$36 PRR dispute MTC production hearing

Court hearing on motion to compel production of public records request and fee calculation in a legal dispute.
Highlights
1. Motion to Compel Discovery of Documents
• Mr. Mersereau argued that Ms. Bong has access to the documents requested under Rule 36, which includes documents not only in possession but also those reasonably accessible.
• Ms. Bong claimed she does not possess the requested documents and stated that the motion to compel was filed prematurely and procedurally invalid.
• Ms. Bong requested clarification on the specific documents being sought, asserting that she never directly contacted the school district regarding the public records request.
• The court ruled that Ms. Bong must produce the public records request that led to the fee calculation at issue within 14 days, as it is central to the case and reasonably accessible to her.
2. Standing and Basis of the Lawsuit
• Mr. Mersereau questioned Ms. Bong's standing to file the lawsuit, arguing that she did not make the public records request herself and cannot base the case on someone else's request.
• Ms. Bong countered that she paid for the public records request and therefore has standing, emphasizing that the law does not require the requester to be the same person who filed the request.
• The court acknowledged the relevance of standing but did not make a final ruling on this issue during the meeting.
3. Scope of Discovery Under Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure 36
• The court clarified that the scope of discovery includes any matter not privileged and relevant to the claims or defenses of the parties, as outlined in Rule 36.
• The court emphasized that discovery requests must be reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, which includes communications and documents relevant to the fee calculation dispute.
• Ms. Bong argued that communications between her and Mr. Thompson are private and irrelevant to the school district's fee calculation, while Mr. Mersereau maintained that the public records request itself is critical for analyzing the appropriateness of the fee.
4. Fee Calculation Dispute
• Ms. Bong stated that the lawsuit is based on the school district's refusal to provide the fee calculation for the public records request, which she claims is unreasonable and impossible for her to produce.
• Mr. Mersereau argued that the fee calculation is directly tied to the public records request and that without the request, the fee cannot be analyzed for appropriateness.
• The court acknowledged the importance of the fee calculation and ordered Ms. Bong to provide the public records request to facilitate further analysis.
5. Procedural Concerns and Allegations of Bad Faith
• The court expressed concern about Ms. Bong's objections and methods, suggesting that her actions may be an attempt to delay the proceedings in bad faith.
• Ms. Bong maintained that her objections were valid and procedural, emphasizing that Mr. Mersereau did not confer in good faith to clarify the scope of the motion to compel.
• The court ultimately granted the motion to compel, dismissing Ms. Bong's procedural objections and instructing her to comply with the discovery request.
6. Next Steps and Action Items
• The court ordered Ms. Bong to produce the public records request within 14 days to comply with the motion to compel.
• Mr. Mersereau was tasked with preparing the order for the motion to compel.
• The court suggested that further clarification between Ms. Bong and Mr. Mersereau may be necessary to ensure compliance with the discovery process.
Next steps
1. Prepare an order for the motion to compel as granted by the court: Mr. Mersereau
2. Provide the public records request document to Mr. Mersereau within 14 days of the meeting date: Ms. Bong