INTERPLAY OF DISCOVERY AND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Similar documents
Case 2:10-cr MHT -WC Document 1265 Filed 06/13/11 Page 1 of 8

Document Analysis Technology Group (DATG) and Records Management Alert

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Excerpts from NC Defender Manual on Third-Party Discovery

PlainSite. Legal Document. District Of Columbia District Court Case No. 1:07-mc RJL TROLLINGER et al v. TYSON FOODS, INC.

Case 1:12-cr ALC Document 57 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of v. - : 12 Cr. 876 (ALC)

ALI-ABA Course of Study Current Developments in Employment Law July 24-26, 2008 Santa Fe, New Mexico

By Kevin M. Smith and John Gregory Robinson. Reprinted by permission of Connecticut Lawyer. 16 Connecticut Lawyer July 2011 Visit

Case 3:16-cr BR Document 1160 Filed 08/31/16 Page 1 of 10

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, Petitioner, vs.

Case 3:16-cr BR Document 1163 Filed 08/31/16 Page 1 of 12

Piling On: Unresolved Issues Regarding Voluminous Discovery in Complex Criminal Cases in Federal Court

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Governor of the State of Colorado, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 1:17-cr DLH Document 196 Filed 01/10/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA

FRESNO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION (FCERA) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND APPEALS TO THE BOARD POLICY

This opinion is subject to revision before publication in the Pacific Reporter. IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS. ----ooooo---- ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 122 Filed: 10/24/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:590

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Case 2:16-cv APG-GWF Document 3 Filed 04/24/16 Page 1 of 7

the federal government s investigative file and for authority to issue a subpoena duces tecum.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Babin et al v. Breaux et al Doc. 41 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ORDER

Case 2:05-cv CNC Document 119 Filed 07/13/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No.

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. JANE BOUDREAU, Case No Hon. Victoria A.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION ORDER ON ANTI-SLAPP MOTION

ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY Practices & Checklist

Case 1:09-cv BMC Document 19 Filed 12/31/09 Page 1 of 5. Plaintiff, : :

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division

LR Case management pilot program for criminal cases. A. Scope; application. This is a special pilot rule governing time limits for criminal

Emergency Ethics 101 A Model Rules Analysis. Cara E. Greene, Esq. March In conjunction with the panel: The Ethics of the Disruptive Client

AUTO CLUB FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY VERSUS CHRISTOPHER AH- NER ET AL. CIVIL ACTION NO SECTION "J" (2)

NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION

Case 2:15-cr SDW Document 52 Filed 12/16/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 1149 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

What Not To Do When Served With A Rule 45 Subpoena In The Age of E-Discovery

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 22 Filed: 09/10/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:140

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION. THOMAS C. and PAMELA McINTOSH

Legal 145b FINAL EXAMINATION. Prepare a Motion to Quash Subpoena.

ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY BASICS. John K. Rubiner and Bonita D. Moore 1. I. Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Is Virtually Everything

Protecting the Privilege When the Government Executes a Search Warrant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA NO BAJ-RLB ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

Case 1:14-cv TSC Document 113 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

Case: 1:16-cv CAB Doc #: 25 Filed: 07/25/17 1 of 7. PageID #: 253 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Resolution Through the Courts TEI Audits & Appeals Seminar

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

Case 1:10-cr CKK Document 161 Filed 09/27/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LA. REV. STAT. ANN. 9:

Ethical Considerations on Social Media EVIDENTIARY AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN USING SOCIAL MEDIA TO BUILD OR DEFEND A CASE.

247 F.R.D. 27 (D.D.C.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:16-cv CRS-CHL Document 36 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 423

Case 1:17-cv PBS Document 35-1 Filed 07/11/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Discovery Requests in Trademark Cases Under U.S. Law

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ABINGDON DIVISION

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Case 3:15-cv WHA Document 150 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: Civ-Martinez

Relator, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. State ex rel. Summit County Republican Party Executive Committee, Case No Origipal Action in Mandamus

Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Domestic Relations Division Calendar #62 Richard J. Daley Center, Room 3010 Chicago, Illinois 60602

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. and Case No. 34-RC-2230 PETITION TO REVOKE SUBPOENA

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:05-cv JEI-JS Document Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 18

Case 5:16-cv CAR Document 19 Filed 05/25/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:08-cv JTC Document 127 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION

Case 1:13-cv MSK-MJW Document 87 Filed 10/08/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 2:10-cr MHT -WC Document 1266 Filed 06/13/11 Page 1 of 5

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 I. BASIC INFORMATION REGARDING REPORT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-CV DT DISTRICT JUDGE PAUL D.

PTAB Approaches To Accessibility Of Printed Publication

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION. v. Case No: 5:13-MC-004-WTH-PRL ORDER

Case 3:08-cv P Document 35 Filed 03/02/2009 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

RULES OF TENNESSEE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION CHAPTER PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - CONTESTED CASES TABLE OF CONTENTS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS. JUDGE THOMAS J. KELLEY, (312) Team D

Complex Strategies, Inc. v AA Ultrasound, Inc NY Slip Op 32723(U) October 11, 2016 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: Judge:

Give Me Back My Books and Records: Application of Rule 41(g) in

Case 3:03-cv RNC Document 32 Filed 11/13/2003 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Defendants.

