📧 to White

Mx White,

Thank you for the call this morning. I want to memorialize the substance of our conference and confirm the path forward.

During our call, I presented the discovery plan draft attached to this thread ("20260526 discovery plan draft.pdf") and invited your feedback. The only substantive position you raised was that ODJ objects to discovery directed at Senator Manning. I declined that position. Manning's conduct—specifically his decision to cancel the SJM1 hearing within hours of my January 27, 2025 Capitol visit, and his written admission through Senator Thatcher that the bill was killed because of my confrontation with his policy adviser—is directly relevant to the conspiracy claim surviving in this case. ODJ offered no further substantive response to the discovery plan.

You characterized the purpose of today's conference as being focused on initial disclosures rather than development of a discovery plan. I note that Rule 26(f) does not support that characterization. Under Rule 26(f)(2), the parties are required to develop a proposed discovery plan during the conference, with initial disclosures being one component of that discussion, not the primary purpose. Rule 26(f)(3) specifies in detail what a discovery plan must address, including the subjects on which discovery may be needed.

Because ODJ offered no proposed modifications to the attached draft beyond the Manning objection—which I dispute as unsupported by the relevance standard under Rule 26(b)(1)—I will submit the draft discovery plan as provided, without modification, to the Court. I will note in that submission that the parties conferred today, that Plaintiff presented a complete proposed plan, and that Defendants' only substantive objection was to discovery concerning Senator Manning, which Plaintiff disputes as relevant to the surviving conspiracy claim.

If you wish to propose specific modifications before I file, please do so by Friday, May 29, 2026. Otherwise I will proceed with filing.

- brother logan