#LCPS Refuses to Provide Evidence of Collusion Between Nick Cottone and Lindsay Mohler of Troxel Leigh P.C.

LCPS and Dan Adams FOIA Officer continue to maintain a program of purposeful and willful obfuscation of providing evidence of administrative fraud and tripartitie collusion between Nick Cottone, LCPS, LCSO, and Troxel Leigh P.C. 

Dan Adams has committed major violations of FOIA by prohibiting me, an investigative blogger, from inspecting important documents detailing administrative fraud, and tripartite collusion between LCSO, LCPS, and Troxel Leigh P.C. to have me falsely charged with a crime and my parental rights revoked. 

I have a right to these documents as a parent of multiple students attending LCPS. Additionally, given these documents pertain directly to me, I am owed the ability to review and inspect these documents as they have been used to make educational decisions about my children without my knowledge or approval. Therefore, LCPS has violated my FERPA rights, as well as the educational rights I and my children are afforded under Virginia Educational law due to an IEP.

 TO: Dan Adams, LCPS FOIA Officer

FROM: Steven Rubis

DATE: January 21, 2026

RE: VFOIA Request: Cottone-Mohler Correspondence / Verification of Journalistic Standing

SENT VIA EMAIL

Mr. Adams,

I am writing to formally reassert my request for all correspondence between Principal Nick Cottone and Lindsay Mohler (Troxell Leigh P.C.). Please be advised that I am maintaining standing to receive these records under Va. Code § 2.2-3704(A) as a Representative of the News Media broadcasting into and circulating within the Commonwealth.

I. Verification of Journalistic Standing & Investigative Purpose My standing is established via the following digital broadcast and publication platforms:

1. Investigative Publication: I am the author and publisher of nickcottone.blogspot.com. This publication explicitly documents and investigates administrative malfeasance, fraud, and the misuse of public office within Loudoun County Public Schools.

2. Digital Broadcaster: I am the host of "Between Two Earnings Calls w/ Mr. Investor Relations," a news and analysis broadcast reaching citizens across the Commonwealth via YouTube.

II. The Public Interest Mandate The records requested—specifically the coordination between a public school principal (Cottone) and private legal counsel (Mohler)—are the subject of an ongoing journalistic investigation into the "tripartite collusion" and administrative fraud previously identified in my reporting.

Under Virginia law, the residency requirement is waived for media representatives. As these communications involve a public official utilizing government resources to coordinate with third-party private entities, they are quintessential public records.

III. Demand for Production Your continued blockage of these specific records now constitutes the suppression of investigative journalism into public corruption. I expect LCPS to cease its obstruction and produce the requested correspondence immediately, as my standing as a member of the media and a Loudoun County taxpayer has been clearly established.

Please provide a date certain for the production of these records or provide the specific statutory exemption you are asserting to withhold these public documents from the press.

Sincerely,

Steven Rubis Investigative Publisher, nickcottone.blogspot.com Loudoun County Taxpayer

FOIA Council	Mon, Jan 12, 1:39 PM (9 days ago)
to me

Dear Mr. Rubis:

The Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council (FOIA Council) is a state legislative branch council that was created to issue opinions on the operation and application of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)(Va. Code § 2.2-3700 et seq.), to publish educational materials, and to provide training about FOIA. The FOIA Council does not possess the authority to investigate complaints or compel compliance with FOIA.  There is also no provision in FOIA for appeals of denials. The courts of Virginia possess the authority to determine whether records shall be disclosed or may lawfully be withheld from release.

FOIA policy in Va. Code § 2.2-3700(B) states: "Unless a public body or its officers or employees specifically elect to exercise an exemption provided by this chapter or any other statute, every meeting shall be open to the public and all public records shall be available for inspection and copying upon request. All public records and meetings shall be presumed open, unless an exemption is properly invoked." FOIA's policy statement set forth in Va. Code § 2.2-3700(B) directs that "[a]ny exemption from public access to records or meetings shall be narrowly construed and no record shall be withheld or meeting closed to the public unless specifically made exempt pursuant to this chapter or other specific provision of law." This FOIA principle is referred to as "the narrow construction rule" and it provides that exemptions shall be interpreted as narrowly construed in favor of disclosure. FOIA policy further provides: "All public bodies and their officers and employees shall make reasonable efforts to reach an agreement with a requester concerning the production of the records requested."

You have inquired: Does the Attorney Work Product exemption apply to communications between a public employee and a private attorney when no attorney-client relationship exists between the two and the district is not a party to the litigation?

