UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________ ) A.N.S.W.E.R. C OAL I TI ON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 05-0071 ( PL F) ) KEN SALAZ AR, ) Secre tary of the Interior, e t al., ) ) Def endants. )

1 __________________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON AND ORDER The Court is in rec eipt of the pa rties’ JointReport of Mar ch 15, 2010, as w ell as the par ties’ individual proposals for f urther pr ocee dings, both a lso filed on Marc h 15, 2010. After revie wingthe documents, it appe ars to the Court that thre e issues nee d resolution: (1) de fenda

nts’ withholding of c erta in non-privileg ed docume nts; (2) plaintiff’s proposa l reg ardingfuture de positions; and (3) plaintiff’s proposa l with respec t to in camera revie w of defe ndants’ privileg ed docume nts. The Court will address these issues in turn.

First, plaintiff a sserts that def endants’ pr oduction is incomplete bec ause defe ndants have not produce d a number of non-pr ivilege d documents discover ed as a result of the sea rche s rec ently

conducte d by

defe ndants. Def

endants re spond that these docume nts are not responsive to plaintiff’ s claims relating to the pr ohibition of sign supports — the issue about which the Court author ized additional discovery — and ther efor e nee d not be produc ed. The

The Court has substituted Ken Salazar , the cur rent Sec reta

ry of the Interior, f

or 1 the forme r Secr etar

y , Dirk Ke mpthorne, as a defe ndant in this case pur suant to Rule 25(d) of the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e.Court ag ree s with defenda nts. Rega rdless of whe ther the doc uments were discovere d as a r esult of the re cent se arc hes, def endants have no oblig ation to produce non-re sponsive or irre levant documents. Second, plaintiff se eks to take Rule 30( b)(6) depositions of the United States Secre t Service a

nd the National Par

k Service with reg ard to the se arc hes they conducte d in response to plaintiff’s discover y reque sts. As defenda

nts point out , the Court’s Novembe r 13, 2007 Orde r g rantingplaintiff’s Rule 56(f ) motion permitted a Rule 30(b) (6) de position of the Secre t Service r eg ardingthe dec ision to ban sign supports. See O rder , Dkt. No. 56 at 1 (D .D.C. Nov. 13, 2007). The Court’s Orde r did not contemplate that plaintiff would be per mitted to take discovery about the discove ry

proce ss itself, nor did it authorize a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the National Park Ser

vice. Ac cording ly , plaintiff may take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the Secr et Service only , and the de position shall be lim ited to the plaintiff’s cla ims reg arding the prohibition on sign supports.

Plaintiff also seeks to take the deposition of three individuals — Anne Rowland, Ramon Rendon, and John Bozz uto. In its Order of November

13, 2007, the Court stated that “abse nt further

leave of Court” plaintiff w as authorized to take depositions of “no more than f ive additional individuals or entities ‘involved in the decision makingproce ss for the e stablishment of the ba n [on si g n supports] or who have be en other wise involved in the oper ation of the chec kpoints implementingthe ban,’ . . . or who have re levant information concer ning the sign support ban as de termined through response s to interrog atories or document produc tion.” See Orde r, Dkt. No. 56 at 1-2 (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2007) . Plaintiff may proce ed with its intended depositions so long as the de positions relate to the issues identified in the Nove mber 13, 2007

2Orde r and do not pursue discovery about the discove ry

proce ss. Be cause Ms. Rowland is a lawyer, the Court should be contac ted promptly if appropr iate g round rules c annot be a g ree d. Finally , plaintiff see ks to have the Court re view in camera additional privileg ed documents identified by

defe ndants in the privileg e log . See Plaintiff’s Notice I dentifying Document’ s for In Camera Review Withheld Base d on Privilege , Dkt. No. 103 (D.D .C. Mar. 29, 2010). De fenda

nts have take n no position on t his issue. The Court will review the documents in

came ra as re quested by

the plaintiff. For the re asons stated a

bove, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff may proce ed with limited deposition di scover y , as descr ibed above and in the Or der of November

13, 2007, which shall conc lude on or be fore J une 15, 2010; it is FURTHE R ORDERED that defe ndants shall submit for in camera revie w all of the documents withheld on c laims of privileg e in one f iling to the Court, includingthose identified by

the Court in its November 14, 2008 Memora ndum Opinion and Orde r and those reque sted by

plaintiff in its March 29, 2010 Notice ; and it is FURTHE R ORDERED that the parties sha ll appear for a status confe renc e on J une 23, 2010. SO ORDERED. _/s/______________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN United States District J udg e DATE: 4/23/10

3