UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_______________________________________ 

 ) 

Republican National Committee, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Civ. No. 08-1953 (BMK, RJL, RMC) 

 ) 

Federal Election Commission, et al., ) THREE-JUDGE COURT 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

_______________________________________)

INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER VAN HOLLEN’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND 

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER DEFERRING DISCOVERY

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B)(iv), Intervenor-Defendant 

Representative Christopher Van Hollen, Jr. (“Intervenor”) moves to compel Plaintiffs 

Republican National Committee (“RNC”), California Republican Party (“CRP”), and Republican 

Party of San Diego (“SDRP”) to produce documents responsive to: (1) Intervenor’s First Set of 

Discovery Requests to Plaintiff Republican National Committee (Exhibit 1), and (2) Intervenor’s 

First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiffs California Republican Party and Republican Party 

of San Diego (Exhibit 2). In addition, Intervenor hereby opposes Plaintiffs’ Motion for a 

Protective Order Deferring Discovery. Counsel for Intervenor hereby certifies pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) that he has in good faith conferred with Plaintiffs’ 

counsel by telephone on April 8, 2009 in an effort to obtain the requested discovery without 

court action. Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that, pending resolution of the current dispositive 

motions, Plaintiffs do not intend to produce any documents in response to these discovery 

requests. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 1 of 17
- 2 -

I. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE CAREFULLY 

CIRCUMSCRIBED DISCOVERY REQUESTS AT ISSUE 

Two business days after this Court’s order unconditionally granting Representative Van 

Hollen’s motion to intervene, counsel transmitted Intervenor’s sole discovery requests to 

Plaintiffs. (See Ex. 1 at 9; Ex. 2 at 8.)1

 Ignoring a request for expedition in light of the Court’s

briefing schedule,2 (Ex. 1 at 1-2; Ex. 2 at 1), Plaintiffs stated that they would respond in 

accordance with all applicable local and federal rules—that is on March 25, 2009,3

approximately two weeks after the oppositions to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment were 

due. (Ex. 3 (Declaration of Lauren E. Baer) ¶¶ 4, 5.) 4 On March 9, 2009, counsel sent a letter to 

Plaintiffs reminding them of their “obligation to respond to all pending discovery requests in 

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Id. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) 

On March 16, 2009, however, Plaintiffs requested an extension beyond March 25, 

explaining that responding to discovery would divert them from preparing their summary 

judgment reply brief, which was due on March 24. (Id. ¶ 3, Ex. B.) Counsel accommodated 

 

1

 The First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff Republican National Committee consists 

of eleven requests for production. (See Ex. 1.) The First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiffs 

California Republican Party and Republican Party of San Diego consists of eight requests for 

production. (See Ex. 2.) Pursuant to Local Rule 26.2(d), the requests at issue in this motion to 

compel, (RNC RFP Nos. 1-11; CRP/SDRP RFP Nos. 1-8), are identified and quoted in full—

with Plaintiffs’ respective objections and responses—in the attached Appendix. 

2

 Counsel had requested that Plaintiffs respond before the deposition of the RNC’s Rule 

30(b)(6) designee, which had been scheduled for March 3, 2009. (Ex. 1 at 1-2.) 

 

3

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2) sets a 30-day deadline for responses to 

discovery requests. 

4

 In a March 5, 2009 telephone conversation, counsel for Plaintiffs represented to counsel 

for Intervenor that Plaintiffs (1) saw no need to respond to the discovery requests after the 

March 9, 2009 deadline for the oppositions to Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment, and (2) 

had no intention of responding to the discovery requests before March 9, 2009. (Ex. 3 ¶ 6.) 

Counsel for Plaintiffs did not indicate that Plaintiffs would seek a protective order deferring 

discovery. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 2 of 17
- 3 -

Plaintiffs by agreeing to extend the production deadline to the earlier of March 30 or five 

business days before oral argument, which at that point had not been scheduled. (Id.) 

Plaintiffs now take the position that, having responded to the Federal Election 

Commission (“FEC”)’s discovery, they need not respond to Intervenor’s discovery requests to 

the extent that those requests differ from the FEC’s.

5

 (App., RNC RFP Nos. 1-4, 6-8, 10-11; 

CRP/SDRP RFP Nos. 1-8.) Plaintiffs have also filed a Motion for a Protective Order Deferring 

Discovery, arguing that they should not have to comply with their discovery obligations at this 

time because “the Court’s resolution of the dispositive motions could render these requests 

irrelevant” and “any further discovery prior to the resolution of the dispositive motions imposes a 

higher burden upon the Plaintiffs than any possible benefit to the defendants.” (Mot. for 

Protective Order Deferring Disc. at 2.) 

Plaintiffs do not—and cannot—rely on any Order of this Court in these proceedings,6

 any 

provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any applicable precedent for the proposition 

that, after having sought an extension to respond to Intervenor’s modest discovery requests, they 

may arrogate to themselves the right, in effect, to ignore those requests. Nor, as shown below, 

 

5

 Plaintiffs produced documents in response to only two requests—numbers 5 and 9 of 

Intervenor’s request for production to the RNC. In each case, Plaintiffs reproduced documents 

that had already been produced to the FEC. (See App., RNC RFP Nos. 5, 9). Plaintiffs’ 

objection at issue, which Plaintiffs repeat verbatim in response to each request for production, 

states: “The RNC [or Plaintiffs] objects to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. The RNC [or Plaintiffs] will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC.” (See App., RNC RFP 

Nos. 1-11; CRP/SDRP RFP Nos. 1-8). 

6

 This Court’s scheduling order does not establish a deadline for the completion of 

discovery. (See Dec. 22, 2008 Scheduling Order.) Moreover, in granting intervention without 

conditions, this Court implicitly rejected Plaintiffs’ contention that “Van Hollen should not be 

permitted to conduct any discovery of Plaintiffs.” (See Pls’ Mem. in Opp. to Rep. Van Hollen’s 

Mot. to Intervene at 5.) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 3 of 17
- 4 -

can Plaintiffs establish that the requests at issue are beyond the scope of appropriate discovery, 

unduly burdensome, or in tension with the First Amendment. 

II. THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS MAY BE RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

CENTRAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

The discovery requests, which are limited in scope, are relevant to assessing the scope 

and plausibility of Plaintiffs’ factual contentions. As explained in the opposition to Plaintiffs’ 

motion for summary judgment, the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 

(2003), renders Plaintiffs’ factual contentions as to their intended future activities, fundraising, 

and provision of preferential access to soft-money donors irrelevant to the constitutionality of 

Title I. (See, e.g., Rep. Van Hollen’s Mem. in Opp. to Pls’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 30 (“As 

Congress and the Supreme Court have common-sensically found, federal officeholders and 

candidates will predictably listen harder to donors who have made large soft money 

contributions to their parties . . . . Accordingly, it does not matter that the RNC promises to 

confer on soft money donors no greater benefits than hard money donors are currently 

afforded.”); see also id. at 30 n.25 (“It is likewise irrelevant that the RNC promises not to 

respond to donor requests for one-on-one meetings with officeholders and candidates.”)). 

In opposing summary judgment, however, Intevenor is also entitled to test Plaintiffs’ 

factual assertions that are relevant to Plaintiffs’ own legal theory, even if that theory is legally 

flawed. In support of their motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs submitted a declaration by a 

former RNC officer stating, in relevant part: 

The RNC will not aid contributors to any of the accounts in 

obtaining preferential access to federal candidates or officeholders. 

For example, the RNC will not, in any manner different than or 

beyond that currently afforded to contributors of federal funds, (1) 

encourage officeholders or candidates to meet with or have other 

contact with contributors to these accounts, (2) arrange for 

contributors to participate in conference calls with federal 

candidates or officeholders, or (3) offer access to federal 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 4 of 17
- 5 -

officeholders or candidates in exchange for contributions. 

