Michael McShane

📧 to McShane: "I want to correct the record"

I want to correct the record before Judge McShane reviews this thread. Ms. White's email states that I "provide[d] nothing to suggest the agencies or DOJ have been behaving in anything other than good faith." That statement holds me to an evidentiary standard it does not apply to itself: it faults me for not substantiating a claim I never made, while offering no citation to anything I actually wrote to support attributing that claim to me in the first place.

My June 24, July 17, and July 20 correspondence is on the docket and available for the Court's review. None of it argues, states, or implies bad faith on the part of OSP, LAC, or DOJ. It addresses timeliness and OSP and LAC's own conceded, non-objected production commitments under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i). If Ms. White intends to characterize my position going forward, I'd ask that the characterization be tied to something I actually wrote, and I'd ask the Court to hold both parties to that same standard.

On the substance: by Ms. White's own figures — 22 pages/3 videos produced from OSP, 271 pages/1 video from LAC, an estimated 750 additional pages, and a 2-3 week production window — full production will land roughly 11-12 weeks after service on June 8. That is the outcome my original request was meant to avoid. I renew my request that the Court set a date certain for completion of production under Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(i), rather than leave it open-ended.

I'm available for a phone conference at the Court's convenience.

📧 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"