The FOIA Council has previously published advisory opinions in regards to the exemptions to FOIA for attorney-client privilege and work product exemptions in Va. Code § 2.2-3705.1(2) and (3). Specifically, Advisory Opinion 25 (2003) which this office wrote: "While FOIA requires that exemptions be construed narrowly, to address the issues at hand one must examine the common law attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine to understand the scope of the cited exemptions. Both attorney-client privilege and work product exist outside the realm of FOIA and are relevant to a lawyer's representation of public or private clients. The inclusion of the exemptions in FOIA recognize these long-standing legal principals. The FOIA exemptions should be interpreted to parallel these principals, but not go beyond their scope. While sometimes related, attorney-client privilege and work product do not necessarily protect the same documents -- some documents that are not subject to attorney-client privilege may ultimately be protected as work product." 

In that opinion, this office also opined: "Generally, six elements must be present in order to invoke the privilege: communications from a client; to the client's lawyer or lawyer's agent; relating to the lawyer's rendering of legal advice; made with the expectation of confidentiality; and not in furtherance of a future crime or tort; provided that the privilege has not been waived."  In addition, "A closely related factor in determining whether attorney-client privilege applies is whether the communication relates to legal advice. The fact that one communicates with a lawyer does not alone invoke the privilege. The attorney-client privilege only protects explicit and implicit requests from a client to a lawyer for legal advice and factual information from a client that the lawyer needs to form a legal opinion."

Furthermore, this office wrote in the opinion: "While often associated, attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine are dramatically different. The work product doctrine relates only to materials prepared in anticipation of or response to litigation. In addition to this temporal requirement, the documents in question must also be created because of the litigation. The doctrine is based on a lawyer's right to enjoy privacy in the course of preparation of a suit, and applies to documents compiled by third parties relating to the suit, whether or not a lawyer is involved. Government clients, like private clients, can create protected work product. (See A Practitioner's Guide to the Attorney-Client Privilege & Work Product Doctrine, Thomas E. Spahn, 2001 (The Virginia Law Foundation), supra n.1, at § 8.302). In Virginia, the work product doctrine is codified at Virginia Supreme Court Rule 4:1(b)(3)."

In Advisory Opinion 01 (2023), this office wrote the following: 

"As noted 'in many prior opinions, this office has no investigative powers and is not a trier of fact', and if there is a factual dispute about the use of the attorney-client privilege, only a court can make a binding determination on whether an exclusion was utilized properly. (Freedom of Information Advisory Opinions 09 (2005) and 03 (2016)).The Supreme Court of Virginia previously held that the attorney-client 'privilege is an exception to the general duty to disclose, is an obstacle to the investigation of the truth, and should be strictly construed.' (Walton v. Mid-Atlantic Spine Specialists, 280 Va. 113, 122; 694 S.E.2d 545, 549 (Va. 2010) (citing Commonwealth v. Edwards, 235 Va. 499, 509; 370 S.E.2d at 301, 1988 Va. LEXIS 93, 4 Va. Law Rep. 3003)). Furthermore, the public body bears the burden to prove the exemption pursuant to subsection E of § 2.2-3713, which states that: '[i]n any action to enforce the provisions of this chapter, the public body shall bear the burden of proof to establish an exclusion by a preponderance of the evidence.' Therefore, reading these provisions together with the fact that the records in question are not before us, we cannot offer any opinion on whether these records were properly withheld as attorney-client privileged."

In applying the work product exemption under FOIA, this office recognizes that some documents prepared by non-attorneys may properly be considered work product, so long as the documents were compiled specifically for use in litigation or for use in an active administration investigation concerning a matter that is properly the subject of a closed meeting under Va. Code § 2.2-3711. Following this guidance, there is not enough information provided for this office to state whether the work product exemption in Va. Code § 2.2-3705.1(3) applies to the "one-page email exchange between a School Principal and a private attorney." In general, this office is unable to tell whether the cited exemptions would apply to the records you requested because we are not the custodian and do not know what information is in the records. Pursuant to Va. Code § 2.2-3713(E), the principal and school board bear the burden to prove that invoking the exemption was proper. A determination on whether an exemption applies to specific records is a mixed determination of law and fact. The courts of Virginia are determiners of fact as they possess the authority to call witnesses, hear testimony, and review records to determine whether a lawful exemption applies to such records. If there is a factual dispute regarding whether an exemption applies in any given instance, only a court has the authority to resolve it.

If you believe that your FOIA rights have been violated, the statutory remedy provided in Va. Code § 2.2-3713 is to file a petition for mandamus or injunction in either general district or circuit court (petitioner's choice). The courts publish a sample form and instructions for use in general district court which we have linked on our Forms and Sample Letters webpage. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or need additional information but please be advised, as with any other type of court proceeding, you may wish to consult your own attorney before deciding whether to file a petition.

--

Thank you for contacting this office. I hope I have been of assistance.

