Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • JWMaryland

JWMaryland

JWMaryland

Page 1: JWMaryland

Category:

Number of Pages:12

Date Created:October 15, 2018

Date Uploaded to the Library:October 16, 2018

Tags:JWMarylandresponse, objects, MONTGOMERY, Russian, maryland, defendants, response, documents, defendant, production, COUNTY, plaintiff, request


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT MARYLAND
BALTIMORE DIVISION
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
LINDA LAMONE, al.
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 17-cv-02006 (ELH)
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS PLAINTIFF JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
DEFENDANT FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION DOCUMENTS
Pursuant Fed. Civ. and 34, Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. Plaintiff
Judicial Watch its undersigned counsel, hereby responds and objects Defendant Linda
Lamone First Request for Production Documents Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff objects these requests for production the extent that they exceed the
discovery scope and limits described Fed. Civ. 26(b); the extent that they seek
information protected the attorney-client, work-product, other privileges; and the extent
that they purport impose any obligation beyond what prescribed federal court rules.
The following responses are subject Plaintiff right supplement alter them conform
with documents subsequently obtained during the course discovery trial. making these
responses, Plaintiff does not waive any right object the admissibility trial any fact,
statement, document, object any future request for the production documents.
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Subject and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
Defendant requests for production follows:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
All documents that you may use support your claims this case.
RESPONSE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Plaintiff objects this request the ground that calls for the disclosure information
that not otherwise required disclosed until days before trial, pursuant Fed. Civ. 26(a)(3)(B). Plaintiff will supplement its responses, necessary, within the timeframe
permitted Fed. Civ. 26(a)(3)(B) order the Court.
Plaintiff also objects that has not fully decided which documents may use support
its claims and cannot provide answer now. Any dispositive motion likely will cite the
documents filed this case ECF Doc. Nos. 1-1, 1-2, and 24-2, but beyond that Plaintiff does
not know.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
All documents relating your request for copy the list registered voters
Montgomery County, Maryland that the subject matter this lawsuit, including all documents
relating your decision request the voter list, the reasons you made the request, the purposes
for which you intend use the list, and any broader effort obtain copies similar lists from
other jurisdictions which your request for copy the list registered voters
Montgomery County, Maryland, part.
RESPONSE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Plaintiff objects this request the ground that the requested discovery not
proportional the needs the case, considering the parties relative access relevant
information, the undue burden imposed, which outweighs the likely benefit the requested
discovery, and the ground that seeks confidential and protected documents under the
attorney-client privilege.
Judicial Watch mission includes promoting transparency, integrity, and accountability government and fidelity the rule law; protecting the rights Judicial Watch members
who are lawfully registered vote Montgomery County (and elsewhere); and ensuring
compliance with the NVRA. pursuit these goals, Judicial Watch requests and reviews
records from state and local governments determine whether they are complying with the
NVRA, and, necessary, sues enforce compliance. Just the past two years, Judicial Watch
has sent more than 150 letters jurisdictions states, including Montgomery County,
Maryland. Judicial Watch has filed five federal lawsuits alleging violations the NVRA, four which are still active various degrees.
Simply put, Defendant request necessarily refers large proportion what Judicial
Watch does pursuit its core mission. Searching for and producing all documents
concerning all these efforts unreasonably burdensome and not proportional the needs
this case. Further, the requested documents are irrelevant the issues this case. Judicial
Watch efforts obtain voter registration lists either from Maryland from other jurisdictions
have nothing with the claims the complaint the defenses Defendants answer.
Further, providing the lists themselves would violate state laws. Judicial Watch has obtained
voter registration lists under Section 8(i) the NVRA from California, Georgia, Illinois, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Vermont. The laws these jurisdictions variously
prohibit the sharing and distribution their voter registration lists.
Judicial Watch also objects this request insofar seeks documents that are attorney
work product and withholding the following documents that basis. June 2015 and again June 2017, Dr. Stephen Camarota, the Director Research for the Center for Immigration
Studies, conducted paid studies for Judicial Watch. These studies compared the survey data
from biennial report released the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) regarding state
and county voter registration totals with data provided the Census Bureau determine the
adult citizen registration rates for U.S. counties. These studies also collected various other
statistics that were publicly available from the EAC concerning state and county compliance
with the NVRA, including, for example, the number confirmation notices sent pursuant
U.S.C. 20507(d)(2), and the number registrations placed inactive status. Judicial
Watch relied these studies determine which states and jurisdictions should receive notice violation letter pursuant U.S.C. 20510(b) and which should sued for failing
comply with the NVRA. These studies have not been made public. Judicial Watch does not
intend call Dr. Camarota witness trial. Dr. Camarota expert employed
Plaintiffs only prepare for trial. Accordingly, there basis for requiring production
these proprietary studies.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
All documents reflecting relating any communications you had with any third party,
