presented facts in support of its position and have also, for example, discovered that at least one of the employers in the 21 suits mentioned in the complaint has made substantial contributions to defendants. Indeed, not only are there disputed issues of material fact, but it would plainly be inequitable for defendants to withhold evidence from plaintiffs and then to succeed in denying plaintiffs a trial on the ground that plaintiffs' evidence is insufficient. Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment shall be denied.
Plaintiffs' renewed request for discovery of the information defendants claim is constitutionally privileged shall, however, also be denied. It is true that the Court has previously ordered defendants to produce much of the information plaintiffs have sought, but defendants have continued to invoke their rights of privacy and freedom of association under the First Amendment. In accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals, 590 F.2d at 1152, the Court has therefore ordered plaintiffs to try to obtain this information from alternative sources. Plaintiffs have now apparently done so, and although they claim that they still require discovery from defendants, they also claim that they have acquired enough information from the Court-ordered alternative sources to make out a prima facie case. In consideration of this representation, and in consideration of the Court of Appeals' stern admonition against discovery of constitutionally-privileged information from defendants, id., the Court shall deny plaintiffs' renewed request for discovery of such information.
To be sure, a distinction must be drawn between information withheld on constitutional grounds and information withheld on other grounds such as relevancy. Because the parties disagree about the legal standard to be applied in this case, relevancy objections are as much a waste of the Court's time as they are likely to be interposed. Accordingly, the Court shall reject all of the relevancy objections that defendants have made to date and shall order defendants to answer all questions to which constitutional objections have not been interposed. The Court shall also allow plaintiffs to complete their deposition of Reed Larson on the condition that it be limited to the updating of information already supplied at his first deposition and to the determination of whether or not the Foundation is a "bona fide, independent legal aid organization."
In conclusion, it is, by the Court, this 31st day of March, 1983,
ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's renewed request for discovery of information which defendants claim is constitutionally protected is denied, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before April 15, 1983, defendants comply with the Court's Order of April 18, 1980, except as to that information, and only that information, for which they claim constitutional privilege, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before April 30, 1983, plaintiffs be allowed to complete their deposition of Reed Larson, on the condition that it be limited to the updating of information already supplied at his first deposition and to the determination of whether or not the Foundation is a "bona fide, independent legal aid organization," and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall set this case down for trial at the beginning of June, 1983.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.