Alan Gernhardt, Esq., Executive Director 

Joseph Underwood, Esq., Senior Attorney

Matteo Murrelle, Esq., Staff Attorney

Fiora DeBorous, Program Coordinator

Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council

201 N. Ninth St., 4th Floor

Richmond, Virginia 23219

Phone: (804) 698-1810 

Website: foiacouncil.dls.virginia.gov

The staff of the Freedom of Information Advisory Council is authorized to issue advisory opinions. Please be advised that any staff advisory opinion delivered by e-mail is based solely upon the facts and information presented in your attached email inquiry.

TO: foiacouncil@dls.virginia.gov CC: LCPSFOIA@lcps.org (Dan Adams); LCSB@lcps.org

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION: Improper Application of Attorney Work Product Exemption (§ 2.2-3705.1 (3))

Dear Virginia FOIA Council,

I am requesting a non binding advisory opinion regarding a denial of records by Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) under VFOIA Request Reference # R002383-120325.

The Issue: LCPS is withholding a one-page email exchange between a School Principal (a public official) and a private attorney (representing a third party) citing the Attorney Work Product Exemption.

The Facts:

1. The Principal is not a client of the private attorney, nor is LCPS a party to the underlying private civil matter.

2. The Principal utilized his official LCPS email to coordinate with this private attorney regarding the disclosure of my private parental communications.

3. LCPS FOIA Officer Dan Adams has stated that his decision is "final" and has refused to perform an administrative review of whether this third-party communication actually meets the statutory definition of "Work Product" prepared in anticipation of litigation for the district.

The Question: Does the Attorney Work Product exemption apply to communications between a public employee and a private attorney when no attorney-client relationship exists between the two and the district is not a party to the litigation?

Thank you for your guidance on this matter.

Sincerely,

Steven Rubis

RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of December 11, 2025., Reference # R002438-121125.

Dear Steven Rubis,

Loudoun County Public Schools received a public information request from you on December 11, 2025. Your request mentioned:

"Steven Rubis
2513 N Newland Ave
Chicago IL 60707
214-681-7991
stevenrubis@gmail.com

DATE: December 11, 2025

TO: LCPS Legal Counsel and FOIA Appeals Authority
CC: Dr. Aaron Spence, Superintendent; LCPS School Board Members
Email: [LCPS Legal/Appeals Email Address]
Mailing Address: [LCPS Legal/Appeals Mailing Address]

SUBJECT: FORMAL APPEAL OF FOIA DENIAL: Reference # R002383-120325 (Attorney Work Product Exemption)

Dear Appeals Authority,

This letter serves as a formal appeal, pursuant to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA), of the determination made by FOIA Officer Dan Adams on June 2, 2025, to withhold records under the Attorney Work Product Exemption (§ 2.2-3705.1 (3)) for VFOIA Request Reference # R002383-120325.

I. BASIS FOR APPEAL

The sole reason cited for the withholding of records in this request was the Attorney Work Product exemption. I contend that the application of this exemption to the specific documents requested is factually and legally incorrect for the following reasons:

Absence of Attorney Representation: The documents requested pertain to communications between Specific LCPS Staff, e.g., Principal Nick Cottone and my ex-wife/her legal counsel regarding a civil matter (my private communication/civil proceedings). Principal Cottone was not acting as a client receiving privileged legal advice from LCPS counsel in his professional capacity regarding an official educational or LCPS legal matter.

Lack of Legal Strategy/Work Product: The records requested are administrative communications regarding a third-party civil matter. They do not contain legal theories, litigation strategies, or mental impressions developed by LCPS attorneys in anticipation of litigation for LCPS. Absent evidence that the withheld page constitutes notes, memoranda, or other materials prepared by LCPS legal counsel for LCPS's defense, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Prior Improper Disclosure: These communications are directly related to Principal Cottone's unauthorized disclosure of a private parental communication in late 2023, which was subsequently used against me in civil court. This action was administrative misconduct, not privileged legal work.

II. REMEDY REQUESTED

I request that the Appeals Authority immediately review the withheld document (1 page) and find that it does not satisfy the requirements of the Attorney Work Product exemption (§ 2.2-3705.1 (3)).

I demand the immediate release of the withheld record without further redaction or delay. Should the Appeals Authority uphold the denial, I request a detailed, document-specific, and legally sound justification for how the single page meets the specific statutory definition of attorney work product, addressing the points raised above.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this formal appeal.

Sincerely,

Steven Rubis"

Decisions regarding FOIA requests made by the LCPS FOIA Officer are final and there is no internal appeal process.  If you believe that your FOIA rights have been violated, you may file a petition in district or circuit court to compel compliance with FOIA. Alternatively, you may contact the FOIA Council for a nonbinding advisory opinion. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact my office at (571)252-1040 or LCPSFOIA@lcps.org.

 

Sincerely,

Dan Adams
FOIA Officer

Loudoun County Public Schools