GRAND RAPIDS, MI - Electric automaker Tesla is demanding that the state and lawmakers provide documents related to passage of the so-called "Anti-Tesla" bill that prevents the company from selling directly to car buyers in Michigan.

The company has subpoenaed records of Gov. Rick Snyder, state Sen. Joe Hune, R-Hamburg, and state Rep. Rep. Jason Sheppard, R-Temperance, and others in its federal lawsuit against the governor, Secretary of State Ruth Johnson and Attorney General Bill Schuette.

It alleges constitutional violations for prohibiting manufacturers from selling directly to consumers in the state.

Tesla wants communications regarding the bill from Hune, who has received contributions from the Michigan Automobile Dealers Association. His wife's firm lobbies for auto dealers, the lawsuit said.

Tesla says Hune on Oct. 1, 2014, added language to a bill that had gone unchanged for months.

"Just one day later - with no debate or public scrutiny, the Legislature passed what is commonly called the Anti-Tesla Amendment," Caledonia attorney John Bursch wrote in court records.

"This prohibition is unconstitutional because it is a purely protectionist measure intended to insulate Michigan-based automotive dealers and manufacturers from competition, supported by no rational bases as applied to Tesla."

The state contends that it has prohibited automakers from owning, operating or controlling dealerships, as well as selling directly to car buyers, since 2000. The law was in place before Tesla existed.

The Secretary of State denied Tesla's dealership application. An administrative hearing officer upheld that ruling.

Tesla says the law effectively prevents it from displaying cars and talking to customers. The state says it only requires that manufacturers without franchised dealers sell through another manufacturer's franchised dealers.

Assistant Attorney General Rock Wood, representing Hune and Sheppard, has asked that subpoenas for the legislators be quashed.

A hearing is June 15 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Ellen Carmody in Grand Rapids on that motion as well as Tesla's motion to compel the legislators to provide documents.

Wood says Michigan has "strong public policy" against such civil discovery requests which if allowed would hinder the legislative process and put legislators at risk of harassment.

"Even if a party had a legitimate dispute, or legitimately sought to challenge a statute or constitutional provision, the sheer volume of time that legislators could be subjected to discovery, the amount of resources needed to respond, and the chilling effect this might have on the legislative function, could easily undermine their ability to effectively and efficiently represent their respective districts/constituents," Wood wrote.

He said Tesla cast a wide net for documentation, including emails, text messages, phone logs, internal communications, industry information, calendars and statements by the governor that mention Tesla or automotive issues.

Further burdensome requests could follow, Wood said.

Sheppard wasn't in office when the bill passed, he noted.

Michigan's law and Constitution provide legislative immunity, prohibit filing subpoenas in civil cases against legislators - and their records - when they are performing duties, Wood wrote.

In a footnote, Wood added: "It may come as no surprise that Plaintiff is apparently hostile to or comments unfavorably towards certain legislators, given the claims pled by the Plaintiff. This type of fishing expedition, if permitted, would set a dangerous precedent whereby a legislator's opponents/adversaries could use or manipulate the judicial process to embarrass, harass, distract or undermine legislators or the legislature."

Assistant Attorney General Matthew Payok said Tesla acknowledges the lawsuit is essentially against the state.

"The fatal flaw in this position is that the Eleventh Amendment bars all suits against states in federal court, regardless of the relief requested," he wrote.

Bursch, the Tesla attorney, said federal law does not provide state legislators with the privileges afforded under state law or constitution.

"As a result, federal courts routinely compel state legislators to provide documents and deposition testimony over objections exactly like those presented here," Bursch wrote.

He said legislative privilege must be "strictly construed" and "very limited."

"Emails among Michigan legislators or between legislators and the executive branch, for example, are likely to show the protectionist motive that undergirds the Anti-Tesla Amendment," Brusch wrote.

He said the amendment would be invalid if motivated by a desire to protect Michigan dealers.

"Tesla is entitled to documents that evidence the intent and coordination that took place behind the scenes while the Legislature effectively gave franchised dealers a state-sponsored monopoly on car sales within Michigan - all while engineering the legislative process to steadfastly remove any public attention or scrutiny," Brusch wrote.