Best Practices in Multi-Defendant Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

LEXSEE. JAMES R. HAZELWOOD, PLAINTIFF v. PATTI WEBB et al., DEFENDANTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:06CV-P107-M

Case 3:16-cv AWT Document 69 Filed 07/27/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. Case No. 8:19-cv-582-T-36AEP ORDER

THE RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE FIREMEN S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO

Case 1:11-mc MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2011 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/06/ :01 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/07/2017

COMPREHENSIVE JAMS COMPREHENSIVE ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES

Uniform Arbitration Act; Mediation or Arbitration of Trust Instruments; HB 2571

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

TITLE 27 PROCEDURAL RULE BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN COUNSELING SERIES 12 CONTESTED CASE HEARING PROCEDURE FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPIST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiffs, Case Number v. Honorable David M.

Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Nassau IAS Trial Part 22 Part Rules Updated: January 25, 2018

Transcription:

INTERPLAY OF DISCOVERY AND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT LYNDA A. PETERS CITY PROSECUTOR KAREN M. COPPA CHIEF ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF LAW LEGAL INFORMATION, INVESTIGATIONS, & PROSECUTIONS DIVISION 33 N. LASALLE STREET, 2 ND FLOOR CHICAGO, IL 60602 PHONE: 312-744-1882

PURPOSE Promote full disclosure of government records. GTE Sylvania, Inc.v. Consumers Union, 444 U.S. 375, 385 (1980). Records paid for by citizens. Discovery Provide parties with information (documents and testimony) that may be used to support its claims or defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26

SCOPE: All public records pertaining to operation of government, unless exempt; No requirement of relevancy; Fishing expedition entirely appropriate; Purpose of request generally irrelevant.

SCOPE: Discovery U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S. Ct. 3090 (1974), requires that the party issuing a subpoena duces tecum must show: (1) That the material sought is evidentiary and relevant; (2) The material sought is not otherwise reasonably procurable by the exercise of due diligence in advance of trial; (3) That the requesting party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and the failure to obtain the materials sought may tend to unreasonably delay the trial; and (4) The application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general fishing expedition. (Emphasis supplied).

SCOPE: vs. DISCOVERY The disclosure regime, however, is distinct from civil discovery. Because these considerations present different issues, that a document is exempt from discovery does not necessarily mean it will be exempt from disclosure under. Additionally, while information disclosed during discovery is limited to the parties and can be subject to protective orders against further disclosure, when a document must be disclosed under, it must be disclosed to the general public and the identity of the requester is irrelevant to whether disclosure is required. Stonehill v. IRS, 558 F.3d 534, 538-39 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

PRODUCTION Discovery Everything that is requested, unless what is requested is otherwise exempt. Everything that is used to support claims and defenses or requested in written discovery requests, unless subject to objection.

PRODUCTION Discovery Burden solely on public body. Burden on both litigants. No need for requester to be reasonable unless there is a cost provision for search time. Need for parties to work cooperatively.

PRODUCTION Limited to documents. Generally no explanation necessary. Charles v. Armed Forces Medical Examiner, 730 F. Supp. 2d 205 (D.D.C. 2010) Discovery May inquire as to meaning of documents in depositions.

PRODUCTION: RESPONSE TIME Response times vary from state to state. May be shorter response period than those mandated in discovery. DISCOVERY Discovery provision generally mandates a response 30 days after receipt of a written request.

PRODUCTION: CONTINUING OBLIGATION DISCOVERY NO. YES.

: Challenge for Litigators What did other side get pursuant to a request? Must ensure productions are consistent!

: Challenge for Litigators requests being used to supplement discovery on a case: What do you do when a party circumvents a judge s discovery ruling barring access to an item that is requested or obtained through? generally does not mention or recognize pending litigation nor discovery during litigation as a valid exemption. Horsehead Industries, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 999 F. Supp 59 (D.D.C. 1998).

Can be used as a Reason Not to Produce? Some courts turn to statute for guidance on discovery requests. Courts may sometimes weigh the purpose of the exemption with the need for the documents in discovery to determine if the documents must be produced. In Re Marriage of Daniels, 240 Ill. App. 3d 314 (1st Dist. 1992).

PROTECTIVE ORDERS May be entered in litigation cases. Does it protect against a request for the same information? GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union, 445 U.S. 375, 100 S. Ct. 1194 (1980). Commonwealth v. Fremont Investment, 459 Mass 209 (2011).

PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS Is there a duty to preserve documents? Must there be a specific request to preserve? Must the requester be informed of a planned disposal? Discovery Duty to preserve documents needed in litigation. See case law on electronic discovery. Challenging in terms of electronic documents

SEARCH COSTS AND FEES Approximately half the States and Federal Government allow for costs to search and produce documents pursuant to a request. Discovery Unless extraordinary costs, generally not allowed for search of paper documents. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978). ESI treated differently by federal courts. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).