War Torn

📧 from CT: "a designer who overrules... subjects’ requests"

Thanks for your email and for patiently waiting for my response. As I told Annalaura yesterday, as we were working through the edits that Warren suggested, as well as the edits that you sent to the extended photo caption, I am very happy to speak with you over the phone to imagine together ways that CT could extend the story initiated by this cover story, to present to our readers a richer take on combat experience and how the church can partner with veterans.

To follow up on a couple details, I did want to confirm that the edits you sent to the extended photo caption were made yesterday to the online article, which can be viewed here. The title has been changed, and all references to Rob, Todd, Sam, and Alexis have been removed. (Technically they were mentioned only in a photo caption that appeared in the print article; that photo has not been published online, so their names don’t appear in relation to the online piece.) Rob, I did receive the shortened version of your letter to the editor this morning and will be sure it appears in the September print issue of CT. (Each letters section reflects responses to the print issue two months prior.)

I will also forward to Alecia your account, Logan, of your communication with her about the photo treatment. Having worked with Alecia for eight years, I can honestly say that I have never observed her to be a designer who overrules photo subjects’ requests for the sake of a particular visual outcome. However, it’s clear that there was a communication breakdown in this case about the photography for this cover story, and I know she will appreciate knowing about your experience of the communication back and forth. One question of clarification: When you say there was radio silence about working with Centurions Guild to spread the word, did you mean that Alecia never responded to you about that suggestion?

Finally, regarding the phone call, if possible, I would really prefer that the conversation happen between you and me, at least initially—or, if others from the Centurions Guild need to be on the call, that I ask another CT editor to sit in on the phone conversation.

Thanks again, Logan, and I look forward to speaking with you about next steps.

📧 to McShane: "email is correspondence, not conferral"

The attached email is correspondence, not conferral. LR 7-1(a)(1)(A) requires a personal or telephone conference; an email exchange doesn't substitute for one, however it's characterized. I offered three specific call times on September 13; none has been accepted. Plaintiff renews its opposition

📧 from White: "My ability to prove a prior conversation"

Attached is a copy of my earlier email today with Mr. Isaac discussing my desire to have conferral by email rather than phone or in person. My ability to prove a prior conversation this way is the reason I want to limit conversations to email.

📧 to McShane: "No good cause is shown"

Plaintiff opposes Ms. White's request to require all party conferrals to be conducted by email. No good cause is shown. Ms. White's stated reason — wanting an "accurate record" of conversations — identifies no specific incident from this case's phone or personal conferrals that

📧 from White: "I want to be sure any conversations... be accurately recorded"

Thank you for your response. I am sorry to trouble you with an additional matter, which I am happy to file as a motion if that would be better. I am requesting the Court to allow conferrals between the parties by email, rather than by personal or telephone contact. Plaintiff

Read more

📧 to McShane: "email is correspondence, not conferral"

📧 from White: "My ability to prove a prior conversation"

📧 to McShane: "No good cause is shown"

📧 from White: "I want to be sure any conversations... be accurately recorded"