Michael McShane

📧 to McShane: "issues remain unresolved"

Dear Courtroom Deputy,

I am the pro se plaintiff in the above-referenced matter before Chief Judge McShane. I am writing to request an informal telephone conference regarding a discovery dispute with third-party subpoena recipients Oregon State Police and the Legislative Administration Committee, both represented by Tracy Ickes White, Senior AAG. The parties have conferred by email between June 18 and June 24, 2026, without resolution. I have attached that correspondence for the Court's reference.

Three issues remain unresolved:

Search scope involving Senator Manning. Senator Manning is a fact witness whose communications with Defendants Davis and Perry are relevant to the claims that survived screening. OSP and LAC have stated they will not search for documents that involve him. Plaintiff is not asking that Manning's own devices be searched — only that documents already within OSP's and LAC's custody not be withheld or excluded solely because his name appears in them.
Item 10 — access control documentation. LAC is refusing to produce internal Capitol access control records on grounds of "security concerns and lack of relevance." Neither is a recognized basis for withholding under the Federal Rules, no privilege has been identified, and no log has been offered.
January 27 footage. OSP has confirmed the January 27, 2025 footage exists but refuses to identify in advance what it intends to withhold or redact on security grounds, contrary to Rule 26(b)(5)'s requirement that withheld materials be identified before or concurrent with production.

I am available for a phone conference at the Court's convenience and can be reached at [redacted].

📧 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"