.. *103 2609 '1 1311.331) COURT no trivia. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA i? STATE OF OKLAHOMA Tilt? stimuli-f3 ZIVA BRANSTETTER and BH Media Group Inc. dfb/a TULSA WORLD, Plaintiffs, . v. Case No. CV-14-2372 Judge Patricia G. Parrish MARY FALLIN, in her of?cial capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MICHAEL C. THOMPSON, in his of?cial capacity as COMMISSIONER OF THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendants. MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION FROM DEFENDANT MARY FALLIN Pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 12, Plaintiffs Ziva Branstetter (?Branstetter?) and BH Media Group Inc. dfb/a Tulsa World (?Tulsa World?) (collectively, ??Plaintiffs?) respectfully move the Court for an order compelling Defendant Mary Fallin, in her of?cial capacity as Governor of the State of Oklahoma (?Fallin? or the ??Governor?), to provide full and complete answers to the First Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories (?Interrogatories?) propounded by Plaintiffs on June 10, 2015. In support of this Motion, Plaintiffs state the following: BACKGROUND FACTS Plaintiffs ?led this lawsuit on December 22, 2014 seeking to require Fallin and Department of Public Safety Commissioner Michael Thompson (collectively, ??Defendants?), in their of?cial capacities, to comply with their obligations under the Oklahoma Open Records Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 51 et seq. Speci?cally, Plaintiffs; challenge Defendants? failure and refusal to grant Plaintiffs?a reporter and a newspaper?access to certain public records concerning the April 29, 2014 botched execution of Clayton Lockett by the State of Oklahoma that were properly requested by Plaintiffs under the ORA. On May 1, 2014, within days of Lockett?s execution, Plaintiffs submitted an ORA request to the Governor?s Of?ce requesting all records, including emails to and from a speci?ed group of individuals, associated with the execution of Clayton Lockett and Charles Warner from March 1 to May 1 (hereinafter, the Request?). Petition TI 16. The ORA Request has now been pending for more than one year and four months. As of the date of this Motion, not a single record responsive to the ORA Request has been produced by the Governor?s Office. On February 9, 2015, Fallin moved to dismiss and/or for summary disposition on the grounds that this Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs? claims for relief under the ORA. See Fallin?s Mot. To Dismiss and Alternative Mot. For Summ. Disposition of Legal Issues at 9. Shortly thereafter, on March 3, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for summary disposition, arguing, inter alia, that the Governor?s months?long delay in producing documents in response to Plaintiffs? ORA Request was neither ?prompt? nor ?reasonable,? as the statute requires. Defendants opposed that motion, in part, by arguing that what was ?prompt and reasonable? within the meaning of the ORA was a question of disputed fact. See Governor Fallin?s Resp. to Mot. for Summ. J. at 8 (asserting that various ?factors, on the facts of this case, justify the time taken to locate, redact, and produce records requested by Plaintiffs and other citizens who made earlier requests?) (emphasis removed). On April 20, 2015 this Court denied the parties? pending motions. Defendants sought review in the Oklahoma Supreme Court of this Court?s order rejecting their jurisdictional challenge. That application was summarily and unanimously denied on June 8, 2015. Two days later, on June 10, 2015, Plaintiffs propounded targeted discovery to obtain evidence concerning the factual claims that were the basis of the Governor?s opposition to Ix.) Plaintiffs? motion for summary disposition. Speci?cally, Plaintiffs served RFPs and lnterrogatories aimed at discovering the Governor?s ?procedures? for responding to ORA requests, why those ?procedures? were put in place, and whether such ?procedures? have, in fact, been followed with respect to Plaintiffs? stillwpending ORA Request. True and correct copies of Plaintiffs? Interrogatories and RFPs are attached hereto, collectively, as Exhibit A. Fallin served written responses to Plaintiffs? RFPs and Interrogatories via email on July 13, 2015. True and correct copies of those responses are attached hereto, collectively, as Exhibit B. In response to Plaintiffs? discovery requests, Fallin asserted numerous objections. For example, the Govemor?s of?ce asserted that any requests for documents or information between 2011 and 2012?the time period when the Governor?s current ORA policy was developed, see Exh. (Response to lnterrogatory No. not ?relevant? to this lawsuit. Fallin has also objected to Plaintiffs? request for internal communications concerning Plaintiff Branstetter. On July 24, 2015, Plaintiffs? counsel wrote to the Governor?s counsel, Jennifer Chance, to initiate the meet and confer process concerning the Governor?s objections and responses to Plaintiffs? RFPs and lnterrogatories. A true and correct copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C. In that letter, Plaintiffs? counsel requested a response from Ms. Chance by August 3, 2015. Ms. Chance did not respond. On August 4, 2015, Plaintiffs? counsel sent an email to Ms. Chance inquiring about the status of the issues raised in Plaintiffs? July 24 meet and confer letter. A true and correct copy of that email is attached hereto as Exhibit D. The following day, Ms. Chance responded via email to Plaintiffs? counsel, and the parties ultimately agreed to hold a telephonic meet and confer discussion on August 7. A true and correct copy of that email correspondence between Plaintiffs? counsel and Ms. Chance is attached hereto as Exhibit E. .) During an approximately one?hour telephonic meet and confer discussion on August 7, the parties were able to clarify and resolve some of the issues raised in Plaintiffs? July 24 meet and confer letter. However, a number of signi?cant matters remained in dispute and the majority of the issues identi?ed by Plaintiffs in that letter were left unresolved. Plaintiffs? counsel summarized that meet and confer discussion in an email to Ms. Chance dated August 12, 2015. A true and correct copy of that email is attached hereto as Exhibit F. As that email indicates, during their August 7 meet and confer discussion Ms. Chance agreed to provide Plaintiffs? counsel with a status update concerning certain outstanding discovery issues on or before August 18. Ms. Chance did not provide that update as promised. Accordingly, on August 19, 2015, Plaintiffs? counsel sent an email to Ms. Chance requesting that she provide such an update. A true and correct copy of that email is attached hereto as Exhibit G. Ms. Chance did not respond. Approximately one week later, on August 26, 2015, Plaintiffs? counsel again sent an email to Ms. Chance requesting that she provide an update on outstanding discovery issues. Ms. Chance responded via an email stating that she was ?in arbitration for the day and all day Friday[]? and would respond at an unspeci?ed later date. A true and correct copy of that email exchange is attached hereto as Exhibit H. The following week, on August 31, 2015, Ms. Chance sent an email to Plaintiffs? counsel, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. In that email, Ms. Chance informed Plaintiffs? counsel that the Governor?s of?ce intended to stand on its objections to Plaintiffs? discovery, including its relevance objections to the time frame of Plaintiffs? discovery requests. She also made clear that the Governor did not intend to address the majority of the deficiencies identified by Plaintiffs? counsel. See Exh. (stating that the Governor?s of?ce is ?not inclined to withdraw an objections regarding the appropriate time frame for any discovery request? and asserting that Plaintiffs are not ?entitled to conduct discovery regarding whether the subject matter of [the ORA Request] andz?or your clients? status as members of the news media had any impact on the Govemor?s processing of their ORA Despite the representation in Ms. Chance?s August 31 email that additional documents and information addressing at least some of the narrow issues raised by Plaintiffs? counsel would be forthcoming, to date, no additional documents or information have been provided by the Governor?s office. See I'd. (stating, with respect to RFP No. 10, that am running additional searches on Mr. Mullins? [sic] email account, and will give you an update later this week?; stating, with respect to Plaintiffs? request for a privilege log, that Plaintiffs would receive a ?respon[se] to this issue in a separate email later this week?; stating, with respect to RFP No. 9, that the Governor?s counsel would ?address this issue in a separate email later this week?). As of the date of this Motion, Plaintiffs? counsel have received no additional correspondence, information, or documents from Ms. Chance or anyone else at the Governor?s of?ce concerning the RFPs or Interrogatories. Plaintiffs certify that they have attempted to meet and confer in good faith with the Governor?s office and have been unable to resolve the issues identi?ed in this Motion. To the extent that any of these issues are resolved prior to the hearing on this Motion, Plaintiffs will inform the Court, and this Motion will be withdrawn as to those resolved matters. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES I. Introduction. It has been 517 days?more than one year and four months?since Plaintiffs submitted their ORA Request to the Governor?s of?ce. To date, not a single document responsive to the ORA Request has been provided to Plaintiffs. Throughout this litigation the Governor has defended this extraordinary, ongoing failure to comply with the ORA by arguing that, under the circumstances, her of?ce has not failed to provide Plaintiffs with ?prompt and reasonable? access to the records they have requested, as the statute mandates. That is because, according to the Governor, in responding to Plaintiffs? ORA Request, her of?ce has purportedly followed the same supposedly ?reasonable procedures? it claims it follows consistently with respect to all requests for access to public records under the ORA. Months and years of delay, the Governor claims, is simply an unintended consequence of those purportedly necessary and ?reasonable procedures.? The Governor?s of?ce, however, is refusing to let Plaintiffs test that defense. As this Motion sets forth, Plaintiffs? efforts to conduct basic, straightforward fact discovery regarding the Governor?s ?procedures? for responding to ORA requests have been met with nothing but baseless objections and egregious stonewalling. Plaintiffs are entitled to take discovery regarding the ?procedures? used by the Governor?s office for responding to ORA requests, how and why those ?procedures? were put in place, and whether they are being applied consistently, including to Plaintiffs? still?pending ORA Request. Such information clearly falls squarely within the scope of discovery. See Okla. Stat. tit. 12, ?3226(B)(l). The Governor has failed to meet her burden to justify the withholding of any documents or information requested by Plaintiffs, and her refusal to respond fully to Plaintiffs? discovery requests is unnecessarily and unreasonably delaying resolution of this matter and necessitates the ?ling of this Motion. For all the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion and require the Governor to comply with her obligations under the discovery code, and award Plaintiffs reasonable costs and attorneys? fees in connection with this Motion. II. Fallin?s boilerplate ?general objections? to Plaintiffs? discovery are improper; they should be disregarded and Fallin required to produce a privilege log. First, Fallin has asserted a number of improper boilerplate ?general? objections and ?conditions? in response to Plaintiffs? RFPs and lnterrogatories that should be disregarded by this Court. See Exh. B. Oklahoma?s discovery code requires that objections and assertions of privilege be made ?expressly? and ?describe[] the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that . . . will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.? Okla. Stat. tit. 12, Fallin?s ?general objections and conditions? fail to meet this basic standard and cannot justify the withholding of any documents or information responsive to Plaintiffs? RFPs or and Interrogatories. Id; see also Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. v. United States Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005) objections or blanket refusals inserted into a response to a Rule 34 request for I production of documents are insuf?cient to assert a privilege?); Walker v. Lakewood Condo. Owners Ass?n, 186 F.R.D. 584, 587 (CD. Cal. 1999) (Boilerplate, generalized objections are inadequate and tantamount to not making any objection at Second, even where Fallin has objected to a Speci?c RFP or Interrogatory on the basis of a claim of privilege, she has failed to provide any of the information necessary to ?assess the applicability of the privilege or protection? she claims applies. Okla. Stat. tit. 12, Despite several requests from Plaintiffs, the Governor has not produced a privilege log as requested in the RFPs and Interrogatories, and Ms. Chance has failed to respond to Plaintiffs? inquiries concerning this issue. See Exhs. C, F, I. For any claim of privilege asserted by the Governor as to a document or piece of information responsive to any RFP or 1 Because Oklahoma obtained its discovery code from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is appropriate to examine federal cases when considering discovery issues that may arise under Oklahoma law. Halt v. Goodwin, 1989 OK 88, 775 P.2d 291, 293. lnterrogatory, the Governor should be required to provide a log that sets forth with respect to each document, at a minimum, its author(s), recipients, date, length, nature or intended purpose, and the basis for the objection. Okla. Stat. tit. 12, Fallin?s ?irrelevant? and ?overbroad? obiections to Plaintiffs? discovery requests are frivolous. Under Oklahoma law, discovery is permitted into any matters that are not privileged and that are ?relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.? Okla. Stat. tit. 12, This language is to be liberally construed so as to encompass ??any matter that bears on or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in that case.? Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer Auth. v. Claw Corp, 108 F.R.D. 304, 311 (D.P.R. 1985) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978)). A ?party resisting discovery must show speci?cally how . . . each interrogatory is not relevant or how each question is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive.? Josephs v. Harris Corp, 677 F.2d 985, 992 (3d Cir. 1982) (quotations and citation omitted). Here, the Governor has refused to comply with her discovery obligations with respect to several of Plaintiffs? Interrogatories and RFPs, asserting that they are ?overly broad? and/or seek information that is not relevant to this lawsuit. See Exh. B. These objections are meritless on their face. The RFPs and Interrogatories at issue are, as set forth below, narrowly tailored and directly relevant to the subject matter of this case. A. Fallin?s ?irrelevant? and ?overbroad? objections to Plaintiffs? Interrogatories Nosshould be overruled. Plaintiffs? lnterrogatories Nosare targeted directly to obtaining information concerning the Governor?s ?procedures? for processing ORA requests, and the Governor?s handling of Plaintiffs? ORA Request. Specifically, they ask Fallin to identify: 0 Persons who have participated in processing and/or responding to requests for access to public records since January 1, 201 1 (lnterrogatory No. - Persons who participated in formulating or developing the polices and procedures of the Governor?s Of?ce?s for responding to ORA requests since January 1, 2011 (Interrogatory No. I ORA requests received by the Governor?s Of?ce since January 1, 2011 that were ?answered immediately,? or not placed in the Governor?s of?ce?s ORA ?queue? (Interrogatories Nos. 5 a Public records responsive to ORA requests that were ??red-?agged? for sensitivity? since January 1, 2011 (Interrogatory Nos. 7 0 Internal communications made or received by the Governor?s media team related to ORA requests since January 1, 2011 (Interrogatory No. and I Internal communications made or received by Denise Northrup relating to requests for public records since January 1, 2011 (Interrogatory No. 11). Fallin has objected to the time frame of each of these Interrogatories?January 1, 2011 to the present?which she claims is ?overly broad? and ?not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, insofar as it requests information prior to the implementation of the current open records policy.? Exh. B. This time frame, however, was chosen by Plaintiffs in order to tailor their discovery requests to seek only the most relevant information. As stated above and in Plaintiffs? meet and confer letter of July 24, 2015, Governor Fallin has taken the position that her of?ce utilizes certain supposedly necessary and ?reasonable? procedures for reSponding to ORA requests, and that those procedures were and are being followed with respect to Plaintiffs? ORA Request. See Exh. C. According to the Governor, those ?procedures? were developed and put in place in 201 1 and 2012. See Exh. (Response to Interrogatory No. 2). Information concerning how those procedures were developed andfor changed, how they have been implemented and applied by the Governor?s of?ce over time, and how Plaintiffs? ORA Request was processed, particularly in comparison to other ORA requests made during Governor Fallin?s administration, is directly and clearly ?relevant to the subject matter? of this dispute. Okla. Stat. tit. 12, Defendant Fallin?s objections to the time period for these Interrogatories are baseless and should be overruled. B. Fallin?s ?irrelevant? and ?overbroad? objections to Plaintiffs? Requests for Production Nos. 18, 19, and 20. Plaintiffs? Requests for Production Nos. 18, 19, and 20 are likewise aimed directly at obtaining documents relating to the Governor?s ?procedures? for processing ORA requests, and the Governor?s handling of Plaintiffs? ORA Request. They seek: 0 Internal communications relating to media coverage of the execution of Clayton Lockett and/or Charles Warner, including but not limited to internal communications relating to media coverage by Tulsa World (RFP No. 18); 0 Communications between the Governor?s Of?ce and the Department of Public Safety relating to media coverage of the execution of Clayton Lockett and/or Charles Warner, including communications relating to media coverage by Tulsa World (RFP No. 19); and 0 Communications relating to Branstetter since January 1, 2011 (RFP No. 20).2 Fallin has refused to produce any documents in response to these RFPs, asserting that they are ?not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence related to issues in this Exh. B, and/or are overly broad/unduly burdensome, Exh. 1. Yet, these RFPs seek documents directly relevant to this case, and are well within the scope of permissible discovery. Plaintiffs are members of the news media who have extensively covered the executions of Clayton Lockett and Charles Warner, and the Governor and other state of?cials and agencies have been subject to nationwide scrutiny for their handling of those executions. Plaintiffs are entitled to obtain discovery concerning whether their ORA Request has been 2 The Governor?s counsel has indicated that her of?ce has a number of documents reSponsive to RFP No. 20. Exh. 1. During the parties? telephonic conference, Ms. Chance represented that at least some of these documents consist of daily media ?blast? emails that are circulated broadly within the Governor?s office. See Exh. F. Plaintiffs offered to exclude such emails from the scope of RFP No. 20, and requested a sample of such an email in order to further evaluate its content, see id. The Governor?s of?ce has since refused to discuss the issue further, see Exh. I. '10 handled differently by the Governor?s office than other ORA requests either because of who they are, or because of the subject matter of their requestm?namely, records relating to the Lockett and Warner executions. It is beyond diSpute that these RFPs are relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Okla. Stat. tit 12, Indeed, they bear directly on the validity of the Governor?s claim that Plaintiffs? ORA Request is being processed by her of?ce pursuant to the exact same ?procedures? applicable to all other ORA requests. allin?s ?irrelevant? and ?overbroad? objections to these RFPs are without merit and should be overruled. IV. Fallin?s other obiections to Plaintiffs? discovery requests are unsupported and without merit. and her document production is faciallv de?cient.3 A. Fallin?s other objections to Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8 should be overruled. As noted above, Plaintiffs? Interrogatory No. 7 asks Fallin to identify all public records that have been ?red-flagged? for sensitivity? as described in the March 18, 2015 Af?davit of Jennifer Chance,4 and Interrogatory No. 8 asks Fallin to identify, for public records that were the ORA request to which such records were responsive. In reSponse to these Interrogatories, Fallin asserts, generally, executive privilege andfor attorney/client privilege. See Exh. B. Ms. Chance subsequently represented during meet and confer discussions with Plaintiffs? counsel that the Governor responded to lnterrogatory Nos. 7 and 8, and that there are ?no documents in the possession of this of?ce responsive to 3 The documents produced by Fallin in response to Plaintiffs? RFPs and lnterrogatories were not Bates numbered, and counsel for the Governor refused Plaintiffs? counsel?s request to Bates number those documents. See Exh. I. 4 According to the af?davit Ms. Chance ?led in support of the Governor?s opposition to Plaintiffs? motion for summary disposition, in processing ORA requests she ?initially review[s] all potentially responsive documents to determine if they are . . . ?red ?agged? for sensitivity. . After my initial review, I consult with the General Counsel regarding the potentially privileged documents and sensitive documents. I also notify the Chief of Staff regarding potentially sensitive documents.? 11 Interrogatory No. Exh. I. Fallin?s response to Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 8 are improper for a number of reasons. First, Defendant cannot simply assert executive privilege and refuse to reSpond to either Interrogatory on that basis. As noted in Plaintiffs? July 24, 2015 meet and confer letter, see Exhibit C, in Vandelay Entertainment, LLC v. Falifn, 2014 OK 109, the Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized that advice given by ?senior executive branch officials? ?for use in deliberating policy and making discretionary decisions? may be subject to a quali?ed privilege. However, the ORA contains no exemption or exception from production of ?sensitive? documents, and the production of non?exempt public records in response to an ORA request involves neither discretionary decision?making nor policy deliberations. Second, Fallin has not identi?ed any basis for a claim of attomeyrclient privilege as to any information called for by either of these Interrogatories. As noted above, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, ?3216(B)(5)(a) requires any assertion of privilege to ?describe[] the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that . . . will enable other 35 parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection. And, as discussed above, she has not, despite Plaintiffs? repeated requests, provided a privilege log that would allow the Court or Plaintiffs to evaluate any of her claims of privilege. See Exhs. C, F, 1. Because Fallin has done nothing more than generally assert attorneyrclient privilege with respect to these Interrogatories, she has not met her burden of showing that it applies, and her failure to make that showing, through a privilege log or otherwise, results in a waiver of the claimed privilege. Peat, Marwick, Mitchel! Co. v. West, 748 F.2d 540 (10th Cir. 1934). Third, in her August 31, 2015 correspondence (Exh. 1), Ms. Chance asserts that the Governor has responded to lnterrogatory No. 8 by providing an ORA log in response to RFP No. 12 6. However, that document lists the status of a_ll pending ORA requests as of the date of that log. It does not provide the speci?c information requested by Interrogatory No. 8, tie. it does not identify which of those ORA requests resulted in responsive documents being ?red??agged.? Regardless of whether the Governor?s of?ce ?keep[s]? a complete ?record of how many documents are red??agged for any given request? by Ms. Chance, Exh. I, that does not relieve Fallin and her counsel of their responsibility to provide the most complete information in the Governor?s possession, custody, or control in response to this Interrogatory. Finally, with respect to Interrogatory No. 7, Ms. Chance?s August 31 correspondence states that Fallin?s response is limited to the start date of Ms. Chance?s employment. Ms. Chance, however, is not a defendant in this lawsuit, and it is unclear why Fallin, who has been sued in her of?cial capacity as the Governor, would unilaterally limit any discovery response based on the employment of one individual involved in processing ORA requests. Again, the Governor?s of?ce should be ordered to reSpond to this Interrogatory by providing the most complete information in the Governor?s possession, custody, or control. B. Fallin?s production of documents in response to RFP No. 4 is facially de?cient. Plaintiffs? RFP No. 4 seeks internal communications relating to Defendant Fallin?s written and unwritten policies and procedures for responding to requests for access to public records from January 1, 2011 to the present. ?Communications,? for the purposes of Plaintiffs? RFPS, were de?ned to include ?in?person meetings, telephone calls, email, text messages, instant messages, voicemail, rnemoranda to ?le, letters, and any document memorializing or re?ecting a discussion among one or more individuals.? In addition to baselessly objecting to the time frame of RFP No. 4 as purportedly ?overbroad? and not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence, as discussed above, Fallin?s production of documents responsive to this RFP is de?cient on its face. While allin?s response to RFP No. 4 states that responsive documents were produced in reSponse to RFP No l, the documents produced in response to RFP No. 1 consist of only four documents: two af?davits that were prepared and ?led in this lawsuit, a transcript of a deposition in another ORA case, and a half-page ?Open Records Act Policy.? Not a single email, text message, voicemail, letter, or memorandum was produced in response to RFP No. 4. allin?s response to RFP N0. 4 is patently incomplete. This facial de?ciency in the Govemor?s production of documents in reSponse to RFP No. 4 was highlighted in Plaintiffs? July 24, 2015 meet and confer letter. See Exh. C. This issue was also raised during the parties? telephonic meet and confer discussion, as memorialized in Plaintiffs? counsel?s subsequent email to Ms. Chance. See Exhibit F. During that conversation, Ms. Chance represented that she would either identify responsive documents or supplement the Governor?s responses to indicate that no additional responsive records exist. Id. However, Chance?s August 31 email, Exh. 1, states that the half-page policy is the document ?primarily? responsive to RFP No 4. No other documents or records have, to date, been identi?ed or produced, and no supplemental response to this RFP has been provided. C. Fallin?s production of documents in reSponse to RFP N0. 6 is facially de?cient. Plaintiffs? RFP No. 6 seeks logs reflecting the status of ORA requests received by the Governor?s of?ce from 2011 to present. While Fallin produced some ORA logs in response to that RF P, she failed to produce any logs for ORA requests pending between September 23, 2014, and January 13, 2015?logs that presumably should re?ect the status of Plaintiffs? still pending ORA Request, among others. Plaintiffs? counsel raised this de?ciency in their July 24, 2015 meet and confer letter. See Exh. C. It was also discussed during the parties? August 7 telephonic meet and confer discussion, as memorialized in Plaintiffs? August 12 email to Ms. Chance. See Exh. F. During the telephonic meet and confer call, Ms. Chance initially stated that she did not think the missing ORA logs were ?relevant.? However, she later represented that she would look into the issue. Id. Yet, in her subsequent email, Ms. Chance states that she has ?reviewed allin?s] response to RFP. No. 6 and there are no ORA logs missing.? Exh. I. To the extent the Governor?s of?ce has ORA logs between September 23, 2014 and January 13, 2015, the Court should order the Governor to produce them to Plaintiffs. D. allin?s other objections to RFP No. 8 should he overruled and Fallin should be ordered to provide a privilege log. RFP No. 8 seeks communications, as that term is de?ned above, between Fallin, herself, and any other person regarding the ORA and/or any request(s) for access to public records from January 1, 2011 to the present. Fallin did not produce any documents in response to RFP No. 8, and asserts that all responsive documents are privileged attorneyfclient communications. As set forth above, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, ?3226(B)(5)(a) requires any assertion of privilege to ?describe[] the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that . . . will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.? allin has not, despite Plaintiffs? repeated requests, provided a privilege log that would allow the Court or Plaintiffs to evaluate a claim of privilege with respect to any document responsive to RFP No. 8. See Exhs. C, F, I. As Fallin has done nothing more than generally assert the attorneyfclient privilege with reSpect to RF No. 8, she has not met her burden of showing that it applies, and her failure to make that showing, through a privilege log or otherwise, results in a waiver of the claimed privilege. Peat, Mamick, Mitchel! Ca, 748 F.2d 540. E. Fallin?s production of documents in response to RF No. 9 is facially de?cient, and Fallin?s other objections to RFP No. 9 should be overruled and Fallin should be ordered to provide a privilege log. Plaintiffs? RFP No. 9 asks for communications, as that term is defined above, between Denise Northrup (?Northrup?), Fallin?s chief of staff, and any other person regarding the ORA and/or any request(s) for access to public records from January 1, 2011 to the present. In response to this RFP, Fallin asserted that a number of responsive records were produced in connection with her response to Interrogatory No. 5, and that all other documents responsive to this RFP are protected by the attorneyr?client privilege First, none of the documents produced in response to lnterrogatory No. 5 were sent from or received by Northrup, making none of them responsive to RFP No. 9. This de?ciency was raised by Plaintiffs? counsel in their July 24 meet and confer letter, see Exhibit F, and was discussed during subsequent communications with Fallin?s counsel, see Exhibit 1. On August 31, Ms. Chance represented that she would ?address this issue in a separate email later this week.? Exh. 1. However, to date there have been no records produced or further communications from Ms. Chance regarding RFP No. 9. Second, as set forth above, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, ?3226(B)(5)(a) requires any assertion of privilege to ?describe[] the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that . . . will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.? Fallin has not, despite Plaintiffs? repeated requests, provided a privilege log that would allow the Court or Plaintiffs to evaluate a claim of privilege with respect to any document responsive to RFP No. 9. See Exhs. C, F, I. As Fallin has done nothing more than generally assert the attorneyrclient privilege with respect to RFP No. 9, she has not met her burden of showing that it applies, and her failure to make that showing, through a privilege log or 16 otherwise, results in a waiver of the claimed privilege. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Ca, 748 F.2d 540. F. Fallin?s production of documents in response to RFP No. 10 is facially de?cient. Plaintiffsa RFP No. 10 is similar to RFP No. 9, but seeks communications between Steve Mullins (?Mullins?), the Governor?s General Counsel, and other persons. In response to that RFP, Fallin produced letters from Mr. Mullins to ORA requesters. The Governor did not assert attorney/client privilege with respect to RF No. 10. The Governor produced a handful of documents responsive to this request. However, no internal communications between Mr. Mullins or other persons within the Governor?s of?ce or communications between Mr. Mullins and other government employees were included in the production. Plaintiffs? counsel raised this de?ciency in their July 24 meet and confer letter, Exh. I, and it was discussed during subsequent communications with Fallin?s counsel, Exh. F. While Ms. Chance?s August 31, 2015 email stated that she was ?running additional searches on Mr. Mullins? [sic] email account, and will give you [Plaintiffs] an update later this week,? Exh. I, to date there have been no additional records produced, and no further communications regarding RFP No. 10. V. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorneys? fees in connection with this Motion. Pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 12, if a motion to compel is granted the Court shall ?require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney fees, unless the court ?nds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.? As the foregoing makes clear, far from being ?substantially justi?ed,? the 17 Governor has asserted numerous baseless objections to Plaintiffs? straightforward discovery requests, and largely ignored her discovery obligations in this matter. The Governor?s failure to comply with those obligations is entirely unjusti?ed. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that they be awarded costs and reasonable attorneys? fees in connection with this Motion. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request an order requiring the Governor to provide further responses and the production of documents in response to Plaintiffs? First Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories. Plaintiffs further request any other relief which this court deems just and equitable, including an award of costs and reasonable attorneys? fees in connection with this Motion. Dated: September 30, 2015 Respectfully submitted, By: Robert D. Nelon, OBA #6610 Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden Nelson Chase Tower, Suite 2900 100 N. Broadway Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.553.2805 (Telephone) 405.553.2855 (Facsimile) bnelon@hallestill.com Katie Townsend (Pro Hac Vice) The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press 115615th St. NW Washington, DC 20005 202.795.9300 (Telephone) 202.795.9310 (Facsimile) ktownsend@rcfp.org Counsel?)? Plainti?fs 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on September 30, 2015 a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was transmitted electronically and mailed, postage prepaid, to the following counsel of record: Jennifer E. Chance, OBA #19320 Deputy General Counsel Of?ce of the Governor Mary Fallin 2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 212 Oklahoma City, OK 73105 405.522.8836 (Telephone) 405523-4224 (Facsimile) iennifer.chance@g0v.ok.gw ATTORNEY FOR GOVERNOR MARY FALLIN Steven J. Krise, OBA #17948 General Counsel Kim M. Rytter, OBA #20825 Assistant General Counsel Department of Public Safety 3600 Martin Luther King Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 731 11 405.425.2158 (Telephone) 405 .425?2660 (Facsimile) ATTORNEY FOR COMMISSIONER MICHAEL C. THOMPSON 1l75 l04.l:999904:0l820 19 EXHIBIT A IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ZIVA BRANSTETTER and BH Media Group Inc. dfbfa TULSA WORLD, Plaintiffs, v. Case o. CV-14-2372 Judge Patricia G. Parrish MARY FALLIN, in her of?cial capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MICHAEL C. THOMPSON, in his of?cial capacity as COMMISSIONER OF THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendants. PLAINTIFF 8? FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO GOVERNOR MARY FALLIN Plaintiffs Ziva Branstetter and BH Media Group Inc. d/bfa Tulsa World hereby request pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 12, 3226 and 3233 that defendant Mary Fallin, in her official I capacity as the Governor of the State of Oklahoma, answer the following Interrogatories within thirty (30) days. INSTRUCTIONS 1. Each Interrogatory herein is to be answered separately and fully in writing under oath. In answering these Interrogatories, furnish all information available to you, including information in the possessioa, custody, or control of your attorneys, representatives, employees, agents, staff members, and anyone else acting on your behalf or at your direction. 2. If you are unable to fully and completely answer a particular Interrogatory after making a diligent effort to secure the information needed to do so, so state and answer the Inten'ogatory to the fullest extent possible. Specify the portion of each such Interrogatory that you claim you are unable to answer fully and completely, and further specify the facts on which you rely on to support that claim, including the efforts undertaken by you to secure the information necessary to answer the Interrogatory. 3. If you object to a particular Interrogatory, or to a part of an Interrogatory, the specific ground for the objection must be set forth clearly in your response to that Interrogatory. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked, and the basis therefor, must be clearly and expressly stated. Likewise, if an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product, that claim and the basis therefor must be clearly and expressly stated. If you object to only part of an Interrogatory, the remainder of the Interrogatory must be answered. DEFINITIONS 1. means and includes any natural person or persons, an association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, and any other incorporated or unincorporated business, enterprise or entity, unless otherwise limited herein. 2. means and refers to Governor Mary Fallin. 3. or means and refers to the Office of the Governor of the State of Oklahoma, andfor any PERSON acting on behalf or at the direction thereof, including, without limitation, any assistant(s), employee(s), attorney(s), agent(s), staff member(s), andfor representative(s) of FALLIN andfor the Of?ce of the Governor of the State of Oklahoma. 4. means and refers to Denise Northrup, YOUR Chief of Staff. 5. means and refers to Steven Mullins, YOUR General Counsel. 6. means and refers to Jennifer Chance, YOUR Deputy General Counsel. 7. means and refers to Audrey Rockwell, YOUR Pmalegaleandition Coordinator. 3. includes any PERSON who has served as YOUR communications director, press secretary, deputy press secretary, spokesperson, and/or liaison to the news media since January 1, 2011, and any PERSON acting on behalf of or at the direction of such PERSON. 9. means and refers to the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, its Commissioner Michael C. Thompson, andfor any PERSON acting on behalf or at the direction thereof, including, without limitation, any assistant(s), employee(s), attorney(s), agent(s), staff member(s), andx?or representative(s) of the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. 10. as used herein shall have the broadest meaning permitted under the law of the State of Oklahoma. It means and includes the original (or copy, if the original is not YOUR possession), regardless of origin or location, of any written, recorded, or electronically stored information, however produced, reproduced, or stored. includes, without limitation, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, motion picture ?lms, phonograph records, tape and video recordings, records and other data compilations from which information can be obtained. also includes data maintained in any electronic form, including email, text messages, and instant messages, without limitation. Any draft or preliminary form of any DOCUMENT, as well as any non-identical copy of any DOCUMENT, is a separate DOCUMENT. ll. means any transfer of information, ideas, opinions, or thoughts by any means, whether oral, written, telephonic, or electronic. includes, without limitation, in-person meetings, telephone calls, email, text messages, instant messages, voicemail, memoranda to file, letters, and any document memorializing or re?ecting a discussion among one or more individuals. 12. means and refers to the Oklahoma Open Records Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 51, et? seq. 13. means all documents, including, but not limited to, any book, paper, photograph, microfilm, data files created by or used with computer software, computer tape, disk, record, sound recording, ?lm recording, video record or other material regardless of physical form or characteristic, created by, received by, under the authority of, or coming into the custody, control or possession of public of?cials, public bodies, or their representatives in connection with the transaction of public business, the expenditure of public funds or the administration of public preperty. l4. refers to the above-captioned matter, Bransretter, et al. v. allin, er al, (District Court of Oklahoma County Case No. 15. means and refers to the March 18, 2015 Af?davit of Jennifer Chance filed in the above?captioned ACTION in support of YOUR Response to Plaintiffs? Motion for Summary Judgment. 16. means and refers to the March 18, 2015 Affidavit of Audrey Rockwell filed in the above?captioned ACTION in support of YOUR Response to Plaintiffs? Motion for Summary Judgment. 17. For any Interrogatory that asks YOU to a PERSON, means to state each (1) name, (ii) address, telephone number, and (iv) relationship, if any, to YOU. 18. For any Interrogatory that asks YOU to a DOCUMENT or PUBLIC RECORD, means to state the name, title, or subject of the DOCUMENT or PUBLIC RECORD, (ii) its date, the who authored, prepared, or created it, and (iv) the who received it. 19. For any Interrogatory that asks YOU to a COMMUNICATION, means to state the date the COMMUNICATION occurred, (ii) the location where it occurred, and all PERSONS party to the COWUNICATION, including, but not limited to, the speaker(s)fsender(s) of the COMMUNICATION and the recipient(s) of the COMMUNICATION. INTERROGATORIES 1. IDENTIFY all PERSONS who have participated in processing andfor responding to requests for access to PUBLIC RECORDS made to YOU since January 1, 2011. 2. IDENTIFY all PERSONS who have participated in formulating or developing YOUR policies and/or procedures for responding to requests for access to PUBLIC RECORDS since January 1, 2011. 3. IDENTIFY all PERSONS responsible for ensuring that YOUR policies andfor procedures for responding to requests for access to PUBLIC RECORDS are followed. 4. IDENTIFY all PERSONS who have participated in processing andfor responding to the request to YOU for access to PUBLIC RECORDS that is at issue in this ACTION. 5. IDENTIFY all requests for PUBLIC RECORDS that were ?answered immediately,? as described in Paragraph 15 of the ROCKWELL AFFIDAVIT, since January 1, 2011. For purposes of this Interrogatory, IDENTIFY means to state: the name of the requester, (ii) the general subject matter of the request, the date the request was received, (iv) the date the request was fulfilled, and the number of pages of records produced or made available in response the request. 6. IDENTIFY all requests for PUBLIC than those identi?ed in response to the immediately preceding Interrogatory?received by YOU since January 1, 2011 that were not placed in the ?open records queue? described in Paragraph 15 of the ROCKWELL AFFIDAVIT. For purposes of this Interrogatory, means to state: the name of the requester, (ii) the general subject matter of the request, the date the request was received, (iv) the date the request was fulfilled, and the number of pages of records produced or made available in reSponse the request. 7. IDENTIFY all PUBLIC RECORDS ??red??agged? for sensitivity,? as described in Paragraph 20 of the CHANCE AFFIDAVIT, since January 1, 2011. 8. For each PUBLIC RECORD ??red-?agged? for sensitivity,? as described in Paragraph 20 of the CHANCE AFFIDAVIT, since January 1, 2011, IDENTIFY the request(s) for PUBLIC RECORDS that it was responsive to. For purposes of this Interrogatory, IDENTIFY means to state: the name of the requester, (ii) the general subject matter of the request, the date the request was received, (iv) the date the request was ful?lled, and the number of pages of records produced or made available in response the request. 9. IDENTIFY all internal COMMUNICATIONS made or received by YOUR MEDIA TEAM relating to any request for PUBLIC RECORDS since January 1, 2011. 10. IDENTIFY all internal COMMUNICATIONS made or received by FALLIN relating to any request for PUBLIC RECORDS since January 1, 2011. 11. IDENTIFY all internal COMMUNICATIONS made or received by NORTHRUP relating to any request for PUBLIC RECORDS since January 1, 2011. 12. Identify the date on which the ?email documentation pull? described in Paragraph 26 of the ROCKWELL AFFIDAVIT was sent to the Information Services Division of the Of?ce of Management Enterprise Services. 13. Identify the date by which ?all physical documentation regarding executions? had ?been gathered,? as described in Paragraph 26 of the ROCKWELL AFFIDAVIT. l4. Identify the date by which ?all physical documentation regarding executions? was ?scanned in? as described in Paragraph 26 of the ROCKWELL AFFIDAVIT 15. Describe in detail YOUR efforts to search for and retrieve PUBLIC RECORDS stored on unofficial or private email accounts or systems, including but not limited to email sent or received from any non??0k. gov? or email address?for the purposes of re5ponding to the request for PUBLIC RECORDS that is at issue in this ACTION. 16. JDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of any fact set forth in YOUR response to the immediately preceding Interrogatory. if! Dated: June 10, 2015 1030036.1:999904:01820 By: Katie Townse (Pro Hac Vice) The Report 3 Committee fer Freedom of the Press 115615th St. NW Washington, DC 20005 202.795.9300 (Telephone) 202.795.9310 (Facsimile) ktownsend?rcfp.org Robert D. Nelon Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden Nelson Chase Tower, Suite 2900 100 N. Broadway Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.553.2805 (Telephone) 405.553.2855 (Facsimile) bnelon@hallestill.com Counsel for Plainti?s IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ZIVA BRANSTETTER and BH Media Group Inc. dfbfa TULSA WORLD, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CV-14-2372 Judge Patricia G. Parrish MARY FALLIN, in her of?cial capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MICHAEL C. THOMPSON, in his of?cial capacity as COMMISSIONER OF THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendants. FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TANGIBLE THINGS TO GOVERNOR MARY FALLIN Plaintiffs Ziya Branstetter and BH Media Group Inc. dfbfa Tulsa World hereby request pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 12, 3226 and 3234 that defendant Mary Fallin, in her of?cial capacity as Governor of the State of Oklahoma, produce for inspection andfor copying the following documents and tangible things. Said documents and tangible things shall be produced, together with any written responses to these Requests, within thirty (30) days at the of?ce of Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden Nelson located at Chase Tower, Suite 2900, 100 N. Broadway, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102. INSTRUCTIONS 1. You are required to produce all documents and tangible things reSponsive to these Requests that are in your possession, custody or control, including, Without limitation, documents and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of your attorneys, representatives, employees, agents, staff members, and anyone else acting on your behalf or at your direction. 2. Produce all documents and tangible things responsive to these Requests as they are kept in the usual course of business. Folders, labels, and the like are to be left intact. Electronically stored information shall be produced in the form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained. 3. You are required to respond to each numbered Request separately with one of the following: a. A representation that you will comply with the particular Request; b. A representation that you lack the ability to comply with the particular Request; or c. An objection to the particular Request. 4. If your response to the particular Request is a representation that you lack the ability to comply, you must affirm that you undertook a diligent search in an effort to comply with the Request, and specify whether your inability to comply is because the particular document, tangible thing, or category thereof has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, miSplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in your possession, custody, or control. Set forth the name and address of any person or entity whom you know or believe to have possession, custody, or control of the requested document, tangible thing, or category thereof. 5. If you object to a particular Request: a. Identify with particularity any document(s), including electronically stored information, and/or tangible thing(s) responsive to the Request withheld on the basis of the your objection; and b. Set forth clearly the speci?c ground for the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked must be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product, that claim must be expresst asserted. 6. If you object to a Request based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, provide a log setting forth the following for each document withheld: a. The date of the document; The title of the document (if any); c. Its author; d. The sender and each recipient of the document; e. The name of each person or entity who has custody of the document (or any cepy thereof); and f. The basis for your claim of privilege or work product protection. 7. If you object to part of a particular Request, that part must be specified, and your reasons for the objection stated. Your r63ponse to the Request must contain a statement of compliance or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that Request. DEFINITIONS 1. means and includes any natural person or persons, an association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, and any other incorporated or unincorporated business, enterprise or entity, unless otherwise limited herein. 2. means and refers to Governor Mary Fallin. 3. or means and refers to FALLIN, the Office of the Governor of the State of Oklahoma, and/or any PERSON acting on behalf or at the direction thereof, including, without limitation, any assistant(s), employee(s), attorney(s), agent(s), staff member(s), and/0r representative(s) of FALLIN and/or the Office of the Governor of the State of Oklahoma. 4. means and refers to Denise Northrup, YOUR Chief of Staff. 5. means and refers to Steven Mullins, YOUR General Counsel. 6. means and refers to Jennifer Chance, YOUR Deputy General Counsel. 7. means and refers to Audrey Rockwell, YOUR Paralegal/Extradition Coordinator. 8. includes any PERSON who has served as YOUR communications director, press secretary, deputy press secretary, spokesperson, and/or liaison to the news media since January 1, 201 1, and any PERSON acting on behalf of or at the direction of such PERSON. 9. means and refers to the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, its Commissioner Michael C. Thompson, and/or any PERSON acting on behalf or at the direction thereof, including, without limitation, any assistant(s), employee(s), attorney(s), agent(s), staff member(s), and/or representative(s) of the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. 10. as used herein shall have the broadest meaning permitted under the law of the State of Oklahoma. It means and includes the original (or copy, if the original is not YOUR possession), regardless of origin or location, of any written, recorded, or electronically stored information, however produced, reproduced, or stored. includes, without limitation, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, motion picture ?lms, phonograph records, tape and video recordings, records and other data compilations from which information can be obtained. also includes data maintained in any electronic form, including email, text messages, and instant messages, Without limitation. Any draft or preliminary form of any DOCUMENT, as well as any non?identical copy of any DOCUMENT, is a separate DOCUMENT. ll. means any transfer of information, ideas, opinions, or thoughts by any means, whether oral, written, telephonic, or electronic. includes, without limitation, in?person meetings, telephone calls, email, text messages, instant messages, voicemail, memoranda to file, letters, and any document memorializing or re?ecting a discussion among one or more individuals. 12. means and refers to the Oklahoma Open Records Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 51, ??24A.l, et seq. 13. means all documents, including, but not limited to, any book, paper, photograph, micro?lm, data files created by or used with computer software, computer tape, disk, record, sound recording, film recording, video record or other material regardless of physical form or characteristic, created by, received by, under the authority of, or coming into the custody, control or possession of public officials, public bodies, or their representatives in connection with the transaction of public business, the expenditure of public funds or the administration of public pr0perty. l4. refers to the above-captioned matter, Branstetter, et al. v. Fallin, et at, (District Court of Oklahoma County Case No. 15. means and refers to the March 18, 2015 Affidavit of Jennifer Chance ?led in the above-captioned ACTION in support of YOUR Response to Plaintiffs? Motion for Summary Judgment. 16. means and refers to the March 18, 2015 Affidavit of Audrey Rockwell filed in the above-captioned ACTION in support of YOUR ReSponse to Plaintiffs? Motion for Summary Judgment. FOR PRODUCTION 1. All DOCUMENTS reflecting YOUR policies andfor procedures for responding to requests for access to PUBLIC RECORDS from January 1, 2011 to the present. This Request includes, but is not limited to, both written and unwritten policies andfor procedures. 2. All DOCUMENTS re?ecting any changes to YOUR policies andfor procedures for responding to requests for access to PUBLIC RECORDS from January 1, 2011 to the present. This Request includes, but is not limited to, both written and unwritten policies andfor procedures. 3. All DOCUMENTS re?ecting any policies andfor procedures in place within the Office of the Governor of the State of Oklahoma for responding to requests for access to PUBLIC RECORDS during the administration of former Governor Brad Henry. 4. All internal COMMUNICATIONS relating to YOUR policies andfor procedures for responding to requests for access to PUBLIC RECORDS from January 1, 2011 to the present. This Request includes, but is not limited to, COMMUNICATIONS relating to both written and unwritten policies andfor procedures. 5. All internal COMMUNICATIONS relating to the ?open records queue? referred to in Paragraph 14 of the ROCKWELL from January 1, 2011 to the present. 6. For each request for access to PUBLIC RECORDS received by YOU from January 1, 2011 to the present, DOCUMENTS sufficient to Show: the requestor, (ii) the general subject matter of the request, the date the request was received, (iv) the date the request was fulfilled, and the number of pages produced or made available in response the request. 7. The PUBLIC produced or made available in response to the January 13, 2014 PUBLIC RECORDS request numbered 2014?002 referred to on page 1 of the ?log? attached to the ROCKWELL AFFIDAVIT. 8. All COMMUNICATIONS between FALLIN and any relating to the ORA andfor any request(s) for access to PUBLIC RECORDS from January 1, 2011 to the present. 9. All COMMUNICATIONS between NORTHRUP and any relating to the ORA andfor any request(s) for access to PUBLIC RECORDS from January I, 2011 to the present. 10. All COMMUNICATIONS between MULLINS and any relating to the ORA andjor any request(s) for access to PUBLIC RECORDS from January 1, 2011 to the present. 11. All COMMUNICATIONS between CHANCE and any relating to the ORA and/or any request(s) for access to PUBLIC RECORDS from January 1, 2011 to the present. 12. All COMMUNICATIONS between YOUR MEDIA TEAM and any relating to the ORA andlor any request(s) for access to PUBLIC RECORDS from January 1, 2011 to the present. 