6-25-CV-01159-MC

📧 to McShane: "OSP and LAC in continuing non-compliance"

I write to request an informal discovery conference with Judge McShane regarding the Oregon State Police and Legislative Administration Committee's non-compliance with subpoenas in Isaac v. Boshart Davis et al., 6:25-cv-01159-MC.

Outline of the dispute:

OSP and LAC were served June 8, 2026 (ECF No. 29), which was only recently filed by the Marshals.
Both served objections June 18, 2026, and represented they "will be gathering and providing responsive materials that are not objectionable."
The Court's June 29 text order (ECF No. 28) did not resolve OSP's Item 10 (policies and SOPs governing Capitol security), which OSP separately agreed, in narrowed form, to produce.
I set a courtesy deadline of close of business Monday, July 20, 2026 for the non-objected materials (email of July 14, 2026). A few hours ago, Defendants' counsel responded that OSP and LAC "will not be able to produce them all by Monday," would produce "a group next week, and more thereafter," with no date certain, and that OSP/LAC are "not in default of the subpoenas."
I am raising this now, rather than waiting for July 20 to pass, because counsel has already confirmed in writing that the deadline will not be met; there is nothing left for that date to establish.
It has now been 39 days since service, with incomplete production against OSP and LAC's own narrowed production commitments.

Plaintiff's position: OSP and LAC are in continuing non-compliance with their own conceded, non-objected production obligations under the subpoenas, now confirmed as unresolved for the foreseeable future, and an order compelling production by a date certain is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i).

Defendants' position, as stated by counsel: OSP and LAC are not in default because they timely objected and are continuing to work toward production, without a committed date.

I have conferred in good faith on this dispute since June 18, 2026, most recently by email on July 17, 2026, a few hours ago. I am available at the Court's convenience for a phone conference and can provide the full correspondence record on request.

📧 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

Outline of the dispute:

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"