Judge refuses to seal Republican's lawsuit against rival who revealed domestic abuse past

A Missouri judge found no “compelling justification” to seal a congressional candidate’s lawsuit against a political opponent who published 14-year-old court records of a domestic violence incident.

On Friday, Circuit Judge Christopher McDonough unsealed state Rep. Justin Hicks’ lawsuit against Max Calfo, who is running for Hicks’ seat in the Missouri House, and Lindi Williford, Calfo’s campaign treasurer.

Hicks sued Calfo in September, when he was preparing to seek re-election in the 108th District and Calfo was planning to challenge him in the Republican primary. Hicks switched from seeking a new term in Jefferson City to a bid for the 3rd District congressional seat being given up by retiring U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer.

On his campaign website, Calfo has a page he titled “ The Truth about Justin Hicks.” It includes links to images from a 2010 St. Louis County adult abuse case. Hicks agreed to a consent order barring him from contact with a woman who accused him of grabbing her by the neck and choking her.

The order of protection expired on June 15, 2011, and the case was sealed on a motion filed by Hicks in 2021. Hicks’ lawsuit against Calfo and Williford accuses them of illegally revealing the contents of the file.

McDonough granted Hicks’ motion to seal the case against Calfo and Williford when it was filed. Calfo, through his attorneys, has been seeking to have it unsealed.

In the order issued Friday, McDonough noted that neither Calfo nor Williford were parties in the 2010 case or “subject to any court order requiring them to keep any documents or information pertaining to the St. Louis County case confidential. In this case, (Hicks) has not demonstrated a sufficiently compelling justification to overcome the strong constitutional presumption favoring open court records.”

Hicks could not be reached Monday evening for comment.

Calfo said in an interview with The Independent that the opening of the case file is the first step toward proving he had a right to make the documents public.

“I am glad that Lindi and I have been vindicated that it never should have been sealed and I am optimistic we will see a resolution this spring,” Calfo said.

Hicks, who is in his first term in the Missouri House, jumped into the 3rd District primary on March 12. His campaign committee organized with the Missouri Ethics Commission was raising money for re-election, but he had not filed.

Hicks faces a field of seven other candidates in the GOP primary, including two former state senators, Bob Onder of Lake St. Louis and Kurt Schaefer of Columbia.

Calfo has a primary opponent, Mike Costlow of Dardenne Prairie, and a Democrat, Susan Shumway of O’Fallon, is also in the race.

Along with the court documents, Calfo’s website accuses Hicks of lying about his military record by claiming to have been in combat and takes issue with several of his legislative efforts.

Hicks joined the Army after graduating high school. His campaign website for his House race states he is “a combat veteran.”

Calfo’s website has a military service record that shows Hicks was deployed overseas for a 10-month posting to the United Arab Emirates, which is technically a combat zone, when he held the rank of Human Resources Specialist.

Calfo accuses Hicks of using his power as a legislator to write a new law that hides information in court cases, including birth dates of parties to a case, that has generally been public in the past.

In the domestic abuse case, Hicks, who is 31, was 17 at the time. Under Missouri law in 2010, a 17-year-old was treated as an adult by the courts. The age has since been raised to 18. The order of protection expired on June 15, 2011.

In the now-unsealed lawsuit, Hicks states that the adult abuse case file was sealed by a St. Louis County court order on Aug. 3, 2021.
“At the time the order was signed, (Hicks) was not running for any elected office, had not formed a candidate committee, was not a public figure of any kind, just a young man seeking to create a life for himself,” Jonathan Lerman, Hicks attorney, wrote.

When Calfo put the documents online, he expected to be in a primary against Hicks. Calfo had no right to obtain or use the documents in his campaign, Lerman wrote.

“As the documents published were not open court records, the clear inference is that they are not the subject of legitimate public concern, but instead private facts,” Lerman wrote.

As much as Hicks would like to hide his past, Calfo’s campaign has done nothing wrong, Calfo’s attorneys, Justin Mulligan and Michael Nepple wrote.

“The fact (Hicks) would like to forget about his past does not mean the public has to,” they wrote. “Or that the public does not have a right to that information. Especially given his role as a public figure.”

In an order issued March 19, McDonough found that Hicks had not stated enough facts to show he had a case against Calfo, his campaign and Williford. The initial filing, McDonough wrote, had not shown that Calfo had disclosed “private matters in which the public has no legitimate concern” or that Calfo obtained the information through some privileged communication.

And there were nothing but “bare and conclusory” statements about Williford and whether she participated in the disclosure, McDonough wrote.

In a filing seeking dismissal of a revised lawsuit, Mulligan and Nepple wrote that it contained nothing new and asked for Hicks to be forced to pay their fees defending the “baseless” claims.

In the lawsuit, Lerman writes that politics has descended into an “ever-increasing race to the bottom” that needs the intervention of the courts.

Calfo, however, said he sees nothing wrong with his attacks on Hicks.

“Releasing information on one’s opponent has been done since the 1700s,” Calfo said. “It is as American as it gets.”