13. All COMMUNICATIONS relating to ?sensitive,? ?potentia?y sensitive,? andfor ??red- ?aggedm PUBLIC RECORDS, as referred to in Paragraph 20 of the CHANCE AFFIDAVIT, from January 1, 2011 to the present. 14. All DOCUMENTS relating to any review, evaluation, Opinion, or assessment of YOUR compliance with the ORA from January 1, 2011 to the present. 15. All COMMUNICATIONS relating to YOUR compliance with the ORA from January 1, 2011 to the present. 16. All DOCUMENTS relating to YOUR processing of any request for access to PUBLIC RECORDS relating to executions?including, but not limited to, the executions of Clayton Lockett and/or Charles Warner?since March 1, 2014. This request includes, but is not limited to, DOCUMENTS relating to YOUR processing of the request for access to PUBLIC RECORDS at issue in this ACTION. All COMMUNICATIONS relating to any request for access to PUBLIC RECORDS relating to executionsuincluding, but not limited to, the executions of Clayton Lockett and/or Charles Warner?since March 1, 2014. This request includes, but is not limited to, COMMUNICATIONS relating to the requests for access to PUBLIC RECORDS at issue in this ACTION. 18. All internal COMMUNICATIONS relating to media coverage of the execution of Clayton Lockett andfor Charles Warner. This request includes, but is not limited to, internal COMMUNICATIONS relating to media coverage by Tulsa World. 19. All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and DPS relating to media coverage of the execution of Clayton Lockett andfor Charles Warner. This request includes, but is not limited to, COMMUNICATIONS relating to media coverage by Tulsa World. 20. All COMMUNICATIONS relating to plaintiff Ziva Branstetter since January 1, 2011. 21. DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the annual budget, by fiscal year, of the Of?ce of the Governor of the State of Oklahoma for each fiscal year since 2011, and how such annual budget was allocated. Dated: June 10, 2015 Katie Toyd (13m Ha/c Vice) The Repo rs Committee for Freedom of the Press 115615th St. NW Washington, DC 20005 202.795.9300 (Telephone) 202.795.9310 (Facsimile) ktownsend@rcfp.org Robert D. Nelon Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden Nelson Chase Tower, Suite 2900 100 N. Broadway Oklahoma City, OK 73102 405.553.2805 (Telephone) 405.553.2855 (Facsimile) bnelon@hallestill.com Counsel for Plainti?rs EXHIBIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ZIVA BRANSTETTER and BH Media Group Inc. dfb/a TULSA WORLD, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CV- 14-23 72 Judge Patricia G. Parrish MARY FALLIN, in her official capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MICHAEL C. THOMPSON, in his of?cial capacity as COMMISSIONER OF THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENTOF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendants. GOVERNOR MARY RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF 8' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Governor Mary Fallin responds to Plaintiff?s First Set of Interrogatories to Governor Mary Fallin (?Requests?) with the following responses and objections. Governor Fallin reserves the right to supplement these responses and objections during or after completion of discovery, and further reserves the right to introduce evidence at the time of trial based upon information andfor documents located, developed or discovered subsequent to the date hereof, which evidence may supplement, amplify, modify or be in con?ict with the information provided to Plaintiffs which is based on present information only. GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND CONDITIONS The following objections and conditions qualify each and every answer of Governor Mary Fallin to Plaintiffs? discovery requests, and are incorporated by this reference into each and every answer to Plaintiffs? discovery requests, as is fully set forth therein: 1. These Responses are based upon information presently available to Governor Fallin. Governor Fallin?s discovery and investigation in this case is continuing and are not complete; these Responses therefore cannot and do not purport to set forth all facts, theories, or evidence upon which Governor Fallin will ultimately rely after discovery and investigation are complete. Governor Fallin reserves the right to amend, modify, and supplement these Responses. 2. Governor Fallin objects to the de?nitions and instructions contained in Plaintiffs? discovery requests to the extent that they attempt to impose obligations or requirements beyond those imposed by the applicable statutes andfor schedules set by the Court. 3. Governor Fallin objects to Plaintiffs? discovery requests to the extent they call for the disclosure of information which is protected from discovery and privileged for the reason that is subject to the attorneyfclient privilege; is covered by the ?work product? doctrine; was generated and in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for Defendants or Defendants? representatives, including their attorneys, consultants or agents; was prepared for the purposes of settlement negotiation; is protected as a trade secret; is subject to a protective or con?dentiality agreement or order; and is subject to the deliberative privilege; is subject to the executive privilege, or is otherwise privileged or beyond the scope of discovery under the applicable rules and laws. 4. Where Governor Fallin refers Plaintiffs to the documents which will be produced by the Defendants for the purposes of responding to any discovery request, such production of documents and information shall also be subject to all of the objections and conditions set forth in Defendants? responses to Plaintiffs? requests for production of documents, and all such objections and conditions are incorporated in this pleading by reference as if ?illy set forth herein. 5. By reSponding to the discovery requests of the Plaintiffs, Governor Fallin concedes neither the relevancy nor the admissibility of any information provided or documents produced in response to such requests. The production of information or documents in response to a speci?c Page 2 of 13 discovery request does not constitute an admission that such information is probative of any particular issue in this case. 6. Governor Fallin objects to each discovery request to the extent that it seeks information relating to time periods as to which Plainti??s? claims are barred under applicable statutes of limitations andfor laches or otherwise barred by the Court. 7. Governor Fallin objects to Plaintiffs? discovery requests to the extent they seek information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 8. Governor Fallin is continuing to investigate and research Plaintiff?s claims and allegations. Governor Fallin reserves the right, as additional information is discovered, analyzed or made available during the course of these proceedings, to supplement andfor revise her Responses to Plaintiffs? discovery requests. 9. Governor Fallin objects to the extent the Plaintiffs? discovery requests seek information andfor documents generated andfor formulated by persons or entities independent of her or in the custody or control of third-parties. 10. Governor Fallin objects to the extent the Plaintiffs? discovery requests are amorphous, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and so costly as to render compliance impractical. Subject to the foregoing objections and conditions and subject to the speci?c additional objections made with respect to each discovery request, Governor Mary Fallin hereby submits her Responses to the Interrogatories propounded by Plaintiffs, as follows: Page 3 of 13 INTERROGATORIES 1. IDENTIFY all PERSONS who have participated in processing andfor responding to requests for access to PUBLIC RECORDS made to YOU since January 1, 2011. RESPONSE: Governor Mary Fallin objects to the overly broad time frame contained in Interrogatory Number 1. The current open records policy at issue in this case was not implemented until 2012. The following is responsive under the current open records policy: Steve Mullins, General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522-8861; Jennifer E. Chance, Deputy General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 23 00 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522-8861; Audrey Rockwell, Paralegal, Of?ce of the General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522-8861; Steven Babcock, Legal Intern, Of?ce of the General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 23 00 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522?8861; John Brannan, Legal Intern, Of?ce of the General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522?8 861 Andrew Gin, Legal Intern, Of?ce of the General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522-8861; Page 4 of 13 Jasmine House, Intern, Of?ce of the General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522- 8891; Rebecca Frazier, Assistant United States Attorney, 210 Park Avenue, Suite 400, Oklahoma Tower, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102; (405)553-8804 (former Deputy General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin); Jeffrey Cartmell, Deputy Director and Counsel, Of?ce of State Finance, Gaming Compliance Unit, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 122, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73105 Deputy General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin); Alyssa Bickford, employee of the Of?ce of Governor Mary Fallin, c/o Of?ce of Governor Mary Fallin, 23 00 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 122, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73105 (405)521-2342; Cody Inman, Director of Constituent Services, Of?ce of Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 122, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73105 (405)521-8891; Sean Rose, Public Affairs Liaison, Of?ce of Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 122, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73105 (405)521-8891 Walter Yoder, 3115 North Lincoln Boulevard, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)521- 2444; Information Services Division, Of?ce of Management and Enterprise Services, 3115 North Lincoln Boulevard, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)521-2444. The following is a list of former interns who assisted in the processing of open records for the Of?ce of Governor Mary Fallin under the current open records policy: Page 5 of 13 Casey Crook, Jared Barton, Cary Ann Cashion, Laura Lopez, Rebecca Stevenson, Tonya Kiper, Zach Deaton, Elizabeth Mccoy, Vicky Tran, Ashley Stribling, Austin Hughes, Brittany Bates, Daniel Kirrane, Emily Kitchens, Evan Taylor, Hayley Scott, Hunter Holmes, .Tessalyn McAlister, Mackenzie Smith, Maggie Tulley, Molly Hawkins, Morgan McCullough, Rachel Hummel, Rilee Harrison, Tori Ross. These interns would have been involved only the scarming of physical documents or the conversion of electronic documents, and would have not been involved in the review or release of documents. This of?ce does not possess the current address or telephone phone number of the above listed former interns. See also Response to Interrogatory Number 4. 2. IDENTIFY all PERSONS who have participated in formulating or developing YOUR policies andfor procedures for responding to requests for access to PUBLIC RECORDS since January 1, 2011. RESPONSE: Governor Mary Fallin objects to the overly broad time frame contained in Interrogatory Number 2. The current open records policy at issue in this case was not implemented until 2012. Thus, this Interrogatory is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, insofar as it requests information prior to the implementation of the current open records policy. The following is responsive to the lnterrogatory under the current open records policy: Steve Mullins, General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522-8861; Denise Northrup, Chief of Staff, Of?ce of Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)521?2342; Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)521-2342. Page 6 of 13 3. IDENTIFY all PERSONS responsible for ensuring that YOUR policies andfor procedures for responding to requests for access to PUBLIC RECORDS are followed. RESPONSE: Steve Mullins, General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 23 00 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522-8861; Jennifer E. Chance, Deputy General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522-8861; Audrey Rockwell, Paralegal, Of?ce of the General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522-8861. 4. IDENTIFY all PERSONS who have participated in processing andfor responding to the request to YOU for access to PUBLIC RECORDS that is at issue in this ACTION. RESPONSE: Steve Mullins, General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522?8861; Audrey Rockwell, Paralegal, Of?ce of the General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405 )522?8861; Jennifer E. Chance, Deputy General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522-8861; Steven Babcock, Legal Intern, O?ice of the General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 23 00 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522-8861; John Brannan, Legal Intern, Of?ce of the General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 23 00 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522-8861; Andrew Gin, Legal Intern, Of?ce of the General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Page 7 of 13 Oklahoma 73105; (405)522-8861; Jasmine House, Intern, Of?ce of the General Counsel to Governor Mary allin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522-8891; Walter Yoder, 3115 North Lincoln Boulevard, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)521-2444; Information Services Division, Of?ce of Management and Enterprise Services, 3115 North Lincoln Boulevard, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)521-2444. 