UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________
)
A.N.S.W.E.R. COALITION, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 05-0071 (PLF)
)
KEN SALAZAR, )
Secretary of the Interior, et al., )
)
1
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court is in receipt of the parties’ Joint Report of March 15, 2010, as well as
the parties’ individual proposals for further proceedings, both also filed on March 15, 2010.
After reviewing the documents, it appears to the Court that three issues need resolution:
(1) defendants’ withholding of certain non-privileged documents; (2) plaintiff’s proposal
regarding future depositions; and (3) plaintiff’s proposal with respect to in camera review of
defendants’ privileged documents. The Court will address these issues in turn.
First, plaintiff asserts that defendants’ production is incomplete because
defendants have not produced a number of non-privileged documents discovered as a result of
the searches recently conducted by defendants. Defendants respond that these documents are not
responsive to plaintiff’s claims relating to the prohibition of sign supports — the issue about
which the Court authorized additional discovery — and therefore need not be produced. The
1
The Court has substituted Ken Salazar, the current Secretary of the Interior, for
the former Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, as a defendant in this case pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Court agrees with defendants. Regardless of whether the documents were discovered as a result
of the recent searches, defendants have no obligation to produce non-responsive or irrelevant
documents.
Second, plaintiff seeks to take Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of the United States
Secret Service and the National Park Service with regard to the searches they conducted in
response to plaintiff’s discovery requests. As defendants point out, the Court’s November 13,
2007 Order granting plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) motion permitted a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the
Secret Service regarding the decision to ban sign supports. See Order, Dkt. No. 56 at 1 (D.D.C.
Nov. 13, 2007). The Court’s Order did not contemplate that plaintiff would be permitted to take
discovery about the discovery process itself, nor did it authorize a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the
National Park Service. Accordingly, plaintiff may take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the Secret
Service only, and the deposition shall be limited to the plaintiff’s claims regarding the
prohibition on sign supports.
Plaintiff also seeks to take the deposition of three individuals — Anne Rowland,
Ramon Rendon, and John Bozzuto. In its Order of November 13, 2007, the Court stated that
“absent further leave of Court” plaintiff was authorized to take depositions of “no more than five
additional individuals or entities ‘involved in the decision making process for the establishment
of the ban [on sign supports] or who have been otherwise involved in the operation of the
checkpoints implementing the ban,’ . . . or who have relevant information concerning the sign
support ban as determined through responses to interrogatories or document production.” See
Order, Dkt. No. 56 at 1-2 (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2007). Plaintiff may proceed with its intended
depositions so long as the depositions relate to the issues identified in the November 13, 2007
2
Order and do not pursue discovery about the discovery process. Because Ms. Rowland is a
lawyer, the Court should be contacted promptly if appropriate ground rules cannot be agreed.
Finally, plaintiff seeks to have the Court review in camera additional privileged
documents identified by defendants in the privilege log. See Plaintiff’s Notice Identifying
Document’s for In Camera Review Withheld Based on Privilege, Dkt. No. 103 (D.D.C. Mar. 29,
2010). Defendants have taken no position on this issue. The Court will review the documents in
camera as requested by the plaintiff.
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff may proceed with limited deposition discovery, as
described above and in the Order of November 13, 2007, which shall conclude on or before June
15, 2010; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall submit for in camera review all of
the documents withheld on claims of privilege in one filing to the Court, including those
identified by the Court in its November 14, 2008 Memorandum Opinion and Order and those
requested by plaintiff in its March 29, 2010 Notice; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a status conference on
June 23, 2010.
SO ORDERED.
_/s/______________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge
DATE: 4/23/10
3