homan’s lawsuit argues that Baltimore County cannot rely on a sealing order to deny future public-records requests on a blanket basis. The complaint contends that a court does not have authority to impose an indefinite, prospective restriction requiring denial of all future Public Information Act requests related to the sealed case, regardless of what specific records are sought.
Homan is seeking a court order requiring Baltimore County to produce records responsive to his requests. Those requests include communications—such as emails—between the county Office of Law and other attorneys connected to the dispute and its resolution.
The underlying case was sealed after settlement, restricting access to the court file and limiting disclosure through public-records processes.
The new suit focuses on whether sealing can be used to block access to related executive-branch communications and legal correspondence.
The filing also places scrutiny on the rationale for sealing the case and the scope of confidentiality that followed.
Context: settlement secrecy and public-records costs
The dispute over access to these records comes amid broader questions about transparency surrounding the county’s handling of the sealed litigation. Separate public-records efforts by a major Maryland newspaper have confronted a county demand exceeding $5,000 in fees for documents tied to the case and a taxpayer-funded $100,000 settlement paid in 2025.
In his complaint, Homan argues that access to government records is particularly important when the requested information concerns alleged wrongdoing by government or its employees.
County response and what comes next
Baltimore County Executive Kathy Klausmeier’s office said the county could not comment because it had not yet been served and had not had an opportunity to review the complaint.
The case is expected to test the boundary between sealed court proceedings and the public’s ability to obtain related government records through Maryland’s public information law—especially when the underlying dispute involves high-level officials and taxpayer expenditures.