5. IDENTIFY all requests for PUBLIC RECORDS that were "answered immediately," as described in Paragraph 15 of the ROCKWELL AFFIDAVIT, since January l, 2011. For purposes of this Interrogatory, means to state: the name of the requester, (ii) the general subject matter of the request, the date the request was received, (iv) the date the request was ful?lled, and the number of pages of records produced or made available in response the request. RESPONSE: Governor Mary Fallin objects to the overly broad time frame contained in Interrogatory Number 5 . The current open records policy at issue in this case was not implemented until 2012. Thus, this Interrogatory is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, insofar as it requests information prior to the implementation of the current open records policy. The following is responsive to the Interrogatory under the current Open Records policy: See attached documents. 6. IDENTIFY all requests for PUBLIC RECORDS other than those identi?ed in response to the immediately preceding Interrogatory-received by YOU since January 1, 2011 that were not placed in the "open records queue" described in Paragraph 15 of the ROCKWELL AFFIDAVIT. For purposes of this Interrogatory, IDENTIFY means to state: the name of the requestor, (ii) the general subject matter of the request, the date the request was received, (iv) Page 8 of 13 the date the request was ful?lled, and the number of pages of records produced or made available in response the request. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects to the overly broad time frame contained in Interrogatory Number 6. The current open records policy at issue in this case was not implemented until 2012. Thus, this Interrogatory is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, insofar as it requests information prior to the implementation of the current open records policy. The following is responsive to the Interrogatory under the current open records policy: The Of?ce of Governor Mary Fallin does not retain the requested information regarding incidental records requests. 7. IDENTIFY all PUBLIC RECORDS for sensitivity," as described in Paragraph 20 of the CHANCE AFFIDAVIT, since January 1, 2011. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects to the overly broad time frame contained in Interrogatory Number 7. The current open records policy at issue in this case was not implemented until 2012. Thus, this Interrogatory is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, insofar as it requests information prior to the implementation of the current open records policy. Governor Fallin ?irther objects to Interrogatory Number 7 on the basis any response is subject to executive privilege andfor attomey?client privilege. 8. For each PUBLIC RECORD for sensitivity," as described in Paragraph 20 of the CHANCE AFFIDAVIT, since January 1, 2011, IDENTIFY the request(s) for PUBLIC RECORDS that it was responsive to. For purposes of this Interrogatory, IDENTIFY means to state: the name of the requester, (ii) the general subject matter of the request, the date the request was received, (iv) the date the request was ?il?lled, and the number of pages of records produced or made available in response the request. Page 9 of 13 RESPONSE: Governor Mary Fallin objects to the overly broad time frame contained in Interrogatory Number 8. The current open records policy at issue in this case was not implemented until 2012. Thus, this Interrogatory is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, insofar as it requests information prior to the implementation of the current open records policy. Governor Fallin further objects to Interrogatory Number 8 on the basis any response is subject to executive privilege and attomey?client privilege. Without waiving said objections, see Response to Request for Production Number 6. 9. IDENTIFY all internal COMMUNICATIONS made or received by YOUR MEDIA TEAM relating to any request for PUBLIC RECORDS since January 1, 2011. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects to the overly broad time frame contained in Interrogatory Number 8. The current open records policy at issue in this case was not implemented until 2012. Thus, this Interrogatory is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, insofar as it requests information prior to the implementation of the current open records policy. The following is responsive to the Interrogatory under the current open records policy: See attached documents. 10. IDENTIFY all internal COMMUNICATIONS made or received by FALLIN relating to any request for PUBLIC RECORDS since January 1, 2011. RESPONSE: None. 11. IDENTIFY all internal COMMUNICATIONS made or received by NORTHRUP relating i to any request for PUBLIC RECORDS since January 1, 2011. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects to the overly broad time frame contained in Interrogatory Number 11. The current open records policy at issue in this case was not implemented until 2012. Thus, this lnterrogatory is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible Page 10 of 13 evidence, insofar as it requests information prior to the implementation of the current open records policy. The following is responsive to the Interrogatory under the current open records policy: See attached documents. 12. Identify the date on which the "email documentation pull" described in Paragraph 26 of the ROCKWELL AFFIDAVIT was sent to the Information Services Division of the Of?ce of Management Enterprise Services. RESPONSE: See Governor Fallin?s Response to Plaintiff?s Request for Production Number 13. Identify the date by which "all physical documentation regarding executions" had "been gathered," as described in Paragraph 26 of the ROCKWELL AFFIDAVIT. RESPONSE: February 2015. 14. Identify the date by which "all physical documentation regarding executions" was "scanned in" as described in Paragraph 26 of the ROCKWELL AFFIDAVIT. RESPONSE: February 2015. 15. Describe in detail YOUR efforts to search for and retrieve PUBLIC RECORDS stored on unof?cial or private email accounts or systems, including but not limited to email sent or received from any or email address-for the purposes of responding to the request for PUBLIC RECORDS that is at issue in this ACTION. RESPONSE: A11 electronic} email records are stored on the server operated by the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES), which services the Of?ce of the Governor. If there are responsive emailsirecords from private email accounts contained within the records on the OMES server, those responsive emails are produced in open records request responses, unless those emails are withheld due to privilege(s) or another exception to the Open Records Act. Page 11 of 13 l6. IDENTIFY all PERSONS with knowledge of any fact set forth in YOUR response to the immediately preceding Interrogatory. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects Interrogatory Number 16 as overly broad, and upon the basis that it is unduly burdensome. Employees of the Govemor?s Of?ce and employees of the Of?ce of Management and Enterprise Services, as well as numerous individuals, known and unknown to the Governor allin, may have knowledge of ?any fact? set forth in the Response to Interrogatory Number 15. The following is a list of persons who have specific, first-hand knowledge of the information contained in the Response to Interrogatory Number 15, known to Governor Fallin: Steve Mullins, General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105, (405)522-8861; Jennifer E. Chance, Deputy General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105, (405)522-8861; Audrey Rockwell, Paralegal, Of?ce of the General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105, (405)522-8861; Denise Northrup, Chief of Staff, Of?ce of Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105, (405)522-8832; Rebecca Frazier, Assistant United States Attorney, 210 Park Avenue, Suite 400, Oklahoma Tower, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102, (405)553-8804; Jeffrey Cartmell, Deputy Director and Counsel, Office of State Finance, Gaming Compliance Unit, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 122, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 73105 (405)522- 8841 (former Deputy General Counsel to Governor Mary Fallin); Page 12 of 13 Alex Weintz, Communications Director, Of?ce of Governor Mary Fallin, 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105; (405)522-8819. Respectfully submitted, agony IFER E. QHANCE, OBA #19320 puty General Counsel to the Governor Of?ce of Governor Mary Fallin 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 (405)522?8861 telephone (405)523-4224 facsimile ionnifer.ohance@gov.ok.gov ATTORNEY FOR GOVERNOR MARY FALLIN Page 13 ofl3 VERIFICATION 1, Jennifer E. Chance, Deputy General Counsel to the Governor of the State of Oklahoma, have read the foregoing Responses of Governor Mary Fallin to Plaintiffs' First Set of hiten'ogatories to Governor Mary Fallin, and am familiar with the contents thereof. These responses are based on the records and information still in existence, presently recollected, and thus far discovered in the course of preparation of these responses. Subject to these limitations, the responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. State of Oklahoma CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 10th day of July, 2015, a true and correct copy of the forgoing was served by US. Mail, postage prepaid and/or emailed to the following: I Katie Townsend The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press I 1156 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Robert D. Nelon Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden Nelson Chase Tower, Suite 2900 100 North Broadway Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 bnelon@hallestill.com Steven J. Krise General Counsel Department of Public Safety 3600 Martin Luther King Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73111 405425-2660 (Facsimile) skrise@dps.state.ok.us ATTORNEY FOR COMMISSIONER MICHAEL C. THOMPSON General Counsel to the Governor State of Oklahoma IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA ZIVA BRANSTETTER and BH Media Group Inc. dfbfa TULSA WORLD, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. Judge Patricia G. Parrish MARY FALLEN, in her of?cial capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MICHAEL C. THOMPSON, in his of?cial capacity as COMMISSIONER OF THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENTOF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendants. RESPONSES OF GOVERNOR MARY FALLIN TO FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TANGIBLE THINGS Governor Mary Fallin responds to Plaintiff?s First Set of Requests for Production with the following responses and objections. Governor Fallin reserves the right to supplement these responses and objections during or after completion of discovery, and further reserves the right to introduce evidence at the time of trial based upon information andfor documents located, developed or discovered subsequent to the date hereof, which evidence may supplement, amplify, modify or be in con?ict with the information provided to Plaintiffs which is based on present information only. GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND CONDITIONS The following objections and conditions qualify each and every answer of Governor Fallin to Plaintiffs? discovery requests, and are incorporated by this reference into each and every answer to Plaintiffs? discovery requests, as is fully set forth therein: 1. These Responses are based upon information presently available to Governor Fallin. Governor Fallin?s discovery and investigation in this case is continuing and are not complete; these Responses therefore cannot and do not purport to set forth all facts, theories, or evidence upon which the State will ultimately rely after discovery and investigation are complete. Governor Fallin reserves the right to amend, modify, and supplement these Responses. 2. Governor Fallin objects to the de?nitions and instructions contained in Plaintiffs? discovery requests to the extent they attempt to impose obligations or requirements beyond those imposed by the applicable statutes andfor schedules set by the Court. 3. Governor Fallin objects to Plaintiffs? discovery requests to the extent they call for the disclosure of information which is protected from discovery and privileged for the reason that is subject to the attorney/client privilege; is covered by the ?work product? doctrine; was generated in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for Defendants or Defendants? representatives, including their attorneys, consultants or agents; was prepared for the purposes of settlement negotiation; is protected as a trade secret; is subject to a protective or con?dentiality agreement or order; and is subject to the deliberative privilege; is subject to the executive privilege, or is otherwise privileged or beyond the scope of discovery under the applicable rules and laws. 4. Where Governor Fallin refers Plaintiffs to the documents which will be produced by the Defendants for the purposes of responding to any discovery request, such production of documents and information shall also be subject to all of the objections and conditions set forth in Defendants? responses to Plaintiffs? requests for production of documents, and all such objections and conditions are incorporated in this pleading by reference as if fully set forth herein. 5. By responding to the discovery requests of Plaintiffs, Governor Fallin concedes neither the relevancy nor the admissibility of any information provided or documents produced in response to such requests. The production of information or documents in response to a speci?c discovery request does not constitute an admission that such information is probative of any particular issue Page 2 of 10 in this case. 6. Governor Fallin objects to each discovery request to the extent that it seeks information relating to time periods as to which Plaintiffs? claims are barred under applicable statutes of limitations andfor laches or otherwise barred by the Court. 7. Governor Fallin objects to Plaintiffs? discovery requests to the extent they seek information which is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 8. Governor Fallin is continuing to investigate and research Plaintiff?s claims and allegations. The State reserves the right, as additional information is discovered, analyzed or made available during the course of these proceedings, to supplement and?or revise Responses to Plaintiffs? discovery requests. 9. Governor Fallin objects to the extent the Plaintiffs? discovery requests seek information andfor documents generated andfor formulated by persons or entities independent of the O?ice of the Governor or in the custody or control of third-parties. 