Furthermore, the RNC will not use any federal candidates or 

officeholders to solicit funds for any of the Accounts. 

(Pls’ Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 1 ¶ 19.) In addition, Plaintiffs submitted a declaration by the former 

Chairman of the RNC, Robert M. Duncan,7

 stating that he “will not provide any donor who gives 

funds in response to the [proposed soft-money] solicitations with any preferential access to any 

federal candidate or officeholder.” (Pls’ Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 ¶ 6.) 

On Plaintiffs’ theory of the case, whether McConnell’s holding applies to their 

circumstances turns on, among other things, what constitutes “preferential access” and the level 

of access “currently afforded to contributors of federal funds.” (Pls’ Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 1 

¶ 19.) It also turns on the plausibility of Plaintiffs’ commitments in light of the internal structure 

and practices of the RNC, CRP, and SDRP. Accordingly, these matters, which Plaintiffs have 

put in dispute, may be relevant and therefore are a proper subject of focused discovery. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

The discovery requests at issue focus on these points. They seek information pertaining 

exclusively to: (1) the record-keeping and sharing of information about major donors (and 

targeted soft-money spending) among the RNC, federal candidates and officeholders, and the 

state and local parties (App., RNC RFP Nos. 1-3); (2) the participation of federal candidates and 

officeholders in the RNC’s fundraising operations (App., RNC RFP Nos. 4, 10); (3) the RNC’s 

peddling of access to contributors in exchange for large donations (App., RNC RFP Nos. 5-7, 9-

 

7

 The RNC has recently filed a motion to amend the Complaint and submit a declaration by 

the RNC’s current Chairman, Michael Steele, in substitution of the declaration of its former 

Chairman. The proposed declaration is identical to the declaration previously submitted by 

Robert M. Duncan in all material respects. (Pls’ Mot. for Leave to Amend, Ex. 2 ¶ 6.) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 5 of 17
- 6 -

10); and (4) the involvement of federal candidates and officeholders in the planning and funding 

of the RNC’s proposed activities (App., RNC RFP No. 8).8

Furthermore, the discovery requests are carefully limited to the factual contentions on 

which Plaintiffs rely most strenuously. In seeking to overcome the preclusive effect of 

McConnell, and prove that this case “presents a markably different factual record,” Plaintiffs 

point to “[t]he absence of federal candidates and officeholders in fundraising, the elimination of 

preferential access given to large donors, and the manner in which the RNC intends to solicit 

non-federal funds and state funds.” (Pls’ Mem. in Opp. to Mot. to Dis. at 14-15.) 

Similarly, in their motion for summary judgment and reply memorandum, Plaintiffs 

purport to distinguish McConnell on the ground that this case does not present the “fundraising 

relationships and practices . . . that rendered all national party non-federal funds suspect” in 

McConnell. (Pls’ Mot. In Supp. of Summ. J. at 21). As support for their purported distinction, 

Plaintiffs again point to their factual contentions that (1) “no federal officeholders or candidates 

will solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend non-federal/state funds[,] SUF ¶ 24”; and (2) “the 

RNC will not grant contributors to the Accounts at issue with any preferential access to federal 

officeholders or candidates . . . [by] facilitate[ing] meetings between officeholders and 

contributors, encourage[ing] officeholders to meet with contributors, or provid[ing] any other 

opportunities for access, different than or beyond that provided to contributors of federal funds.” 

(Id. at 23; see also Pls’ Reply Mem. in Supp. of Summ. J. at 21-22 (“Plaintiffs’ intended 

activities . . . do not directly benefit federal candidates and . . . the RNC will not facilitate 

 

8

 The discovery requests directed to the CRP and SDRP are analogous in content and 

narrower in scope. (See App., CRP/SDRP RFP Nos. 1-8.) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 6 of 17
- 7 -

preferential access to federal candidates or officeholders. . . . [F]ar from [being] irrelevant, 

the[se] two factual assertions . . . are dispositive in this case.”).) 

III. PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDMENT, “UNDUE BURDEN,” AND VAGUENESS 

OBJECTIONS HAVE NO BASIS IN LAW 

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ general objection, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (“WRTL II”), 

127 S. Ct. 2652 (2007), does not justify Plaintiffs’ categorical refusal to respond to the discovery 

requests at issue (while responding to another party’s discovery requests). At most, WRTL II 

considered the demands of litigation as one among several factors militating in favor of an easily 

discernible standard for assessing the constitutionality of regulating political ads. See id. at 2666 

& n.5. WRTL II did not announce a self-standing constitutional limitation on discovery in 

campaign finance cases, much less establish such a limitation in connection with actions brought 

by political parties seeking to challenge contribution regulations. 

Plaintiffs’ burdensomeness objections are also unpersuasive. In its responses to the 

requests, the RNC asserts only one specific reason for its burdensomeness objection: that “the 

RNC stores its archived files in an offsite warehouse.” 9 (App., RNC RFP Nos. 1, 2, 4.) 

Plaintiffs have made no showing of any undue burden arising from this not uncommon fact.10 

 

9

 To the extent that Plaintiffs generally object to individual requests as “unduly 

burdensome” without stating any specific reasons, such objections lack the required specificity. 

See Athridge v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co., 184 F.R.D. 181, 191 (D.D.C. 1998) (“[M]erely 

stat[ing], in conclusory fashion, that the requests are unduly burdensome . . . is insufficient.”) 

(footnote omitted). Moreover, general objections incorporated in a “boilerplate ‘general 

objections’ section in . . . response[] to [a party’s] request for production which includes blanket 

objections as to relevance, burdensomeness and attorney-client privilege and work product 

privilege . . . do not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) and courts disfavor them.” Id. at 190. 

10 In their motion to defer discovery, Plaintiffs also contend that “Van Hollen requests all 

documents and correspondence in the care, custody, or control of a joint fundraising committee 

established by the RNC” and that “[t]his request seeks information from organizations not 

involved in this litigation.” (Mot. for Protective Order Deferring Disc. at 3.) But, in the relevant 

request, Intervenor seeks to obtain: 

(continued) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 7 of 17
- 8 -

Nor is there any basis for Plaintiffs’ generalized assertion that some of the discovery requests at 

issue “are unduly burdensome as their broad nature alludes to countless documents.” (Mot. for 

Protective Order Deferring Disc. at 3.) In their motion, Plaintiffs point to one request, which 

seeks the following production: 

All documents you[, the RNC,] have created or received that (a) 

identify persons who attended, or were invited or scheduled to 

attend, a fundraising event, (b) which you[, the RNC] hosted, cohosted, sponsored, co-sponsored, organized, or participated in 

organizing, and (c) which at least one federal candidate, 

officeholder, or executive branch official also attended or was 

invited or scheduled to attend. 

(Id.; App., RNC RFP No. 4.) Of course, identifying and producing responsive documents may, 

as in any document production, pose some burden on the producing party. But such burden is 

not undue here, since Plaintiffs’ theory of the case purportedly turns on “[t]he absence of federal 

candidates and officeholders in fundraising . . . and the manner in which the RNC intends to 

solicit non-federal funds and state funds.” (Pls’ Mem. in Opp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 14-15.)11

 

All documents and correspondence you have created or received 

that relate to the consequences or benefits resulting from making 

aggregate contributions equal to or greater than $20,000 to a joint 

fundraising committee established by you, or for which you are a 

committee participating in joint fundraiser, including, but not 

limited to, the MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 2008 committee. 

(App., RNC RFP No. 6 (emphasis added).) Thus, the request pointedly seeks information 

relating only to the RNC’s peddling of access in exchange for contributions to an RNC joint 

fundraising committee, not “all documents and correspondence” within the entity’s control. 

(Mot. for Protective Order Deferring Disc. at 3.) Moreover, like all the requests at issue here, 

this request is limited to “documents . . . that are in your [the RNC’s] possession, custody, or 

control, or otherwise available to you [the RNC].” (Ex. 1 at 2 (emphasis added).) 

11 Plaintiffs CRP and SDRP assert a specific burdensomeness objection, in response to 

Intervenor’s request for production of the following: 

All correspondence between you, or any person acting on your 

behalf, and any federal candidate, officeholder, or executive 

branch official, which identifies any person who made 

(continued) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 8 of 17
- 9 -

Plaintiffs also generally object that, as defined in the First Set of Discovery Requests, the 

terms “donation,” “donor,” “officeholder,” and “solicitation” are vague, overbroad and 

ambiguous. (Ex. 4 at 3 ¶ 7; Ex. 5 at 3 ¶ 7.) The definition of the term “donation” contained in 

the requests—i.e., “any direct or indirect payment, contribution, grant, loan, advance, deposit, 

gift, provision, or other transfer of money, services, or anything of value” (Ex. 1 at 3 ¶ 4, Ex. 2 at 

3 ¶ 4)—is virtually identical to the one adopted in the FEC regulations, which define a 

“donation” as “a payment, gift, subscription, loan, advance, deposit, or anything of value given 

to a person.” 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(e). 

Similarly, Plaintiffs generally object to the inclusion of “indirect” requests in the 

definition of “solicitation,” (Ex. 4 at 3 ¶ 7; Ex. 5 at 3 ¶ 7); yet, FEC regulations make it clear that 

“[a] solicitation may be made directly or indirectly.” 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(m). Nor is there 

anything vague, ambiguous, or overbroad about the definition of “officeholders” as “any United 

States Representative, United States Senator, or President or Vice President of the United States, 

or any person acting on behalf of any of the foregoing.” (Ex. 1 at 5 ¶ 15; Ex. 2 at 4 ¶ 14.) The 

only material distinction between this definition and the definition adopted by the FEC in 11 

C.F.R. § 113.1(c) is the inclusion, in the requests at issue, of individuals acting “on behalf” of the 

elected officials. Far from being vague, ambiguous or overbroad, the inclusion of such 

 

contributions or donations totaling $10,000 or more to you in a 

given calendar year. 

(App., CRP/SDRP RFP No. 1.) Plaintiffs, however, do not assert any facts that may be relevant 

to the determination whether “compiling all such correspondence since 2002 is unduly 

burdensome.” (Id.) Cf. Athridge, 184 F.R.D. at 191 (“[M]erely stat[ing], in conclusory fashion, 

that the requests are unduly burdensome . . . is insufficient.”). Moreover, Plaintiffs’ Rule 

30(b)(6) designees have testified that neither the CRP nor the SDRP distribute donor information 

to federal candidates and officeholders, which, if true, suggests that Plaintiffs should have few 

documents to “compil[e]” in response to this request. (Deposition of Jonathan Buettner, Feb. 24, 

2009, 34:10-35:1 (Ex. 6 (excerpted)); Deposition of William Christiansen III, Feb. 24, 2009, 

79:19-80:18 (Ex. 7 (excerpted)).) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 9 of 17
- 10 -

individuals reflects the common sense realization that the elected officials’ delegates are natural 

vehicles for Plaintiffs’ provision of preferential access to federal officeholders in exchange for 

large donations. 

CONCLUSION

For all the reasons set forth above, Representative Van Hollen respectfully requests that 

the Court DENY Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective Order Deferring Discovery, GRANT 

Representative Van Hollen’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents, and ORDER 

Plaintiffs to produce all documents responsive to Representative Van Hollen’s discovery 

requests. 

Dated this 9th day of April 2009. Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Randolph D. Moss 

Roger M. Witten (D.C. Bar No. 163261) 

Shane T. Stansbury 

Lauren E. Baer 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

AND DORR LLP 

399 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Tel.: (212) 230-8800 

Fax: (212) 230-8888 

E-mail: roger.witten@wilmerhale.com 

Seth P. Waxman (D.C. Bar No. 257337) 

Randolph D. Moss (D.C. Bar No. 417749) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

AND DORR LLP 

1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Tel.: (202) 663-6000 

Fax: (202) 663-6363 

E-mail: Randolph.moss@wilmerhale.com 

Donald J. Simon (D.C. Bar No. 256388) 

SONOSKY, CHAMBERS, SACHSE, 

ENDRESON & PERRY LLP 

1425 K Street. N.W., Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Tel.: (202) 682-0240 

Fax: (202) 682-0249 

Email: dsimon@sonosky.com 

Fred Wertheimer (D.C. Bar No. 154211) 

DEMOCRACY 21 

1875 I Street, N.W., Suite 500 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Tel.: (202) 429-2008 

Fax: (202) 293-2660 

E-mail: FWertheimer@democracy21.org 

Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant 

 Representative Christopher Van Hollen, Jr.

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 10 of 17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_______________________________________ 

 ) 

Republican National Committee, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Civ. No. 08-1953 (BMK, RJL, RMC) 

 ) 

Federal Election Commission, et al., ) THREE-JUDGE COURT 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

_______________________________________)

APPENDIX

 Pursuant to Local Rule 26.2(d), the requests for production of documents (“RFP”), 

objections, and responses that are the subject to this motion to compel are hereby identified and 

quoted in full: 

First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff Republican National Committee

[RNC RFP No.] 1. All correspondence between you, or any person raising 

money on your behalf, and any federal candidate, officeholder, or executive 

branch official, which identifies any person who made contributions or donations 

totaling $20,000 or more to you in a given calendar year. 

Objection: The RNC objects to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. The RNC will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Furthermore, the RNC stores its archived files in an offsite warehouse. To review 

such documents, especially in response to an overreaching request, is unduly 

burdensome. 

Response: As this request is not encompassed in discovery already completed, 

the RNC has no response at this time. 

[RNC RFP No.] 2. All documents you have created or received and all 

correspondence between you, or any person raising money on your behalf, and 

any federal candidate, officeholder, or executive branch official, that identify 

persons (a) who made contributions and/or donations to more than one 

Republican party organization or candidate (including nonfederal candidates) 

during an election cycle, and (b) whose total aggregate contributions and/or 

donations to such Republican party organizations during said election cycle are 

equal to or greater than $20,000. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 11 of 17
- 2 - 

Objection: The RNC objects to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. The RNC will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Furthermore, the RNC stores its archived files in an offsite warehouse. To review 

such documents, especially in response to an overreaching request, is unduly 

burdensome. 

Response: As this request is not encompassed in discovery already completed, 

the RNC has no response at this time. 

[RNC RFP No.] 3. All correspondence between you and (a) the California 

Republican Party (“CRP”), (b) the Republican Party of San Diego (“RPSD”), or 

(c) any person affiliated with the CRP or RPSD, which relates to the use of nonfederal funds by the CRP or RPSD in connection with an election in which both 

federal and nonfederal candidates appeared on the ballot. 

Objection: The RNC objects to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. The RNC will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Response: As this request is not encompassed in discovery already completed, 

the RNC has no response at this time. 

[RNC RFP No.] 4. All documents you have created or received that (a) identify 

persons who attended, or were invited or scheduled to attend, a fundraising event, 

(b) which you hosted, co-hosted, sponsored, co-sponsored, organized, or 

participated in organizing, and (c) which at least one federal candidate, 

officeholder, or executive branch official also attended or was invited or 

scheduled to attend. 

Objection: The RNC objects to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. The RNC will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Furthermore, the RNC stores its archived files in an offsite warehouse. To review 

such documents, especially in response to an overreaching request, is unduly 

burdensome. 

Response: As this request is not encompassed in discovery already completed, 

the RNC has no response at this time. 

[RNC RFP No.] 5. All documents you have created or received that relate to the 

membership requirements or benefits–including access to federal candidates, 

officeholders, or executive branch officials–mentioned by you to current and 

prospective members of any of the following groups, or any other donor group 

affiliated with you: 

a. The Chairman’s Advisory Board 

b. The President’s Club 

c. Republican Eagles 

d. RNC Majority Fund 

e. Sustaining Members 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 12 of 17
- 3 - 

f. Team 100 

g. Young Eagles 

Objection: The RNC objects to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. The RNC will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Response: Subject to and without waiving the objections above, the RNC 

produces all documents in its possession, custody and control responsive to this 

request. See RNC00058-RNC000371. 

[RNC RFP No.] 6. All documents and correspondence you have created or 

received that relate to the consequences or benefits resulting from making 

aggregate contributions equal to or greater than $20,000 to a joint fundraising 

committee established by you, or for which you are a committee participating in 

joint fundraiser, including, but not limited to, the MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 

2008 committee. 

Objection: The RNC objects to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. The RNC will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

The RNC objects to this request as intrusive and irrelevant, as information about 

joint fundraising committees is outside the bounds of this litigation. 

Response: As this request is not encompassed in discovery already completed, 

the RNC has no response at this time. 

[RNC RFP No.] 7. All correspondence between you and any federal candidate, 

officeholder, or executive branch official, which refers implicitly or explicitly to 

(a) a contribution to you, and (b) a past or future meeting or other form of contact 

between the federal candidate, officeholder, or executive branch official and the 

individual making the contribution. 

Objection: The RNC objects to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. The RNC will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Response: As this request is not encompassed in discovery already completed, 

the RNC has no response at this time. 

[RNC RFP No.] 8. All correspondence between you, or any person acting on 

your behalf, and any federal candidate, officeholder, or executive branch official, 

relating to the planning or funding of any of the activities described in ¶¶ 16-28 of 

the Complaint. 

Objection: The RNC objects to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. The RNC will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Response: As this request is not encompassed in discovery already completed, 

the RNC has no response at this time. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 13 of 17
- 4 - 

[RNC RFP No.] 9. All documents you have created or received relating to 

measures you have taken, or intend to take, to ensure that you “will not aid 

contributors to any of the accounts in obtaining preferential access to federal 

candidates or officeholder,” Pls’ Stat. Undisp. Mat. Facts ¶ 24, whether or not you 

deem a particular type of access to be “preferential,” including, but not limited to, 

policy guidelines that you have created or issued during the period covered by this 

discovery request. 

Objection: The RNC objects to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. The RNC will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Response: Subject to and without waiving the objections above, the RNC 

produces all documents in its possession, custody and control responsive to this 

request. See RNC00047-RNC00057. The RNC has withheld two responsive 

documents because they are protected under the attorney-client privilege. 

[RNC RFP No.] 10. All documents you have created or received that relate to 

measures you have taken, or intend to take, to ensure that you “will not use any 

federal candidates or officeholders to solicit funds for any of the Accounts,” Pls’ 

Stat. Undisp. Mat. Facts ¶ 24, including, but not limited to, policy guidelines that 

you have created or issued during the period covered by this discovery request. 

Objection: The RNC objects to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. The RNC will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Response: As this request is not encompassed in discovery already completed, 

RNC has no response at this time. 

[RNC RFP No.] 11. All documents (other than privileged communications) 

consulted or used in the preparation of your responses to the foregoing 

interrogatories, requests for admission, or document requests. Documents 

produced in response to other document requests are excluded from this request. 

Objection: The RNC objects to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. The RNC will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Response: Subject to and without waiving any objection, the RNC can find no 

responsive documents in it’s possession, custody, or control. 

 Date From To cc: Privilege Doc. 

Type 

Description Bates Pgs 

1 2/3/09 Counsel's 

Office 

 Attorney-Client 

Communication

Memo Internal 

memo 

discussing 

campaign 

finance 

issues 

RNC000

48-49 

2 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 14 of 17
- 5 - 

First Set of Discovery Requests to 

Plaintiffs California Republican Party and Republican Party of San Diego

[CRP/SDRP RFP No.] 1. All correspondence between you, or any person acting 

on your behalf, and any federal candidate, officeholder, or executive branch 

official, which identifies any person who made contributions or donations totaling 

$10,000 or more to you in a given calendar year. 

Objection: Plaintiffs object to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. Plaintiffs will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Plaintiffs object to this request as compiling all such correspondence since 2002 is 

unduly burdensome. 

Response: As this request is not encompassed in discovery already completed, 

Plaintiffs have no response at this time. 

[CRP/SDRP RFP No.] 2. All correspondence between you and the Republican 

National Committee (“RNC”), or any person affiliated with the RNC, which 

relates to the use of non-federal funds by you in connection with an election in 

which both federal and nonfederal candidates appeared on the ballot. 

Objection: Plaintiffs object to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. Plaintiffs will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Response: As this request is not encompassed in discovery already completed, 

Plaintiffs have no response at this time. 

[CRP/SDRP RFP No.] 3. All documents you have created or received that (a) 

identify persons who attended, or were invited or scheduled to attend, a 

fundraising event (b) which you hosted, co-hosted, sponsored, co-sponsored, 

organized, or participated in organizing, and (c) which at least one federal 

candidate, officeholder, or executive branch official also attended or was invited 

or scheduled to attend. 

Objection: Plaintiffs object to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. Plaintiffs will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Response: As this request is not encompassed in discovery already completed, 

Plaintiffs have no response at this time. 

[CRP/SDRP RFP No.] 4. All documents you have created or received that relate 

to the membership requirements or benefits–including access to federal 

candidates, officeholders, or executive branch officials–mentioned by you to 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 15 of 17
- 6 - 

current and prospective members of any of the following groups, or any other 

donor group affiliated with you: 

a. Chairman’s Council 

b. Golden Circle 

c. Leadership Circle 

d. Golden Bears 

e. Chairman’s Pinnacle 

f. Chairman’s Circle 

g. Reagan Club 

h. Century Club 

Objection: Plaintiffs object to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. Plaintiffs will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Response: As this request is not encompassed in discovery already completed, 

Plaintiffs have no response at this time. 

[CRP/SDRP RFP No.] 5. All documents and correspondence you have created or 

received that relate to the consequences or benefits resulting from making 

aggregate contributions equal to or greater than $10,000 to a joint fundraising 

committee established by you and for which you are a committee participating in 

joint fundraiser, including, but not limited to, the MCCAIN-PALIN VICTORY 

CALIFORNIA committee. 

Objection: Plaintiffs object to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. Plaintiffs will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Plaintiffs object to this request as intrusive and irrelevant, as information about 

joint fundraising committees is outside the bounds of this litigation. 

Response: As this request is not encompassed in discovery already completed, 

Plaintiffs have no response at this time. 

[CRP/SDRP RFP No.] 6. All correspondence between you and any federal 

candidate, officeholder, or executive branch official, which refers implicitly or 

explicitly to (a) a contribution to you, and (b) a past or future meeting or other 

form of contact between the federal candidate, officeholder, or executive branch 

official and the individual making the contribution. 

Objection: Plaintiffs object to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. Plaintiffs will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Response: As this request is not encompassed in discovery already completed, 

Plaintiffs have no response at this time. 

[CRP/SDRP RFP No.] 7. All correspondence between you, or any person acting 

on your behalf, and any federal candidate, officeholder, or executive branch 

official, relating to the planning or funding of any of the activities described in ¶¶ 

22-28 of the Complaint. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 16 of 17
- 7 - 

Objection: Plaintiffs object to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. Plaintiffs will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Response: As this request is not encompassed in discovery already completed, 

Plaintiffs have no response at this time. 

[CRP/SDRP RFP No.] 8. All documents (other than privileged communications) 

consulted or used in the preparation of your responses to the foregoing 

interrogatories, request for admission, or document requests. Documents 

produced in response to other document requests are excluded from this request. 

Objection: Plaintiffs object to further discovery until the dispositive motions are 

decided and additional briefing is required. Plaintiffs will respond only to those 

requests that overlap with the discovery already requested by the FEC. 

Response: Subject to and without waiving any objection, Plaintiffs can find no 

responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 53 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 17 of 17