Veasey et al v. Abbott et al

Filing 438

ORDER granting in part and denying in part #276 Motion for Protective Order.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(sscotch, 2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
MARC VEASEY, et al,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiffs,
VS.
RICK PERRY, et al,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-00193

ORDER
Before the Court is “United States’ Motion for a Protective Order From
Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition to the United States of America” (D.E.
276). After due consideration, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART as follows:
• With respect to Topic 1, the Court SUSTAINS the United States’ objections
that the request is not relevant, overbroad, and unduly burdensome.

The

efficacy of preclearance as a remedy may be revisited if liability is found.
• With respect to Topic 2, the Court SUSTAINS the United States’ objection
that the request is not relevant.
• With respect to Topics 5 and 6, the Court SUSTAINS the United States’
objection that the requests are not relevant. The issues may be revisited with
respect to any remedial phase of this case in the event that liability is found.
• With respect to Topics 7 and 8, the Court SUSTAINS IN PART the United
States’ objections that the requests are not relevant, burdensome, and protected
by a prosecutorial privilege. The Court OVERRULES the objections to the
extent that the State of Texas seeks to inquire into the factual and ministerial
matters of how the records are maintained and searched for inclusion in and
1/2

compilation of reports. The State of Texas may inquire into how the summary
information contained therein is generated, but may not inquire into the
substance of any matters reported or excluded.
• With respect to Topic 10, the Court SUSTAINS the United States’ objection
that the deposition would be cumulative of documents already produced and is
overbroad and unduly burdensome.
• With respect to Topics 11 through 30, the Court SUSTAINS IN PART the
United States’ objection that the requests are burdensome, not relevant, and
protected by governmental privileges. The State of Texas is permitted to
inquire into factual and ministerial matters of how records are maintained and
searched for inclusion in and compilation of reports. The State of Texas is not
permitted to inquire into the substance of any matters reported or excluded.
• With respect to Topic 37, the Court SUSTAINS the United States’ objections
that the request is not relevant, overbroad, and burdensome. The attorneys’
representations as to the completeness of the document production is sufficient.
• With respect to all other Topics, the parties represented to the Court that they
have or will reach an agreement and no ruling is necessary on the objections.
ORDERED this 24th day of July, 2014.

___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2