John v. State

Citation788 F.Supp.2d 975
Decision Date19 April 2011
Docket Number4:09CV3266,Nos. 8:09CV456,4:10CV3005.,s. 8:09CV456
PartiesJohn and Jane DOE 1–36, et al., Plaintiffs,v.State of NEBRASKA, et al., Defendants.John Doe, et al., Plaintiff,v.State of Nebraska, et al., Defendants.John Doe, et al., Plaintiff,v.State of Nebraska, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Nebraska

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Jason E. Troia, Joshua W. Weir, Rodney C. Dahlquist, Jr., Stuart J. Dornan, Thomas J. Monaghan, Dornan, Lustgarten Law Firm, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiffs.David D. Cookson, Katherine J. Spohn, Kevin L. Griess, Attorney General's Office, Lincoln, NE, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHERYL R. ZWART, United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on the plaintiffs' motion to compel the defendants to comply with discovery requests (filing no. 374). For the reasons set forth below the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

These consolidated cases involve the plaintiffs' challenge to the constitutionality of amendments to Nebraska's Sex Offender Registration Act (“SORA”). The plaintiffs are challenging parts of Legislative Bills 97 (LB 97) and 285 (LB 285) which were passed by the Nebraska Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in May of 2009. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment, and the Honorable Richard G. Kopf issued his ruling on August 16, 2010, (filing no. 354).

Although many of the issues were resolved by summary judgment, Judge Kopf determined several issues of fact remained. Specifically, the following issues remain for trial:

• Whether Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 29–4006(1)(k) & (s), 29–4006(2), and 28–322.05, either alone or collectively impose a punishment for (1) offenders who had served their time and were no longer under criminal justice supervision on January 1, 2010; and (2) offenders who had been sentenced prior to January 1, 2010, but remained under criminal justice supervision on or after January 1, 2010, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause either on the face of the statutes or as applied.

• Whether Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29–4006(2) violates the Fourth Amendment as to offenders who were previously convicted of sex crimes and who were on probation, parole or court-monitored supervision on or after January 1, 2010.

• How Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28–322.05 actually operates and whether its operation violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment.

• How Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29–4006(1)(k) & (s) actually operates and whether it violates plaintiffs' First Amendment Right to free speech.

Discovery commenced, and the plaintiffs have served Interrogatories and Requests for Production on the various defendants. The respective defendants have raised several objections to a number of the Interrogatories and Requests for Production, including the following:

+-----------------------------------+
                ¦¦Defendant Douglas County Attorney ¦
                ++----------------------------------¦
                ¦¦                                  ¦
                +-----------------------------------+
                
                        Identify all documents and any correspondence, in any
                   Interrogatory No. 2: form or medium, which relate in any way to the
                                        enforcement of the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration
                                        Act over the past three (3) years
                                        This is a facial and as-applied challenge to the
                                        Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act and, therefore
                                        Defendants object to this interrogatory as overly
                                        broad, unduly burdensome, lacking any relevance to the
                   Response:            issues in this suit, and not reasonably calculated to
                                        lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
                                        Furthermore, to the extent any documents exist, they
                                        are subject to the attorney-client, work product, and
                                        legislative privilege
                
+--------------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦Defendant Jon Bruning, Nebraska Attorney General¦
                +-+------------------------------------------------¦
                ¦ ¦                                                ¦
                +--------------------------------------------------+
                
                        Identify all organizations and individuals consulted in
                   Interrogatory No. 1: the drafting and editing of the current version of the
                                        Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act
                                        This is a facial and as-applied challenge to the
                                        Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act and, therefore
                   Response:            Defendants object to this interrogatory as overly
                                        broad, unduly burdensome, lacking any relevance to the
                                        issues in this suit, and not reasonably calculated to
                                        lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
                                        Identify all documents and any correspondences, in any
                   Interrogatory No. 2: form or medium, which relate in any way to the
                                        allegations in the Amended Complaint or the Answer to
                                        the Amended Complaint.
                                        This is a facial and as-applied challenge to the
                                        Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act and, therefore,
                                        Defendants object to this interrogatory as overly
                                        broad, unduly burdensome, lacking any relevance to the
                   Response:            issues in this suit, and not reasonably calculated to
                                        lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
                                        Furthermore, to the extent any documents exist, they
                                        are subject to the attorney-client, work product, and
                                        legislative privilege.
                
+------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦Defendant State of Nebraska ¦
                +-+----------------------------¦
                ¦ ¦                            ¦
                +------------------------------+
                
                        Identify all State employees involved in drafting and
                   Interrogatory No. 1: editing the current version of the Nebraska Sex
                                        Offender Registration Act.
                                        This is a facial and as-applied challenge to the
                                        Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act and, therefore,
                   Response:            Defendants object to this interrogatory as overly
                                        broad, unduly burdensome, lacking any relevance to the
                                        issues in this suit, and not reasonably calculated to
                                        lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
                                        Identify all documents and any correspondences, in any
                                        form or medium, in the custody of the State, including
                   Interrogatory No. 2: the State Legislature, that relate in any way to the
                                        allegations in the Amended Complaint and the Answer to
                                        the Amended Complaint.
                                        This is a facial and as-applied challenge to the
                                        Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act and, therefore,
                                        Defendants object to this interrogatory as overly
                                        broad, unduly burdensome, lacking any relevance to the
                   Response:            issues in this suit, and not reasonably calculated to
                                        lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
                                        Furthermore, to the extent any documents exist, they
                                        are subject to the attorney-client, work product, and
                                        legislative privilege.
                
+----------------------------------------------+
                ¦ ¦Requests for Production as to all Defendants¦
                +-+--------------------------------------------¦
                ¦ ¦                                            ¦
                +----------------------------------------------+
                
                        All communications and correspondences between the
                                        Nebraska Attorney General's Office and the Nebraska
                   Request No. 1:       State Legislature regarding LB 285, including, but not
                                        limited to, all electronically stored communication or
                                        correspondence.
                                        All communications and correspondence between the
                                        Nebraska Attorney General's Office and Nebraska State
                   Request No. 2:       Legislature regarding LB 97, including, but not limited
                                        to, all electronically stored communication or
                                        correspondence.
                                        All interoffice communication and correspondences
                                        within the Nebraska Attorney General's Office regarding
                   Request No. 3:       the drafting and editing of LB 285, including, but not
                                        limited to, all electronically stored communication or
                                        correspondence.
                                        All interoffice communication and correspondences
                                        within the Nebraska Attorney General's Office regarding
                   Request No. 4:       the drafting and editing of LB 97, including, but not
                                        limited to, all electronically stored communication or
                                        correspondence.
                                        All interoffice communication within the Nebraska
                                        Legislature regarding the drafting, editing, debate,
                   Request No. 5:       and passage of LB 285, including, but not limited to,
                                        all electronically stored communication or
                                        correspondence.
                                        All interoffice communication within the Nebraska
                                        Legislature regarding the drafting, editing, debate,
                   Request No. 6:       and passage of LB 97, including, but not limited to,
                                        all electronically stored communication or
                                        correspondence.
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. Alviti
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • October 23, 2020
    ...is qualified, not absolute"); Texas v. Holder, No. CV12128DSTRMCRLW, 2012 WL 13070060, at *1 (D.D.C. June 5, 2012) ; Doe v. Nebraska, 788 F. Supp. 2d 975, 985 (D. Neb. 2011) ; Hobart v. City of Stafford, 784 F. Supp. 2d 732, 764–65 (S.D. Tex. 2011) ; Comm. for a Fair & Balanced Map v. Ill. ......
  • Ala. Educ. Ass'n v. Bentley, Civil Action No. CV-11-S-761-NE
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • January 7, 2013
    ...supply evidence in a federal civil case where, like the instant case, there is no threat of personal liability." Doe v. Nebraska, 788 F. Supp. 2d 975, 984 n.2 (D. Neb. 2011) (interpreting Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951)). Specifically, they "may be protected from testifying, but ar......
  • Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • September 10, 2018
    ...cannot make conclusory allegations, but must provide some evidence regarding the time or expense required." Doe v. Nebraska , 788 F.Supp.2d 975, 981 (D. Neb. 2011) (citation omitted). Rule 26 requires "a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and co......
  • Doe v. Nebraska
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • December 21, 2012
    ...2010), cross motions for summary judgment, Doe v. Nebraska, 734 F. Supp. 2d 882 (D. Neb. 2010), discovery disputes, Doe v. Nebraska, 788 F. Supp. 2d 975 (D. Neb. 2011); Doe v. Nebraska, 2011 WL 2413359 (D. Neb. June 15, 2011), a bench trial, Doe v. Nebraska, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2012 WL 49231......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT