Logan M Isaac - GIJustice (Page 4)

ODJ

📧 from White "I am proposing" more time for SBD

Hi Logan, As we discussed, you have agreed to extend the time for Ms. Perry to respond to the pending discovery requests by 30 days. However, some of the requests are to both the defendants, specifically, the Requests for Admissions, the Requests for Production, and the “Interrogatories to Both Defendants”

ODJ

📧 to White "standard is relevance to a claim"

Tracy, Rule 26(b)(1)’s standard is relevance to a claim or defense — not whether the December 10, 2024 assessment is itself connected to the later restrictions. Two points: First, to the extent Defendants’ position rests on any security rationale for the access restrictions, OSP’s own threat-assessment

ODJ

📧 from White "we are not conceding the relvancy"

Hi Logan, Our production of an email referencing a prior situation does not mean we are conceding the relevancy of the prior information. I have no information suggesting the alleged December 10, 2024 “threat assessment” had anything to do with the later restrictions on your visiting Representative Boshart Davis’s

6-25-CV-01159-MC

Motion to Compel (ECF 31)

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:

ODJ

📧 to White "Following up on OSP's objections to Items 6 and 7"

Tracy, Following up on OSP's objections to Items 6 and 7 of the subpoena, specifically the objection that "events on December 10, 2024" are "not part of the operative complaint" and therefore not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. LAC

6-25-CV-01159-MC

📧 to McShane: "ask that Defense be held to... FRCP"

Thank you for the reminder. To be precise about what's pending: I have not asked for an extension of the Rule 16 discovery deadline (11/5), and I don't need one. My request is narrower — an order compelling OSP and LAC to complete production on Plaintiff&

6-25-CV-01159-MC

📧 McShane "would like to remind Mr. Isaac"

All, Judge McShane would like to remind Mr. Isaac that the discovery deadline is not until 11/5 and that if the parties need more time to complete discovery, they should confer and then file a motion for extension of time.

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

Tracy White

📧 White: "production will be... in the next 2-3 weeks"

This email is in response to plaintiff’s email dated July 17, 2026. As you know, I represent the defendants in this matter. I also represent the agencies who were issued document subpoenas by plaintiff: the Oregon State Police (“OSP”) and the Legislative Administration Committee (“LAC”). Attached are the subpoenas

Michael McShane

📧 to McShane: "42 days since service"

Thank you for the call. Per your request, here is what I'm asking the Court to compel from OSP and LAC's June 8, 2026 subpoenas. It has been 42 days since service. Production to date is video and incident reports from OSP; LAC has produced nothing.

📧 from McShane: "would like a response" [fix time]

Judge McShane would like a response to Mr. Isaac’s email by 12:00pm on 7/30. from ODOJ We will do that. Is email ok or should it be a filing? from Court Email to me. from ODOJ Thank you.

6-25-CV-01159-MC

📧 to McShane: "OSP and LAC in continuing non-compliance"

I write to request an informal discovery conference with Judge McShane regarding the Oregon State Police and Legislative Administration Committee's non-compliance with subpoenas in Isaac v. Boshart Davis et al., 6:25-cv-01159-MC. Outline of the dispute: * OSP and LAC were served June 8, 2026