OHAHO on Discovery, Protective Orders: USA v. Durable, Inc.

"Prehearing procedures are ongoing. Shortly before the close of discovery, Durable filed a motion for a protective order addressed to certain of the interrogatories and requests for production that ICE had propounded to the company. The government filed a timely response, captioned as both a response to the motion for protective order and a motion to compel discovery. Durable did not respond to the government’s motion to compel, and the time for doing so has elapsed. Both motions are presently pending and ripe for resolution. ...

Durable is correct, however, in asserting that the volume of these requests is excessive, as well as disproportionate to the needs of the case. Some contention interrogatories will be permitted, albeit fewer than ICE seeks. The government will have ten days in which to pose up to five contention interrogatories addressed to the assertions made in Durable’s revised prehearing statement. Durable will respond to the interrogatories within ten days of receiving them. If Durable believes any responsive information is privileged, it will provide a privilege log explaining its objections with sufficient specificity to allow an informed assessment of whether a privilege actually applies. ...

ICE’s motion to compel discovery is denied. Durable’s motion for a protective order is granted in part and denied in part as more fully set forth herein." - USA v. Durable, Inc., June 5, 2014.