Vietnam Veterans of America et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al

Filing 303

ORDER RE: JOINT STATEMENTS OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES FILED OCTOBER 12, 2011 (Dkt. Nos. 299 & 300). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 10/14/2011. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 Northern District of California United States District Court 12 VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, 13 et al., Plaintiffs, 14 Case No.: 09-cv-0037 CW (JSC) ORDER RE: JOINT STATEMENTS OF DISCOVERY DISPUTES FILED OCTOBER 12, 2011 (Dkt. Nos. 299 & 300) v. 15 16 CENTRAL INTELLIENCE AGENCY, et 17 al., 18 Defendants. 19 20 Now pending before the Court are two new discovery disputes: 1) Joint Statement of 21 Discovery Dispute Concerning Depositions and Navy and Air Force Document Production 22 (Dkt. No. 299); and 2) Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute Concerning Magnetic Tapes 23 Regarding Database of Edgewood Test Participants and Project “Often” Documents (Dkt. 24 No. 300). As discussed at the telephone hearing on October 13, 2011, with respect to the 25 dispute regarding the Magnetic Tapes and the Project “Often” Documents (Dkt. No. 300), 26 the Court DENIES the motion in part. With respect to the dispute regarding the Depositions 27 and Navy and Air Force Documents (Dkt. No. 299), the Court orders further briefing. 28 DISCUSSION 1 2 1. The Project “Often” Documents 3 Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have withheld documents concerning Project Often 4 which are contained in 11 boxes. The Court’s October 5, 2011 order granted the CIA’s 5 motion for a protective order in part and held that Plaintiffs’ discovery of the CIA is limited 6 to their secrecy oath claim and the CIA’s involvement in the testing program. Given the 7 CIA’s representation that they have produced all relevant documents from the 11 boxes and 8 elsewhere dealing with testing on service members, the Court denies Plaintiffs request to 9 compel further production of documents. Plaintiffs must make a more particularized 10 showing regarding what evidence they allege is missing and why this evidence is relevant to 11 Plaintiffs’ secrecy oath claim before the Court will order further production from the CIA. Northern District of California United States District Court 12 2. The Magnetic Tapes 13 This dispute concerns “magnetic tapes” which contain, at least in part, information 14 regarding testing done at Edgewood. Defendants allege that it is not feasible to recover 15 information from these tapes. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have not actually attempted 16 to convert these magnetic tapes into a readable format and purport to have information 17 regarding a program that would allow Defendants to do so. The parties are ordered to meet 18 and confer on or before Monday, October 17, 2011 regarding this matter. 19 3. Depositions and Navy and Air Force Documents 20 The Court requests further briefing regarding the parties’ dispute over the number of 21 depositions and the documents from the Navy and Air Force. The parties shall file one ten 22 page supplemental brief addressing both subjects. With respect to the depositions, Plaintiffs 23 should identify who they seek to depose, why this person’s testimony is relevant and 24 necessary, and how long of a deposition they request. Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief shall be 25 filed by October 21, 2011. Defendants’ opposition is due November 4, 2011. Upon filing of 26 the opposition, the Court will take the matter under submission. 27 28 2 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 14, 2011 3 _________________________________ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Northern District of California United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?