including any actual potential financial supporters Judicial Watch, other than your
attorneys, concerning your request for the list registered voters Montgomery County,
Maryland that the subject this lawsuit.
RESPONSE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Plaintiff objects this request the grounds that none the requested documents are
relevant any party claims defenses, and that the requested discovery not proportional
the needs the case, considering the parties relative access relevant information, the parties
resources, the importance the discovery resolving the issues the case, and the undue
burden imposed, which outweighs the likely benefit the requested discovery.
Plaintiff objects searching for and producing any requested communications the
form press releases, the ground that there large volume press releases and that
Defendants easily can search and review these press releases other means, namely, online.
Without waiving its objections the relevance this discovery, Judicial Watch notes that all
its press releases are available, searchable format, https://www.judicialwatch.org/pressroom/press-releases/.
Plaintiff objects producing any fund-raising materials and other communications with
its membership regarding its request for the list registered voters Montgomery County,
Maryland because, besides having bearing the issues this case, these materials are
proprietary and were produced considerable cost Plaintiff, and because would
extraordinarily burdensome and probably impossible search for and produce them all.
Plaintiff has many hundreds thousands contributors, depending how one measures the
size and recency contributions, and Plaintiff communicates with them, and with many more
prospective contributors, both concerning fundraising appeals and current news, regular
basis, meaning once twice per day email, and also frequently regular mail. For
example, statistics show that recent month Judicial Watch sent 1.5 million pieces mail
its contributors, 2.3 million pieces mail prospective contributors, and million emails.
Indeed, Plaintiff cannot present determine whether, even possessed unlimited resources
and time, could ever reconstruct how many unique messages were sent, let alone how many
refer concern voting, voter registration, this lawsuit, Maryland, related issues.
Defendant request not only irrelevant and objectionable requesting proprietary
information, information and belief impossible comply with it.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
All documents reflecting relating any communications you had with any third party,
other than your attorneys, concerning this lawsuit.
RESPONSE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Plaintiff objects this request the grounds set forth response Request for
Production No. and incorporates that response here, its entirety, reference.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
All documents reflecting relating any communications you had with any third party,
including any actual potential financial supporters Judicial Watch, other than your
attorneys, relating the purposes for which you are seeking the Montgomery County voter list.
RESPONSE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Plaintiff objects this request the grounds set forth response Request for
Production No. and incorporates that response here, its entirety, reference.
Plaintiff also objects this request the ground that the use the term purposes
the request vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, and not subject interpretation that would
allow Plaintiff understand respond this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
All documents reflecting relating any communications you had with any third party,
including any actual potential financial supporters Judicial Watch, other than your
attorneys, relating any broader effort obtain copies lists registered voters from other
jurisdictions which your request for copy the list registered voters Montgomery
County, Maryland, part.
RESPONSE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Plaintiff objects this request the grounds set forth response Request for
Production No. and incorporates that response here, its entirety, reference.
Plaintiff also objects this request the grounds that the broader effort the request
refers has been undertaken support Judicial Watch core mission promoting
transparency, integrity, and accountability government and fidelity the rule law;
protecting the rights Judicial Watch members who are lawfully registered vote other
counties and states; and ensuring compliance with the NVRA. Interpreted literally, this request
will require production even more the millions communications referred response Request for Production No.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
All documents relating your use any copy list registered voters actually
obtained from another jurisdiction.
RESPONSE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Plaintiff objects this request the ground that none the requested documents are
relevant any claim stated Plaintiff complaint any defense stated Defendants answer,
neither which document refers any way lists acquired from another jurisdiction; and
the grounds that the requested discovery not proportional the needs the case, considering
the parties relative access relevant information, the parties resources, the importance the
discovery resolving the issues the case, and the undue burden imposed, which outweighs
the likely benefit the requested discovery.
Further, Plaintiff objects that providing the lists themselves would violate state laws.
Judicial Watch has obtained voter registration lists under Section 8(i) the NVRA from
California, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Vermont. The laws
these jurisdictions variously prohibit the sharing and distribution their voter registration lists.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
All documents reflecting any alleged admission and/or declaration against interest any the defendants the case relating any claims defenses involved this lawsuit.
RESPONSE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Plaintiff objects this request the grounds that seeks documents that are equally
available Defendants. Responsive documents, any, would from Defendants Section 8(i)
response July 2017, Defendants pleadings this case, Defendants most recent October
10, 2018 response Plaintiff first set requests for production, any emails between
Plaintiff and Defendants prior filing this lawsuit. All these documents may may not
contain admissions that Plaintiff may use. Plaintiff also objects that responding this request
with any greater specificity would reveal the thought processes Plaintiff attorneys, which
Defendants are not entitled discover.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
All documents that you provided actual potential financial supporters Judicial
Watch relating this lawsuit, your request for the list registered voters Montgomery
County, Maryland, any broader effort obtain copies lists registered voters from
other jurisdictions which your request for copy the list registered voters
Montgomery County, Maryland, part.
RESPONSE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.
Plaintiff objects this request the grounds set forth response Request for
Production No. and incorporates that response here, its entirety, reference.
Plaintiff also objects this request the grounds that the broader effort the request
refers has been undertaken support Judicial Watch core mission promoting
transparency, integrity, and accountability government and fidelity the rule law;
protecting the rights Judicial Watch members who are lawfully registered vote other
counties and states; and ensuring compliance with the NVRA. Interpreted literally, this request
will require production even more the millions communications referred response Request for Production No.
Further, Plaintiff objects that providing voter registration lists has acquired would
violate state laws. Judicial Watch has obtained voter registration lists under Section 8(i) the
NVRA from California, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Vermont.
The laws these jurisdictions variously prohibit the sharing and distribution their voter
registration lists.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
All documents that refer, relate pertain any the matters alleged the Complaint.
RESPONSE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
Plaintiff objects this request the ground that the requested discovery overbroad,
vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible; and that not proportional the needs the case,
considering the parties relative access relevant information, the undue burden imposed, which
outweighs the likely benefit the requested discovery, and the grounds seeks confidential
and protected documents under the attorney-client, attorney work-product, other applicable
privilege.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
All documents that you received response any subpoena discovery request issued this case.
RESPONSE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
Other than the documents Defendants produced Plaintiff October 10, 2018,
response Plaintiff First Request for Production Documents, Plaintiff has responsive
documents.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
All documents identified, reviewed, considered you responding any
defendant interrogatories.
RESPONSE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
Plaintiff objects the request that calls for documents not relevant any claims
defenses this case. Plaintiff reviewed, considered document response
Defendants interrogatories and ultimately rejected the document irrelevant, such document
remains irrelevant this case notwithstanding that Plaintiff reviewed it. Further, the documents
that Plaintiff attorneys reviewed considered responding Defendants interrogatories,
and then rejected irrelevant, would reveal the mental processes and thoughts Plaintiff
attorneys, which are protected under the attorney work-product doctrine.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
All documents you intend introduce exhibits any hearing trial this matter
support the allegations the Complaint.
RESPONSE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
Plaintiff objects this request the ground that calls for the disclosure information
that not otherwise required disclosed until days before trial, pursuant Fed. Civ. 26(a)(3)(B). Plaintiff will supplement its responses, necessary, within the timeframe
permitted Fed. Civ. 26(a)(3)(B) order the Court. Plaintiff also objects that has
not fully decided which documents will introduce exhibits trial and cannot provide
answer now.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
All documents reflecting relating any communications you had with any Russian
nationals agents the Russian government concerning this lawsuit, your request for the
Montgomery County voter list, the purposes for which you are seeking the Montgomery County
voter list, and/or any broader effort obtain copies lists registered voters from other
jurisdictions which your request for copy the list registered voters Montgomery
County, Maryland, part.
RESPONSE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
Plaintiff objects that the request violates its First Amendment rights and those its
members, that frivolous, baseless allegation being used government agent order
retaliate against Plaintiff, private organization, because its conservative political views.
This request frivolous. There allegation any pleading document associated
with this case any communications Plaintiff had with any Russian nationals agents
the Russian government concerning any the topics listed Request No. (or any other
topics). Nor there allegation, let alone any evidence, such communication any other
lawsuit, nor any news report, anywhere. commencing this lawsuit, Judicial Watch exercised its constitutional and statutory
rights sue Defendants for failing comply with federal law concerning voter list
maintenance. Defendants response here imply that Judicial Watch may part
alleged criminal conspiracy with the Russian government suborn our elective democracy. The
request baseless smear government agency directed against citizens who dared
challenge it. Request No. requests documents that even Defendants not believe exist.
Its true purpose punish Judicial Watch for exercising its rights, and deter others from
exercising theirs.
Notwithstanding the foregoing objection, there were such communications, and
Plaintiff has responsive documents.
Dated:
October 15, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
_________/s/__________________
Robert Popper, No. 12607
Paul Orfanedes, No. 22470
Ramona Cotca, No. 17196
Eric Lee, No. 20073
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street SW, Ste. 800
Washington, 20024
Tel: (202) 646-5172
Fax: (202) 646-5185
rpopper@judicialwatch.org
porfanedes@judicialwatch.org
rcotca@judicialwatch.org
elee@judicialwatch.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff