radical right
Platinum Member
- Feb 26, 2017
- 31,750
- 3,768
- 430
- Banned
- #401
Fish v. Kobach| D. Kan. | Law | CaseMine
FISH V. KOBACH
Defendant refused to produce these documents, asserting that they are beyond the scope of discovery, do not seek relevant information, and are protected by the attorney-client, deliberative-process, and executive privileges.
E. Executive Privilege
Finally, Defendant argues that Judge O'Hara erred in finding that the executive privilege does not apply to the photographed document, which references proposed amendments to the NVRA. Judge O'Hara concluded that the executive privilege did not apply for three reasons:
(1) the privilege does not extend to a president-elect;
And, as Judge O'Hara noted, no court has ever recognized that this privilege applies before a president takes office.
In sum, the Court has reviewed Judge O'Hara's Orders and is not "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Accordingly, the motion for review is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant's Motion for Review (Doc. 326) is denied. Defendant shall produce the two documents, redacted in conformity with Judge O'Hara's April 17 Order, by May 12, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 10, 2017
S/ Julie A. Robinson
FISH V. KOBACH
Defendant refused to produce these documents, asserting that they are beyond the scope of discovery, do not seek relevant information, and are protected by the attorney-client, deliberative-process, and executive privileges.
E. Executive Privilege
Finally, Defendant argues that Judge O'Hara erred in finding that the executive privilege does not apply to the photographed document, which references proposed amendments to the NVRA. Judge O'Hara concluded that the executive privilege did not apply for three reasons:
(1) the privilege does not extend to a president-elect;
And, as Judge O'Hara noted, no court has ever recognized that this privilege applies before a president takes office.
In sum, the Court has reviewed Judge O'Hara's Orders and is not "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Accordingly, the motion for review is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant's Motion for Review (Doc. 326) is denied. Defendant shall produce the two documents, redacted in conformity with Judge O'Hara's April 17 Order, by May 12, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 10, 2017
S/ Julie A. Robinson
