VEASEY v. PERRY, 2:13-CV-00193. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
Number: infdco20140731i61
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER NELVA GONZALES RAMOS, District Judge. 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 i
Summary: ORDER NELVA GONZALES RAMOS, District Judge. 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..
More
ORDER
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS, District Judge.
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 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.
Source: Leagle
