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
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, 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
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.
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
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”
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
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
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
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
NOTICE OF TORT CLAIM PURSUANT TO ORS 30.275 Claimant: Logan M. Isaac Date of Incident: April 1, 2026 (with related events beginning May 6, 2025) Dear Ms. Gose: This letter constitutes formal notice, pursuant to ORS 30.275, that the undersigned, Logan M. Isaac, intends to assert claims for
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