Michael McShane
Plaintiff does not oppose an extension for Defendant Perry given the medical circumstances described. Plaintiff does oppose extending Defendant Davis's deadline on this basis. This is the third time State Defendants have sought to move Davis's independent deadline by tying it to Ms. Perry's
Tracy White
The parties have a number of discovery disputes besides the one Mr. Isaac outlined. I plan to send an email outlining those shortly. But of immediate concern to the State Defendants is the need to push out the September 14th deadline for discovery responses by another two weeks. As you
6-25-CV-01159-MC
Isaac v. Manning et al., No. 6:25-cv-01159-MC (D. Or.) is a federal civil-rights lawsuit against James Ivory Manning Jr., Shelly Boshart Davis, Renee Perry, and Doe defendants, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on July 3, 2025. Docket Text:
Mac Loftin
I'm a combat veteran and independent theologian writing on war and Christian theology (most recently God Is a Grunt, Hachette 2022). I read your Christian Century column on reading The Odyssey with veterans at the VA with real interest, and I think we agree on more than we
Michael McShane
You have filed a Motion to Compel. The Court will await defense filed response and rule accordingly.
Michael McShane
I write regarding a discrete, ripe issue separate from the pending ECF 33 motion. On July 30, 2026 (see attached), defense counsel represented in writing to the Court that OSP and LAC's remaining non-objected production (~750 pages, in addition to the 22 pages/3 videos and 271
6-25-CV-01159-MC
Isaac v. Manning et al., No. 6:25-cv-01159-MC (D. Or.) is a federal civil-rights lawsuit against James Ivory Manning Jr., Shelly Boshart Davis, Renee Perry, and Doe defendants, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on July 3, 2025. Docket Text:
Michael McShane
Here is Judge McShane’s response to Mr. Isaac’s questions below. 1. Because the Court granted the defendants' request to set a deadline of September 14, 2026 for the production of certain outstanding materials, the Court denied Plaintiff's request to compel production in advance of September
Michael McShane
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-
ODJ
Tracy, Thank you for the response. Two points, briefly. First, on the "not part of the operative complaint" objection: LAC has already produced ISAAC-LAC-SDT-000249, a document from this same date and subject matter, without maintaining a relevance objection against it. I'm not asking
ODJ
Hi Logan, We are not planning to produce those. The Court has limited the case to the two Capitol restrictions occurring in January and February 2025. There is no indication this “threat assessment” bears on those.
Tracy White
Tracy, To be precise: I have not expressed a feeling. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1)(A), 34(b)(2)(A), and 36(a)(3) places the response obligation on "the party to whom the request is directed." I'd ask that my position be addressed