MOTION TO COMPEL

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION FROM THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA RECIPIENTS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i)

Pursuant to LR 7-1(a), Plaintiff Logan Martin Isaac certifies that the parties made a good-faith effort, through written conferral, to resolve this dispute and have been unable to do so; the conferral history is set forth in Section VI below. Plaintiff, appearing pro se, moves this Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i) for an order compelling non-parties Oregon State Police (“OSP”) and the Legislative Administration Committee (“LAC”) to complete production of documents responsive to Plaintiff’s June 8, 2026 subpoenas (ECF No. 29) no later than August 20, 2026.

I. INTRODUCTION

The subpoenas each specify a compliance period of fourteen (14) days following service. Plaintiff identified this term to Defendants’ counsel in writing on July 13, 14, 18, and 20, 2026. Defendants’ counsel, who represents OSP and LAC for purposes of these subpoenas, has at no point disputed that the fourteen-day term applies. That term expired June 22, 2026. As of the filing of this motion, production remains incomplete forty-two (42) days beyond that unrebutted term, and has proceeded only in response to two Court-imposed deadlines, both satisfied within minutes of expiration and neither accompanied by a committed completion date. This motion seeks an order enforcing the subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; it does not seek to modify the Rule 16 scheduling order or its November 5, 2026 fact-discovery cutoff.

II. DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE

Pursuant to LR 37.1(c), the specific items at issue, and the responding parties’ objections to them, are as follows.

A. OSP Item 5.

OSP’s Schedule A, Item 5, requests all documents, communications, or records reflecting any OSP role in creating, requesting, recommending, approving, implementing, or enforcing the Access Restrictions imposed on Plaintiff. (Ex. 1.) OSP’s June 18, 2026 written objections address Items 1 through 4 and 6 through 12 individually; no item-specific objection was raised to Item 5. (Ex. 2.)

B. LAC Item 7.

LAC’s Schedule A, Item 7, requests all documents and communications concerning the Access Restrictions imposed on Plaintiff, including the factual basis or justification for each restriction, any requests or recommendations to impose them, and any approval or authorization. (Ex. 3.) LAC’s June 18, 2026 written objections address Items 1 through 6 and 8 through 11 individually; no item-specific objection was raised to Item 7. (Ex. 4.)

C. Scope of the relief sought.

Both agencies’ general objections — including a narrowed definition of “Access Restrictions” limited to the February 7 and February 21, 2025 restrictions, and reservations for privilege, security, and confidentiality — apply across all items and are not disputed here. Neither agency, however, has raised any objection specific to Item 5 or Item 7, and each remains unproduced notwithstanding Defendants’ counsel’s July 30, 2026 representation that remaining production would be complete “in the next 2-3 weeks” of that date. Items 5 and 7 illustrate, but do not exhaust, the material Defendants’ counsel has represented OSP and LAC will produce; the date-certain order Plaintiff seeks reaches that full body of conceded, non-objected material.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. June 8, 2026. OSP and LAC were served with document subpoenas issued in this action. (ECF No. 29.) The subpoenas specify a compliance period of fourteen (14) days following service.

2. June 18, 2026. Defendants’ counsel served written objections on behalf of OSP and LAC, representing that OSP and LAC “will be gathering and providing responsive materials that are not objectionable.” No date for completion of that production was given.

3. June 20–24, 2026. Plaintiff conferred with Defendants’ counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and LR 37-1 regarding the scope of the objections.

4. June 24–25, 2026. Plaintiff requested an informal discovery conference regarding OSP and LAC’s non-compliance. The Court, through its courtroom deputy, directed Defendants’ counsel to respond by noon the following day. Defendants’ counsel responded on June 25, 2026, at 11:58 a.m. Pacific — two minutes before the deadline.

5. June 29, 2026. The Court issued a text order (ECF No. 28) resolving three discrete discovery disputes then before it. That order did not address the subpoenas’ production timeline, which had not yet been presented to the Court as a discrete request.

6. July 12–15, 2026. Having received no further communication from Defendants’ counsel since June 25, Plaintiff wrote to Defendants’ counsel citing the subpoenas’ fourteen-day compliance term, then thirty-four (34) days elapsed with no dispute of that term. Defendants’ counsel represented she was in the second week of a jury trial; a partial production (an OSP document link) followed on July 15, 2026.

7. July 17, 2026. Defendants’ counsel requested a three-week extension of Defendants’ own deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories, Requests for Admission, and Requests for Production. Plaintiff agreed the same day, without requiring Court involvement, extending that deadline to August 14, 2026.

8. July 18, 2026. Plaintiff renewed his request for an informal discovery conference regarding OSP and LAC’s continued non-compliance, again citing the subpoenas’ fourteen-day term, then thirty-nine (39) days since service without dispute of that term.

9. July 20, 2026. At the Court’s request for further specificity, Plaintiff identified the relief sought: an order compelling production by a date certain under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i), again citing the unrebutted fourteen-day term, then forty-two (42) days since service.

10. July 22–30, 2026. The Court, through its courtroom deputy, directed Defendants’ counsel to respond by noon on July 30, 2026 — an eight-day window with no stated conflicting obligation. Defendants’ counsel responded on July 30, 2026, at 11:56 a.m. Pacific — four minutes before the deadline. That response represented that OSP had produced 22 pages and 3 videos, LAC had produced 271 pages and 1 duplicative video, and that up to 750 additional pages remained to be reviewed and produced “in the next 2-3 weeks.” Defendants’ response did not dispute, or otherwise address, the fourteen-day compliance term Plaintiff had by then cited in writing on four separate occasions over eighteen days.

11. July 30, 2026 (continued). Plaintiff corrected Defendants’ counsel’s characterization of Plaintiff’s position and renewed his request for a date-certain order, citing Defendants’ counsel’s own production figures to show that, on Defendants’ own stated timeline, full production would occur approximately eleven to twelve weeks after service. The Court, through its courtroom deputy, reminded Plaintiff that the Rule 16 scheduling deadline is not until November 5, 2026, and that a request for additional time to complete discovery requires conferral and a motion for extension. Plaintiff clarified, in writing that same day, that this dispute concerns non-party subpoena compliance under Rule 45, not an extension of the Rule 16 discovery deadline — a distinction Defendants’ counsel has not disputed.

IV. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(i) permits the serving party to move, “at any time,” for an order compelling production from a subpoenaed non-party once objections have been served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i). Discovery from non-parties remains subject to the proportionality standard of Rule 26(b)(1), which considers, among other factors, “the parties’ relative access to relevant information” and “whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Courts have generally treated fourteen days or more as presumptively a reasonable time to comply with a subpoena, and seven days or less as unreasonable. Verisign, Inc. v. XYZ.com, LLC, No. 15-mc-175-RGA-MPT, 2015 WL 7960976, at *3 (D. Del. Dec. 4, 2015).

V. ARGUMENT

A. The subpoenas’ own fourteen-day compliance term is unrebutted and has been exceeded by more than five weeks.

The subpoenas served on OSP and LAC specify a fourteen-day compliance period. Plaintiff has cited that term to Defendants’ counsel in writing no fewer than four times — on July 13, 14, 18, and 20, 2026 — across a correspondence record that also includes responses from Defendants’ counsel on July 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, and 30, 2026. At no point in any of those responses has Defendants’ counsel disputed that the fourteen-day term applies, offered a competing interpretation of the subpoenas’ terms, or moved to modify that term under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). An unrebutted, repeatedly-noticed term of the subpoenas’ own text is the most direct basis available to the Court for assessing what compliance was to look like, and by when.

The fourteen-day term expired June 22, 2026. As of the date of this motion, production remains incomplete forty-two days beyond that term.

B. Production has occurred only under compulsion of Court-imposed deadlines, indicating that continued reliance on production “in the ordinary manner” is not producing timely compliance.

The record reflects two instances in which the Court, through its courtroom deputy, set an explicit deadline for Defendants’ counsel to respond regarding this dispute. In both instances, Defendants’ counsel responded within minutes of the deadline’s expiration: June 25, 2026, at 11:58 a.m. Pacific, two minutes before a noon deadline set the prior day; and July 30, 2026, at 11:56 a.m. Pacific, four minutes before a noon deadline set eight days earlier. In neither instance did any communication occur between Defendants’ counsel and the Court, or Defendants’ counsel and Plaintiff, prior to the response arriving at the deadline’s edge. Between the first instance and the second, no production occurred until Plaintiff independently raised the subpoenas’ unmet term on July 12, 2026 — a gap of seventeen days with no communication of any kind from Defendants’ counsel regarding the status of the subpoenas at issue.

This pattern indicates that an open-ended standard — production “in the ordinary manner,” as Defendants’ counsel has requested — has not, to date, produced timely compliance absent direct Court involvement. A date-certain order is the appropriate remedy where, as here, the responding party’s own conduct demonstrates that deadlines are met only when set by the Court, and only at the threshold of expiration.

C. Continued delay compresses Plaintiff’s remaining window to pursue related discovery before the November 5, 2026 discovery cutoff.

Fact discovery in this matter closes November 5, 2026. Plaintiff’s anticipated follow-up discovery — including depositions of OSP and LAC witnesses whose conduct is described in the subpoenaed materials — depends on reviewing that material first. Each week of continued, uncommitted delay in OSP and LAC’s production correspondingly narrows the time remaining for Plaintiff to review that material, identify follow-up discovery, and complete it before the cutoff. This prejudice is compounded by the asymmetry in resources between Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, and Defendants’ publicly-funded counsel’s office, and is a proper consideration under the proportionality analysis of Rule 26(b)(1), including “the parties’ relative access to relevant information” and “the parties’ resources.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Plaintiff notes, for the Court’s awareness, that he extended Defendants a three-week accommodation on Defendants’ own discovery deadline on July 17, 2026, without requiring Court involvement. Plaintiff raises this not to suggest any obligation on Defendants’ part, but to note that the accommodation this motion seeks — a specific, workable completion date — is consistent with the cooperative approach Plaintiff has taken toward Defendants’ own scheduling needs.

VI. CERTIFICATION OF CONFERRAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and LR 37-1, Plaintiff certifies that he has, in good faith, conferred with Defendants’ counsel regarding this dispute on multiple occasions since June 18, 2026, including by email dated June 20, June 23, July 12, July 13, July 14, July 17, July 18, July 20, and July 30 (two occasions), 2026, and by telephone conference on or about July 20, 2026. Plaintiff has additionally raised this dispute directly with the Court’s courtroom deputy on June 24, July 18, and July 30, 2026. Plaintiff has been unable to resolve the matter without Court intervention.

VII. RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order OSP and LAC to complete production of all non-objected material responsive to the June 8, 2026 subpoenas — including, at minimum, OSP’s Item 5 and LAC’s Item 7 — no later than August 20, 2026, the outer bound of the timeline Defendants’ counsel represented to the Court on July 30, 2026, and for such other relief as the Court deems just.