Veterans for Common Sense et al v. Nicholson et al

Filing 114

Attachment 9
Declaration of William D. Janicki in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Protective Order Restricting Disclosure of Confidential and Private Information and Prohibiting Retaliation filed byVeterans United for Truth, Inc, Veterans for Common Sense. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Janicki Decl. ISO of Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Protective Order Restricting Disclosure of Confidential and Private Information and Prohibiting Retaliation, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Janicki Decl. ISO of Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Protective Order Restricting Disclosure of Confidential and Private Information and Prohibiting Retaliation, # 3 Exhibit 3 to Janicki Decl. ISO of Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Protective Order Restricting Disclosure of Confidential and Private Information and Prohibiting Retaliation, # 4 Exhibit 4 to Janicki Decl. ISO of Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Protective Order Restricting Disclosure of Confidential and Private Information and Prohibiting Retaliation, # 5 Exhibit 5 to Janicki Decl. ISO of Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Protective Order Restricting Disclosure of Confidential and Private Information and Prohibiting Retaliation, # 6 Exhibit 6 to Janicki Decl. ISO of Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Protective Order Restricting Disclosure of Confidential and Private Information and Prohibiting Retaliation, # 7 Exhibit 7 to Janicki Decl. ISO of Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Protective Order Restricting Disclosure of Confidential and Private Information and Prohibiting Retaliation, # 8 Exhibit 8 to Janicki Decl. ISO of Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Protective Order Restricting Disclosure of Confidential and Private Information and Prohibiting Retaliation, # 9 Exhibit 9 to Janicki Decl. ISO of Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Protective Order Restricting Disclosure of Confidential and Private Information and Prohibiting Retaliation, # 10 Exhibit 10 to Janicki Decl. ISO of Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Protective Order Restricting Disclosure of Confidential and Private Information and Prohibiting Retaliation, # 11 Exhibit 11 to Janicki Decl. ISO of Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Protective Order Restricting Disclosure of Confidential and Private Information and Prohibiting Retaliation, # 12 Exhibit 12 to Janicki Decl. ISO of Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Protective Order Restricting Disclosure of Confidential and Private Information and Prohibiting Retaliation, # 13 Exhibit 13 to Janicki Decl. ISO of Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion for Protective Order Restricting Disclosure of Confidential and Private Information and Prohibiting Retaliation)(Janicki, William) (Filed on 2/6/2008)

Download PDF
Veterans for Common Sense et al v. Nicholson et al Doc. 114 Att. 9 Dockets.Justia.com MORRISON FOERSTER Mr. Daniel Bensing January 16,2008 Page Two phases, the first phase consisting of documents responsive to the identified requests to be produced by the end of January. We can discuss the timing of the production of the remaining responsive documents as well as methods for reducing burden during our anticipated teleconference. Please be advised, however, that Plaintiffs do not agree with Defendants' proposed timing for the responses or the production. Defendants' responses to the two sets of requests for production of documents were due in November and December. Defendants failed to serve even basic objections by the respective deadlines. In Plaintiffs' view, because Defendants did not properly object within the statutory period, any objections are now waived. Even assuming that the filing your protective order motion preserved your right to object, which is doubtful, it would only serve to preserve those objections that were the basis for the protective order motion. However, Defendants' motion did not include objections to specific requests but rather raised generally the single issue of burden. Thus, in any scenario, all other objections were waived when the deadlines passed and document production should begin immediately, consistent with Judge Conti's order mooting your protective order motion and permitting discovery to begin immediately. Given Plaintiffs' willingness to narrow discovery for the first phase of production, Plaintiffs expect document production to begin immediately. In your letter, you raise the issue of the unresolved protective order. We see no reason why the documents subject to Privacy Act concerns could not be provisionally marked as "CONFIDENTIAL" under the terms of the proposed protective order, a provision Defendants do not contest. Plaintiffs agree to move to seal any such information in the Court record and to treat confidential information in accordance with the terms set forth in the proposed protective order. As we have stated previously, we have no interest in compromising the privacy of veterans' personal information, especially information as sensitive as medical history invoIving PTSD andfor suicide. Noticed Deaositions: Plaintiffs are willing to meet and confer with Defendants regarding mutually convenient dates for the noticed depositions. Plaintiffs do not agree with Defendants, however, that a limitation to 10 depositions is appropriate in this case, given the scope of the issues raised in the Complaint. As Defendants are aware, Plaintiffs requested additional depositions in the Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed on November 9,2007. Unless we hear from you promptly, we assume that you desire us to have Judge Conti decide whether your reflusal to agree to more depositions is reasonable. Plaintiffs will then follow up with the Court to secure the right to conduct the requested additional depositions. Plaintiffs also disagree that the depositions should not be conducted in San Francisco and are willing to discuss the issue further during the teleconference to achieve a reasonable compromise.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?