ODJ
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
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
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
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
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
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.
6-25-CV-01159-MC
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
Tracy White
Dear Ms. Pew, This is in response to Plaintiff’s email regarding the response to subpoenas send to the Oregon State Police (“OSP”) and the Legislative Administration Committee (“LAC”). I’ve attached copies of the subpoenas here.    First, as I stated in conferral with Plaintiff, LAC is, in fact, searching
Michael McShane
All, Judge McShane is going to want a response from defense prior to scheduling a hearing. If defendants could respond by 12pm tomorrow, I will forward this information to him for review. Thank you.
Michael McShane
Dear Courtroom Deputy, I am the pro se plaintiff in the above-referenced matter before Chief Judge McShane. I am writing to request an informal telephone conference regarding a discovery dispute with third-party subpoena recipients Oregon State Police and the Legislative Administration Committee, both represented by Tracy Ickes White,
ODJ
Tracy, Two things, separate from the meet-and-confer I sent under the other subject line. First, my preferred title is Brother, or Br. — not Mr. I've noted this before. I'd appreciate it going forward since I have been a Life Professed Member of the Hospitallers
ODJ
Dear Mr. Isaac, I will try to include him as a courtesy to you. However, I understand he is not your attorney and I do not plan to communicate directly with him.