John v. State
| Decision Date | 19 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | 4:09CV3266,Nos. 8:09CV456,4:10CV3005.,s. 8:09CV456 |
| Citation | 788 F.Supp.2d 975 |
| Parties | John 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. |
| Court | U.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.
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.
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:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. Alviti
...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
...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.
...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
...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......