Bakke v. Oregon DHS

April 2026

A public records lawsuit brought by a La Grande journalist against the Oregon Department of Human Services is scheduled for a hearing on April 16, 2026, in Marion County Circuit Court. The case, Bakke v. Oregon Department of Human Services, Case No. 26CV11493, is pending before the Honorable Amy Queen. The court will hear the State's Motion to Dismiss. A Temporary Restraining Order entered in March remains in effect until further order of the court.

The plaintiff is Levi Bakke, an investigative journalist and founder of Valor Investigations. The defendant is the Oregon Department of Human Services, represented by the Oregon Department of Justice. Bakke is appearing without an attorney. DOJ has assigned Assistant Attorney General Hannah Hoffman and Senior Assistant Attorney General Drew Baumchen to the case, with the assignment made by Senior AAG Eliot Thompson of the Civil Litigation Section.

BACKGROUND

The records at the heart of the case relate to the Oregon DHS investigation of a Union County adult foster home where Russell Bingaman, a seventy-seven year old United States Army veteran, died on January 29, 2025. DHS had conducted two abuse investigations at the facility before his death. Bakke has been reporting on the Bingaman case through Valor Investigations since 2024, and the records he sought from DHS concern the agency's investigative files, correspondence, phone records, and text messages tied to that investigation.

The records dispute that led to the lawsuit began in September 2025, and the legal posture of the case turns on Oregon's public records enforcement framework under ORS 192.431 and the administrative process at ORS 192.411.

THE RECORDS REQUESTS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ORDER

On September 15, 2025, Bakke sent the Oregon DHS Public Records Unit a follow-up request containing eight numbered items. The requests sought DHS investigation files, internal emails, phone logs, text messages, and an appeal Bakke had previously mailed to DHS by certified mail.

After DHS responded, Bakke filed a petition with the Oregon Attorney General under ORS 192.411, which authorizes the Attorney General to act as a mediator in public records disputes. On November 12, 2025, the Attorney General issued an order directing DHS to produce records responsive to the request.

On December 19, 2025, DHS provided a production to the Attorney General's office and to Bakke. Bakke's position is that the production was incomplete and that certain certifications made by DHS were contradicted by records already in his possession. DHS's position, as stated in later filings, is that the December 19 production was a complete response to the items covered by the November 12 order.

THE LAWSUIT

On March 9, 2026, Bakke filed a pro se complaint in Marion County Circuit Court under ORS 192.431. The complaint named the Oregon Department of Human Services as defendant. It was accompanied by a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, a declaration, and a summons.

The Oregon Department of Justice received the filing and on March 12 introduced its counsel to the court. Three days later, on March 17, Judge Queen signed an Order to Show Cause before the scheduled hearing took place, granting the TRO at a reduced bond of fifty dollars and directing DHS to appear and explain why it had not complied with the November 12 Attorney General order. The show cause hearing was reset for March 24, 2026.

THE FILINGS BEFORE MARCH 24

Between March 17 and the scheduled show cause hearing on March 24, both sides filed additional papers.

On March 19, 2026, the Oregon Department of Justice filed a Motion for Extension of Time on behalf of DHS. The motion was supported by two declarations, one from Mallory Kenney and one from AAG Hannah Hoffman, and it referenced the agency's December 19, 2025 letter to the Attorney General stating that DHS had fulfilled the records request. The State's filing asked the court to move the show cause hearing and also included merits material supporting the position that no preliminary relief should issue because the agency had already complied with the Attorney General's order.

The next day, on March 20, Bakke filed two responsive papers. The first was a Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time, which argued that the State's motion was a hybrid filing combining a scheduling request with substantive merits arguments and should not be allowed to function as an early one-sided ruling on the merits under a scheduling caption. The second was a Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify the Department of Justice as Counsel for Defendant. That motion invokes ORS 192.411, paragraph 3, and argues that because the lawsuit arises from the Attorney General's own order directing DHS to produce records, the Attorney General's office cannot now defend the agency's refusal to comply with that order and DHS must retain special counsel.

Both sides filed additional papers on March 23. The State filed a Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion for Extension of Time and a separate response document containing the December 19, 2025 ODHS letter to Bakke. In the Reply, the State agreed to Bakke's proposed April 8 date for the show cause hearing, subject to the court's availability. Bakke filed a Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum together with the Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Order to Show Cause, which responded to the merits material the State had included in its extension filing and offered what Bakke described as the full picture at the show-cause stage. Proof of service of the Order to Show Cause on DHS was also filed with the court on March 23.

THE MARCH 24 RULING AND THE OPINION LETTER

The March 24 show cause hearing did not take place. Judge Queen reviewed the parties' filings and issued an Opinion Letter the same day, granting the State's Motion for Extension of Time, denying Bakke's Motion to Disqualify the Department of Justice, resetting the hearing schedule, and directing that the Temporary Restraining Order continue until further order of the court. The Opinion Letter did not address the underlying merits of the records dispute.

THE APRIL FILINGS

On April 3, 2026, the Oregon Department of Justice filed a Motion to Dismiss on behalf of DHS. The State's stated ground is failure to exhaust administrative remedies. DOJ argues that the Attorney General's November 12, 2025 order addressed the timeliness of the agency's response and not the substance of the December 19 production, and that Bakke was required to file a second petition with the Attorney General challenging the substance of that production before filing suit.

The same day, Bakke filed a second petition with the Attorney General addressing the December 19 production directly. The Attorney General's office acknowledged receipt of that petition on April 3 as well. Under ORS 192.418, administrative remedies are deemed exhausted by operation of law if the Attorney General does not act within seven days.

On April 7, Bakke filed his Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The opposition argues that the original November 12 petition already addressed the substance of the records dispute and that the December 19 production was not a "complete response" under ORS 192.329, paragraph 2.

THE APRIL 16 HEARING

The parties are scheduled to return to Marion County Circuit Court on April 16, 2026, at three o'clock in the afternoon. Judge Queen will hear argument on the State's Motion to Dismiss. The Temporary Restraining Order remains in effect until further order of the court.

Filings in Bakke v. Oregon Department of Human Services, Case No. 26CV11493, are available through the Oregon eCourt public records system.