JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Special court-appointed investigators are seeking fines against Gov. Matt Blunt, alleging he "knowingly and purposely" violated Missouri's public-records law by denying access to e-mails.

The request for penalties is outlined in a revised lawsuit against Blunt and his former chief of staff. The two investigators _ one Republican and one Democrat _ asked the court Wednesday for permission to file the amended lawsuit, which was made public Thursday.

The lawsuit raises the strongest assertions yet in a yearlong e-mail deletion controversy surrounding the Republican governor, who chose not to seek re-election and has barely a month left in his term.

It alleges Blunt and his attorneys have denied access to e-mails requested by the investigators by raising objections, refusing to produce some documents and demanding "excessive" amounts of money for them.

"As a result, the office of governor and the governor have knowingly and purposely violated the Sunshine Law," the lawsuit says while asking that fines and penalties be levied against the governor's office.

Missouri law allows fines of up to $1,000 against public officials and governmental bodies found by a court to have "knowingly" violated the Sunshine Law. Fines of up to $5,000 are allowed for those found to have "purposely" violated the open-records law.

The lawsuit also claims Blunt's former chief of staff, Ed Martin, knowingly or purposefully violated the law by asserting he had no e-mails sought under a media Sunshine Law request made in August 2007. Martin's response indicates he had deleted the e-mails, the lawsuit says.

Story continues below

"In fact, e-mails were available from back-up tapes," the lawsuit states, but the governor's office did not ask state computer technicians to search the backup e-mail files.

Asked Thursday if his office willfully violated the Sunshine Law, Blunt said: "I think there is plenty of documents out there to indicate that we didn't."

Martin said in an e-mail that "the claims against me are unfounded" and asserted, "this is a politically motivated suit by Attorney General Jay Nixon," the Democrat recently elected governor.

Although Nixon appointed investigators in November 2007 to look into whether Blunt's office was complying with e-mail retention laws, the pending lawsuit was brought by special attorneys subsequently appointed by a Cole County judge to act on Nixon's behalf.

Blunt claimed the investigators were "struggling to come up with sort of a coherent case," evidenced by their decision to add Martin as a defendant while dismissing three other officials.

Those dismissed as defendants were administration commissioner Larry Schepker, former deputy administration commissioner Rich AuBuchon and state computer chief Dan Ross.

Blunt's attorneys have asked the court to dismiss the governor as a defendant while rebuffing deposition requests from the court-appointed attorneys, former Democratic Lt. Gov. Joe Maxwell and Republican attorney Louis Leonatti.

The investigators are seeking to take Blunt's deposition Dec. 11 in Jefferson City.

The controversy over e-mail deletions in Blunt's office began in September 2007, when the Springfield News-Leader said it had requested e-mail communications between the governor's office and anti-abortion interests but was told the e-mails didn't exist.

Blunt's spokesman asserted "there is no statute or case that requires the state to retain individuals' emails as a public record."

In fact, e-mails are public records under state law. Depending on the topic, some can be deleted soon after receipt, but others must be kept for three years and some must be saved for the state archives.

About the same time the media were questioning Blunt's e-mail policies, records show that Scott Eckersley, then a legal counsel to the governor, was assigned to update the office's Sunshine Law policy. On Sept. 14, 2007, he sent an e-mail to several top Blunt officials recommending they respond to the media by acknowledging that e-mails can be public records that must be retained.

Eckersley was fired two weeks later. He has filed a wrongful termination and defamation lawsuit, but Blunt officials say he was fired for justifiable reasons unrelated to e-mails.

Several media outlets, including The Associated Press, sued Blunt's administration after initially being told thousands of old e-mails they sought would cost more than $23,000, but the documents ultimately were provided for free under a legal settlement. The court-appointed attorneys investigating Blunt's administration are seeking a broader range of e-mails and say they still have not received many of them.

___

Associated Press Writer Chris Blank contributed to this report.