📧 from White

Dear Mr. Isaac,

Your email below does not correctly characterize my position in this matter.

First, as you know, I represent the named State defendants.  Nothing I say is intended as legal advice to you. 

Second, I do not believe a discovery plan is required in this case.  FRCP 26(f) contemplates a discovery plan being filed by the parties before the FRCP 16 scheduling conference with the Court.  Because we have already had the meeting with the Court and the Court has already issued a scheduling order, I don’t believe we are expected to file a plan. 

Third, my responses to discovery topics will need to wait for specific requests from you, so I can evaluate each one individually.  I am not considering your discovery plan a request for documents. 

Fourth, as a general matter, I do not believe that any of the following are appropriate topics of discovery:

• Senator Manning or his staff
• Any hearings
• Any proposed bills
• Privileged communications with DOJ
• Communications in anticipation of litigation, including discussions about the lawsuit
• The alleged restaurant incident

Fifth, we will follow the FRCPs regarding Electronically Stored Information and privilege logs.

Sixth, we do not accept your proposed schedule.  We do plan to provide an initial disclosure document by June 9.  Otherwise, we will comply with the Court’s scheduling order and the FRCPs.

Finally, if you still plan to file your document, please note that I oppose it.