Michael McShane

📧 to McShane: "to request clarification"

I write to request clarification on the procedural status of third-party subpoena production from Oregon State Police and Legislative Administration & Services.

Timeline:

June 8, 2026: Subpoenas served on OSP and LAC (14-day compliance term, due June 22)
June 22–25, 2026: Partial production received only after Court-imposed deadline pressure
July 30, 2026: Defense counsel represented to Court that further OSP/LAC production would occur "in the next 2–3 weeks"
August 4, 2026: Plaintiff filed Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(i) motion to compel OSP Item 5 and LAC Item 7, plus general unobjected material
August 11, 2026: Defense counsel issued written refusal on OSP Items 6 & 7 (December 10, 2024 threat-assessment materials); no court motion filed on this specific dispute
August 18, 2026: Court's text order denied Plaintiff's August 4 motion "as moot"

Clarification Requested:

Does the "moot" ruling reflect that OSP and LAC have *completed* production of Items 5 & 7 (and the general unobjected material) as of the order date, or does it reflect procedural closure without regard to actual completion?
Separately, OSP Items 6 & 7 (December 10 threat assessment) were not part of the August 4 motion; they are the subject of an unresolved August 11 written refusal. Is that dispute properly before the Court, or should Plaintiff file a separate motion to compel on Items 6 & 7 specifically?

I seek only procedural clarity and will respect the Court's resolution of these questions without further briefing.

📧 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