📧 to ORDOJ: "'Standard practice'" is not a right, it is a custom"
See responses in [bold].
On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 9:43 AM Marc Abrams <Marc.Abrams@doj.oregon.gov> wrote:
Mr. Isaac—
As to the deposition of Ms. Perry, the defense will take no position on your motion. This comment by Ms. Perry seems speculative. However, if Judge McShane agrees with your concerns, we will not oppose. As to the Davis deposition, I see no basis in your communication for that deposition being at the courthouse. Please explain.
"Consistency," per Notices.
As to any other depositions, however, I understand you have been noticing them for places other than DOJ and on weekends. Depositions will be conducted and witnesses produced only during regular business hours, and defense-represented witnesses only at DOJ offices. I do not understand you to have a valid basis for not agreeing to what is standard practice in litigation, which is that the depositions are at the place of the defense. Any effort to require depositions outside the normal course we will oppose.
No Rule extends the State a right to litigate by fiat and I am not giving the State rights it does not possess in the first place. "Standard practice" is not a right, it is a custom, like Jim Crow. My basis has already been stated, and your opposition will be noted in any related motion.
As to production, I understand Ms. Jayne has responded to you and informed you that there are no pages missing from production. Any representation on July 30 of the number of pages was an estimate, not a promise. Production is complete to the best of my knowledge.
Once an "estimate" is put in writing before a Court, it becomes equivalent to a "promise." If White over-promised, that's the State's responsibility she created. If you warrant that "Production is complete," then I will take this email exchange as a good faith conferral and move for sanctions because the State has refused to cite a basis for redactions it applied, and the Court imposed deadline (ECF32) has passed. See LR 26-5(b).
As to redactions and privilege, I will defer that discussion to Ms. White on her return, as I am not Ms. Jayne’s supervisor and do not know what other work is on her desk, and I am not going to get involved in the substance of every page in a matter I am only briefly stepping into. We decline your demand that a log be produced on a schedule not required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, let alone on a weekend day.
If the State cannot meet its own deadlines, then ask for an extension. If you won't state a date certain, I'll ask the Court to.
