Logan M Isaac

Tracy White

📧 from White: "he does not agree to the extension"

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

Mac Loftin

📧 to 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

📧 from McShane: "will await defense filed response"

You have filed a Motion to Compel.  The Court will await defense filed response and rule accordingly.

Michael McShane

📧 to McShane: "This material is unobjected"

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

Renewed Motion to Compel (ECF 33)

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

📧 from McShane: "not ruled on any issue not before it"

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

📧 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-

ODJ

📧 to White "Two points, briefly"

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

📧 from White "We are not planning to produce"

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

📧 to White "I have not expressed a feeling"

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

Tracy White

📧 from White "sorry you feel that way"

I’m sorry you feel that way.  I will file a motion for an extension.  I will state we’ve conferred unless you think we should discuss more?    At 1445 Actually, I will be emailing the Court Deputy, as you previously did, to see if a formal motion is necessary.

ODJ

📧 to White "I do not agree to the proposed bifurcation"

Tracy, I do not agree to the proposed bifurcation. Ms. Perry's extension to September 13/14 was agreed based on her individual circumstances and applies to her responses only. I expect Ms. Davis's complete responsive material — the Requests for Admission, Requests for Production, and all Interrogatories