EFTA00205588¶
From: (USAFLS)¶
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 3:43 PM¶
To: . (USAFLS);¶
Subject: RE: Voluntary Production of Materials?¶
Should we talk about this? I really have no idea what we have or don’t have that would be responsive to non-objectionable discovery, or what we could do in response to Cassell’s request.¶
From: Paul Cassell [mailto:]¶
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 3:31 PM¶
To: (USAFLS)¶
Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS);¶
Subject: RE: Voluntary Production of Materials?¶
Dear □,¶
As mentioned last week, Brad and I wanted to chat with you about where we are on discovery in this case. I spoke with Brad, and while our recollection of what you promised you were going to do may be slightly different than ours, we believe there was at least a general agreement to the spirit of the voluntary production – that is, you were going to cooperate to the extent that you are able.¶
As we explained on our phone call, we requested the things that we would like produced. While you may believe those requests to be overly broad and may assert that legal objection in your responses, you indicated that you would be willing to produce certain documents that may not be all the documents in your possession responsive to the request but that would amount to some documents or materials that we do not yet have. Without making us go through the unnecessary exercise of narrowing our requests, it would be most helpful if you would just shoot us over whatever documents or materials that you are willing to share with us voluntarily. We will agree that whatever production you make does not constitute a waiver of any legal objection you may have to any discovery request.¶
So, are you willing to produce anything to us is, I guess, the bottom line. Thanks for any voluntary help you can extend.¶
Paul Cassell¶
Co-Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2¶
Paul G. Cassell¶
EFTA00205589¶
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah¶
http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell.Paul¶
CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you.¶
From: (USAFLS) [mailto:]¶
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2012 8:08 AM¶
To: Paul Cassell¶
Subject: Re: Replies and Responses Due on January 6, 2012¶
Thanks. Hope everyone has a great weekend.¶
From: Paul Cassell [mailto:]¶
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 07:00 PM¶
To: (USAFLS)¶
Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Brad Edwards¶
< >¶
Subject: RE: Replies and Responses Due on January 6, 2012¶
-
Thanks for the clarification on the 90 day rule.
-
Brad and I need to confer about the discovery issues, but that is not a basis for our withholding consent for an extension. So you may indicate that we consent to the extension. Brad and I have a different recollection about discovery issues than you do. But let’s chat about that next week.
Sorry to hear y’all are working at 7 PM on Friday night. Paul¶
Paul G. Cassell¶
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law¶
S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah¶
332 South 1400 East, Room 101¶
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730¶
Voice: 801-585-5202¶
Fax: 801-581-6897¶
Email:¶
http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=5¶
http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name=Cassell,Paul¶
EFTA00205590¶
CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message - along with any/all attachments - is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you.¶
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:07 PM¶
To: Paul Cassell¶
Cc: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS); Brad Edwards¶
Subject: RE: Replies and Responses Due on January 6, 2012¶
Hi, Paul.¶
As always, we appreciate your efforts to be accommodating. With respect to the conditions that you have placed on your agreement to the requested extension:¶
(1) No 90-day notice is called for by Local Rule 7.1(b)(4) for the motions/responses/replies connected to the requested extension because none is a “motion or other matter which has been pending and fully briefed” and none is a “motion or other matter as to which the Court has conducted a hearing.” In any event, after the recent amendments to the Local Rules, the 90-day notices are only “serve[d] on all parties and any affected non-parties.” Court filing of the 90-day notices is no longer contemplated by the Local Rules.¶
(2) As to our discussion in early December, we have a different recollection. At that time, notwithstanding our motion to stay discovery, we expressed a willingness to work with you and Brad to attempt to identify items that might be producible by the government pursuant to a narrowed and specific request for production that seeks relevant items and where the production by the government would not be burdensome or otherwise objectionable. We remain willing to work toward such a goal, but have been waiting to hear from you or Brad to begin the process of identifying the items that would be the subject of such a narrowed request. In fact, Marie called Brad several weeks ago to discuss the requests for admissions, but they were unable to connect at that time.¶
If the government’s position on these two points causes you to withhold your agreement to our requested extension, we would be happy to inform the Court that you oppose our motion for extension of time. If we do not hear from you by 7:00 pm Miami time that you agree to the requested extension notwithstanding the government’s position on these two points, we will report to the Court that you object to the extension. Please be sure to send any reply concerning your position to as he will be filing the motion for extension this evening.¶
Thanks, and have a nice weekend.¶
I. Sánchez¶
United States Attorney’s Office¶