10. Governor Fallin objects to the extent the Plaintiffs? discovery requests are amorphous, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and so costly as to render compliance impractical. Subject to the foregoing objections and conditions and subject to the speci?c additional objections made with respect to each discovery request, Governor Fallin hereby submits her Responses to the Requests propounded by Plaintiffs, as follows: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1. All DOCUMENTS re?ecting YOUR policies andfor procedures for responding to requests for access to PUBLIC RECORDS from January 1, 2011 to the present. This Request includes, but is not limited to, both written and unwritten policies and/or procedures. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects to the overly broad time frame contained in Request for Production Number 1. The current open records policy at issue in this case Page 3 of 10 2. was not implemented until 2012. Thus, this Interrogatory is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, insofar as it requests information prior to the implementation of the current open records policy. Documents responsive under the current open records policy are attached. See attached document All DOCUMENTS re?ecting any changes to YOUR policies andfor procedures for responding to requests for access to PUBLIC RECORDS from January 1, 2011 to the present. This Request includes, but is not limited to, both written and unwritten policies andfor procedures. 3. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects to the overly broad time frame contained in Request for Production Number 2. The current open records policy at issue in this case was not implemented until 2012. Thus, this Interrogatory is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, insofar as it requests information prior to the implementation of the current open records policy. Documents responsive under the current open records policy are attached. See attached document (5). See Response to Request for Production Number 1. All DOCUMENTS re?ecting any policies andfor procedures in place within the Of?ce of the Governor of the State of Oklahoma for responding to requests for access to PUBLIC RECORDS during the administration of former Governor Brad Henry. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects to the overly broad time frame contained in Request for Production Number 3. The current open records policy at issue in this case was not implemented until 2012. Thus, this Interrogatory is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, insofar as it requests information prior to the implementation of the current open records policy. However, Governor Fallin does not possess any known documents under the current open records policy Page 4 of 10 responsive to this Request. 4. All internal COMMUNICATIONS relating to YOUR policies andfor procedures for responding to requests for access to PUBLIC RECORDS from January 1, 2011 to the present. This Request includes, but is not limited to, COMMUNICATIONS relating to both written and unwritten policies andfor procedures. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects to the overly broad time frame contained in Request for Production Number 4. The current open records policy at issue in this case was not implemented until 2012. Thus, this Interrogatory is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, insofar as it requests information prior to the implementation of the current open records policy. Documents responsive to this Request under the current open records policy are attached in response to Request for Production No. 1 above. 5. All internal COMMUNICATIONS relating to the "open records queue" referred to in Paragraph 14 of the ROCKWELL AFFIDAVIT from January 1, 2011 to the present. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin does not possess any known documents responsive to this Request. 6. For each request for access to PUBLIC RECORDS received by YOU from January 1, 2011 to the present, DOCUMENTS suf?cient to show: the requester, (ii) the general subject matter of the request, the date the request was received, (iv) the date the request was ?Jl?lled, and the number of pages produced or made available in response the request. RESPONSE: See attached document (5). It should be noted that the attached document was created under the current open records policy, which was implemented in 2012. 7. The PUBLIC produced or made available in response to the January 13, 2014 PUBLIC RECORDS request numbered 2014-002 referred to on page lof the "log" Page 5 of 10 attached to the ROCKWELL AFFIDAVIT. RESPONSE: See attached document(s). See also response to Request for Production Number 1 above. 8. All COMMUNICATIONS between FALLIN and any relating to the ORA andtor any request(s) for access to PUBLIC RECORDS from January 1, 2011 to the present. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects to producing documents responsive to this request on the basis that any document Governor Fallin possesses is privileged attorney-client communication relating to the above styled case, Gregory v. Falh'n et at, Oklahoma County Case number CV-2013-636, Vandeloy Entertainment v. Feltin, et at, Oklahoma County Case number CV-2013-763, andfor Toke Shelter Oklahoma v. Mary Fawn, et 513., Oklahoma County Case Number CV-20 14-3 74. 9. All COMMUNICATIONS between NORTHRUP and any relating to the ORA andfor any request(s) for access to PUBLIC RECORDS from January 1, 2011 to the present. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects to producing documents responsive to this request on the basis that any document responsive to this Request is privileged attomey?client communication relating to the above styled case, Gregory v. Fallz'n et at, Oklahoma County Case number Vandeloy Entertainment v. Fol?n, et at, Oklahoma County Case number and/0r Take Shelter Oklahoma v. Mary ath'n, et at, Oklahoma County Case Number Documents not subject to these privileges are produce in Governor Fallin?s Response to Interrogatory Number 5. 10. All COMMUNICATIONS between MULLINS and any relating to the ORA andfor any request(s) for access to PUBLIC RECORDS from January 1, 2011 to the present. RESPONSE: See attached document (5). Page 6 of 10 11. All COWUNICATIONS between CHANCE and any relating to the ORA andfor any request(s) for access to PUBLIC RECORDS ?om January 1,2011 to the present. 12. RESPONSE: See attached document (5). All COWUNICATIONS between YOUR TEAM and any relating to the ORA andfor any request(s) for access to PUBLIC RECORDS from I anuary 1, 2011 to the present. 13. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects to the overly broad time frame contained in Request for Production Number 12. The current open records policy at issue in this case was not implemented until 2012. Thus, this Interrogatory is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, insofar as it requests information prior to the implementation of the current open records policy. Governor Fallin further objects to the overly broad nature of Request for Production Number 12, insofar that it requests email ?relating to the between Governor Fallin?s ?media team? and any person(s), as such request is not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence related to the issues in this case. Governor Fallin further objects to the unduly burdensome nature of Request for Production Number 12. A records search was performed in an attempt to answer Request for Production Number 12, which yielded over 5,100 pages of emails, not including any attachments in the emails. All COWUNICATIONS relating to "sensitive," "potentially sensitive," andfor '"red? ?agged? PUBLIC RECORDS, as referred to in Paragraph 20 of the CHANCE AFFIDAVIT, from January 1,2011 to the present. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects to producing documents responsive to Request Number 13. To the extent such documents exist, they are subject to executive privilege. Page 7 of 10 14. All DOCUMENTS relating to any review, evaluation, opinion, or assessment of YOUR compliance with the ORA from January 1, 2011 to the present. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin does not possess any documents responsive to Request Number 14. 15. All COMMUNICATIONS relating to YOUR compliance with the ORA from January 1, 2011 to the present. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects to the overly broad time frame contained in Request for Production Number 15. The current open records policy at issue in this case was not implemented until 2012. Thus, this Interrogatory is not calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence, insofar as it requests information prior to the implementation of the current open records policy. Documents responsive under the current open records policy are attached. See attached document (5). See also Response to Request for Production Number 1, 6, 10, and 11 above. See also Response to Interrogatory Number 5. 16. All DOCUMENTS relating to YOUR processing of any request for access to PUBLIC RECORDS relating to executions-including, but not limited to, the executions of Clayton Lockett andfor Charles Warner-since March 1, 2014. This request includes, but is not limited to, DOCUMENTS relating to YOUR processing of the request for access to PUBLIC RECORDS at issue in this ACTION. RESPONSE: See attached document See also Response to Request for Production Number 1 above. 17. All COMMUNICATIONS relating to any request for access to PUBLIC RECORDS relating to executions-including, but not limited to, the executions of Clayton Lockett and/or Charles Warner-since March 1, 2014. This request includes, but is not limited to, Page 8 of 10 COMMUNICATIONS relating to the requests for access to PUBLIC RECORDS at issue in this ACTION. RESPONSE: See attached document (8). See also Response to Request for Production Number 1 and 16 above. 18. All internal COMMUNICATIONS relating to media coverage of the execution of Clayton Lockett andfor Charles Warner. This request includes, but is not limited to, internal COMMUNICATIONS relating to media coverage by Tulsa World. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects to the unduly burdensome nature of this Request. Governor Fallin anticipates a search for internal communications relating to media coverage of the execution of Clayton Lockett andfor Charles Warner would result in thousands of pages of documents. Governor further Fallin objects to Request Number 18, as the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence related to issues in this case. 19. All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and DPS relating to media coverage of the execution of Clayton Lockett andfor Charles Warner. This request includes, but is not limited to, COMMUNICATIONS relating to media coverage by Tulsa World. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects to Request Number 19, as the Request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. 20. All COMMUNICATIONS relating to plaintiff Ziva Branstetter since January 1, 2011. RESPONSE: Governor Fallin objects to Request Number 20, as the Request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence. 21. DOCUNEENTS suf?cth to show the annual budget, by ?scal year, of the Of?ce of the Governor of the State of Oklahoma for each ?scal year since 2011, and how such annual budget was allocated. RESPONSE: See attached document(s). Page 9 of 10 Res ectfull?y submitted, 1.- JENN . CHAWE, OBA #19320 at Ge eral Counsel to the Governor State 0 lahoma - -- 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 (405)522-8861 telephone (405)523-4224 facsimile ATTORNEY FOR GOVERNOR MARY FALLIN, STATE OF OKLAHOMA Page 10 of VERIFICATION 1, Jennifer E. Chance, Deputy General Counsel to the Governor of the State of Oklahoma, have read the foregoing Responses of Governor Mary allin to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things to Governor Mary Fallin, and am familiar with the contents thereof. These responses are based on the records and information still in existence, presently recollected, and thus far discovered in the course of preparation of these responses. Subject to these limitations, the responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. epu net-a1 Counsel to the Governor I . State of klahoma CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 10th day of July, 2015, a true and correct copy of the forgoing was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid andfor emailed to the following: Katie Townsend The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press 1156 15?? Street NW Washington, DC 20005 ktownsendl??lrefgotg Robert D. Nelon Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden Nelson Chase Tower, Suite 2900 100 North Broadway Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 bnelon hallestiileom Steven J. Krise General Counsel Department of Public Safety 3600 Martin Luther King Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 731 11 405 .425 .2 1 5 8 (Telephone) 405 .425-2660 (Facsimile) ATTORNEY FOR COMMISSIONER MICHAEL C. THOMPSON to 5* a: General Counsel to the Governor of Oklahoma EXHIBIT BEPDBTEBS BUMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS [156 1511] St. NW, Suite 1250 Washington, DC. 20005 {202) 795-9300 Bruce D. Brown Executive Director bbrown@rcfp.crg (202)795?9301 STEERING COM mm STEPHEN J. ABLER Reuters SCOTT APPLEWHITE The Associated Press WOLF BLITZER CNN DAVID BOARDMAN Temple Univermy CHIP BOK Creators ?vidicure IAN CRAWFORD CBS News MICHAEL DUFFY Time RICHARD S. DUNHAM University, Beijing ASHLEA EBELJNG Forbes Magazine SUSAN GOLDBERG National Geographic FRED GRAHAM Member JOHN C. HENRY Freelance NAT BENTON: United Media Neutrpuper?wrr?mfe JEFF LEEN The Washington For! 1C. Slate TONY MAUI-10 Nun'arml Law Journal JANE MAYER. The New Yorker DAVID MCCUMIJIER Hearst Newspapers JOHN MCKINNON The Wall Streer Journal DOYLE MC MANUS L05 Angela's Times ANDREA MITCHELL NBC News MAGGIE MULVIHILL Boston Univequ SCOTT MONTGOMERY NPR BILL NICHOLS Politico JEFFREY ROSEN The National Comrimn'mr Center CAROL ROSENBERG The Mituni Herald THOMAS C. RUBIN Seattle, Wash. ERIC The New Fork Times ALICIA SHEPARD Freelance MARGARET LOW SMITH The Arlumic JENNIFER SONDAG News PAUL STEIGER Pm Publica PIER RE THOMAS ABC News SAUNDRA TORRY USA JUDY NeutrHour Af?liations appear only for purpose: of identi?cation. July 24, 2015 Jennifer Chance 2300 N. Lincoln Blvd, Room 212 Oklahoma City, OK 73105 ennifer.Chance@ govck. gov Robert A. Nance Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison Lewis 528 NW 12th St. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 rnance @ri gsabneycotn VIA EMAIL Re: Branstetter, at al. v. Fallin, er of. Dear Counsel, We have reviewed Governor Fallin?s responses and objections to the First Set of lnterrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production (collectively, the ?ReSponses?) pmpounded by plaintiffs Ziva Branstetter and Tulsa World (collectively, ?Plaintiffs?) in the above~captionecl case. The Responses and the document production that accompanied them are patently de?cient in numerous, signi?cant respects. This letter initiates what we hope will be a productive meet and confer discussion concerning those deficiencies. As an initial matter, we have identified significant threshold problems? including a series of baseless objections?that make virtually all of Governor Fallin?s Responses insufficient. First, you have objected to several of Plaintiffs? Requests for Production and Interrogatories on the ground that the time frame they target? from January 1, 2011 to the present?is purportedly an ?overly broad time frame.? See, Resp. to Interrog. No. 1. To the contrary, the time frame speci?ed in those RFPs and Interrogatories is reasonably narrow, and certainly well within the scope of permissible discovery. As you know, under Oklahoma law, a party is entitled to ?discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action? or ?reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.? 12 0.3. 3226(B)(1)(a). The Governor has taken the position that her office utilizes certain procedures for reSpondin to Open Records Act requests that are purportedly ?reasonable? and lawful, and that those procedures were followed with respect to Plaintiffs? ORA requests. Accordingly, information concerning, inter alia, how those procedures were developed and/or changed, how they have been applied by the Governor?s Office over time, and how Plaintiffs? ORA requests were processed in comparison to other ORA requests made during Governor Fallin?s administration is plainly ?relevant to the subject matter? of this dispute. Your objections to the time frame Specified in certain RFPs and Interrogatories is baseless. Please supplement the Governor?s ReSponses, including the document production, accordingly. Second, the Responses include a series of ?General Objections and Conditions? that raise serious questions as to whether, in preparing those Responses, the Governor?s Of?ce complied withits discovery obligations andfor fully responded to each RFP and Interrogatory. For example, the first such ?General Objection and Condition? states that ?[t]hese responses are based upon information presently available to Governor Fallin,? and another objects to requests for ?information andfor documents generated andlor formulated by persons independent of her or in the custody or control of third parties.? (Emphasis added.) Because Governor Fallin is a defendant in this case in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Oklahoma, Plaintiffs? Interrogatories and RFPs necessarily seek information in the possession, custody, andfor control of persons within the Governor?s Office?not just the Governor herself. See, 3.3., Pls.? First Set of Interrog, Definition No. 3 or means and refers to FALLIN, the Office of the Governor of the State of Oklahoma, andfor and PERSON acting on behalf or at the direction thereof, including, without limitation, any assistant(s), employee(s), attorney(s), agent(s), staff member(s), andfor representative(s) of FALLIN andfor the Office of the Governor of the State of Oklahoma?). Please confirm that the Responses you provided have been given in accordance with the definitions set forth in the RFPs and Inten'ogatories. To the extent they have not, please supplement your Responses, including the Governor?s document production, to provide complete reSponses. Third, the Governor?s document production is woefully incomplete on its face, as is evident from, inter alia, the lack of internal email and other written communications included in the document production. For example, while you have produced letters from Steve Mullins to ORA requesters in response to RFP No. 10, there is no email or any other communications between Mr. Mullins and anyone else within the Governor?s Office. Similarly, in response to RFP No. 11, you have produced only a single email from Ms. Chance to a member of the public; no internal communications were produced. Further, it is simply implausible that the Governor?s Of?ce would have documents responsive to RFP No. 5 (?All internal COMMUNICATIONS relating to the ?open records queue? referred to in Paragraph 14 of the ROCKWELL AFFIDAVIT from January 1, 2011 to the present?). We ask that you comply with your obligations to search for and produce documents responsive to the RFPs propounded by Plaintiffs, and supplement the Governor?s ReSponscs, including the document production, accordingly. Fourth, no privilege log has been produced. To the extent that the Governor?s Office is withholding any information and/or documents (or portions thereof) in response to Plaintiffs? RPPs and/or Interrogatories on the basis of any claimed privilege or assertion of work production protection, please provide a privilege log. See Pls.? First Set of Interrog, Instructions, 3; Pls.? First Set of RFPs, Instructions, 6. In addition to these overarching, general issues, we have also identi?ed a number of other speci?c deficiencies in the Govemor?s Responses to Plaintiffs? RFPs and Interrogatories. Those deficiencies include: 0 Interrogatory No. 8. The Governor?s response refuses to identify public records ?agged as ?sensitive? on the ground of executive privilege. In Vandelay Entertainment, LLC v. Fallin, 2014 OK 109, the Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized that advice given by ?senior executive branch of?cials? ?for use in deliberating policy and making discretionary decisions? may be subject to a qualified privilege. However, the ORA contains no exemption or exception from production of ?sensitive? documents, and the production of non?exempt public records in response to an ORA request involves neither discretionary decision? making nor policy deliberations. The objection to Interrogatory No. 8 is not proper. Please answer it by identifying the responsive documents. 0 Interrogatory No. 12: The Governor?s response ends abruptly in the middle of a sentence without indicating whether reSponsive documents have been produced. 0 RFP No. 6: No open records logs were produced for the time period between September 23, 2014 and January 13, 2015. RFP No. 4: The Govemor?s response to RFP No. 4 indicates that responsive documents were produced in response to RFP No. 1. However, no such documents were produced. 9 RPP No. 9: The Governor?s response to RFP No. 9 indicates that responsive documents were produced in response to Plaintiffs? Interrogatory No. 5. However, no such documents were produced. 0 Nos. 18 and 19: The Governor has objected to these RFPs, in part, on the ground that they are purportedly outside the scope of discovery. These which seek specified communications relating to media coverage of the executions Clayton Lockett and/or Charles Warner?seek documents plainly within the scope of discovery under Oklahoma law. Plaintiffs, who are members of the media, are entitled to obtain discovery concerning, among other things, whether their ORA request?which pertains to the executions Clayton Lockett and/or Charles Warner??were handled differently by the Governor?s Of?ce than other ORA requests. It is beyond dispute that documents reSponsive to these RFPs are relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See 12 0.8. 3226(B)(1)(a). Your objections to these RFPs are baseless. Please supplement the Governor?s Responses, including the document production, accordingly. 0 RFP No. 20. The Governor has objected that this RFP because it purportedly would not generate relevant evidence. Because the Governor did not deny the existence of requested documents, they presumably exist. Ms. Branstetter has made numerous ORA requests during the relevant time period, and internal communications about those requests are relevant to show, inter alia, whether the Governor?s Office has handled those requests consistently. It is beyond dispute that documents responsive to this RFP are relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See 12 0.8. 3226(B)(l)(a). Your objections to this RFP is baseless. Please supplement the Governor?s Responses, including the document production, accordingly These are only the most obvious defects that we have identified, to date, in the Responses provided by the Governor?s Office. We hope to resolve these issues informally, through the meet and confer process, without the need for motion practice. Accordingly, we ask that you take immediate steps to address and correct the de?ciencies outlined herein. We look forward to receiving your reSponse to this letter and no later than Monday, August 3. Plaintiffs expressly reserve all rights. Sincerely, Katie nsend Theygorters Committee for Freedom of the Press Counsel for Plainn?s EXHIBIT Branstetter, et al. v. Fallin, et al. From: Katie Townsend To: Jennifer.Chance@gov.ok.gov, Robert A. Nance Cc: BNelon@HallEstill.com Adam Marshall Subject: Re: Branstetter, et al. v. Fallin, et al. Date: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 1:29 PM Size: 359 KB Counsel: We have not received any response to my meet and confer correspondence of July 24 (below and attached). Please advise. Thank you, Katie Townsend Litigation Director 156 15th Street NW, Suite 1250, Washington. DC 20005 1 ktownsend@rctp.org {202) 7959303 FDR team 0? TEE F'Ri?i PGP: AZDD C63C E25E A237 CA8F C4BC 9E34 5680 A333 On 7/24/2015 3:24 PM, Katie Townsend wrote: Counsel: First, write to initiate the meet and confer process with respect to Governor Fallin's objections and responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production and First Set of interrogatories, which we received on July 13. As discussed in more detail in the attached correspondence, Governor Fallin's responses and the accompanying document production are patently deficient. We hope those deficiencies can be resolved informally, without Court intervention, and look forward to your prompt response to the issues raised in the attached letter. If it would be productive to discuss any of those issues over the phone, we are more than happy to do so; please let us know what days/times you would be available to discuss. Second, please propose dates for depositions of the following individuals in September and early October (no later than October 16). We anticipate that all issues with the Governor's written discovery responses will be resolved in advance of the depositions. For the convenience of all parties, and to keep costs down, we would like to schedule as many depositions as possible on concurrent dates, so we ask that you keep that in mind when proposing available dates. - Steven Babcock - Jennifer Chance - Jasmine House - Steve Mullins - Audrey Rockwell - Alex Weintz Best regards, Katie Katie Townsend Litigation Director 1156 t5?ih Street NW. Suite 1250. Washington. DC 20005 ktownsend@rcfp.org (202) 795-9303 PGP: AQDD B3DA CB3C E25E A237 CABF C4BC 9E34 568D A333 7.24.15 LTR.pdf 202 KB EXHIBIT Branstetter, et al. v. Fallin, et al. From: Katie Townsend To: Jennifer Chance Robert A. Nance Cc: BNelon?HatlEstichom Adam Marshall Subject: Re: Branstetter, et al. v. Fallin, et al. Date: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 2:47 PM Size: 72 KB Thank you for your email, Jennifer. We will call you at the number below at 10am Central on Friday Best regards, . Katie Townsend Litigation Director 1156 15th Street NW. Suite 1250, Washington, DC 26005 (202) 795-9303 P3P: A2DD B1 DA 0630 EBSE A237 CASE: 9E34 5680 A333 On 85/2015 2:28 PM, Jennifer Chance wrote: Good afternoon: i am available to discuss your issues with Governor Fallin?s discovery responses tomorrow, Thursday August 8th anytime between 10 am and 2pm, or Friday, August after 10am. Please let me know what time you would like to discuss. You may call me directly at (405)522- 8835. Steve Mullins, Audrey Rockwell, Alex Weintz, and i can be available for depositions Monday, October 5th and Tuesday October If those dates do not work, the same group of witnesses can be available Tuesday October 12th and Wednesday October 13th. The individual scheduling will be more complicated, so we will need to also discuss. Jasmine House no longer works in the office, so I will have to get back to you regarding her deposition. I do not have Steven Babcock?s availability yet, as he will be back in law school at that time. Sincerely, Jennifer E. Chance Deputy General Counsel Of?ce of Governor Mary Fallin 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 (405)522?8836 direct From: Katie Townsend Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 12:29 PM To: Jennifer Chance; Robert A. Nance Cc: IIE H. m; Adam Marshall Subject: Re: Branstetter, et al. v. Fallin,r et al. Counsel: We have not received any response to my meet and confer correspondence of July 24 (below and attached). Please advise. Thank you, i Katie mmemu?gatm meow klownaenc?wrefplorg {202) FM 9f T?r? PGP: A2130 B1 DA (3630 EZSE A237 CABF C4130 9E34 5681?.) A333 On 7f24x?2015 3:24 PM, Katie Townsend wrote: Counsel.:._ 'jEirst, I write to initiate the-meat and cenferprocess with respect to Governor to Plaintiffs-{First Set-get? Requests-for Production and'First . Which weujreceived "on in the preduction we hope these deg p; _l without Cour?tyintervention, and lookifomard?to the-attachedjiletter. If it would discuss iss we are more than happy to do so; please let -;know what to discussdates for Bar-1y 7'efdber (nolaterlthantOctober 16). We anticipate resolved in advanced down, we WQ?ldi_: "rite . depositions- so we aSlc'thatxyo? .in-aimm PrOPOSingavailable-dates; I I - Steven Babcock -- JenniferChance - - Steve-Mullins Audrey ROCkwell - Alex Weintz Best regards, Katie; I. I i Litigation Diractor I Washington, DC 2O?g5 mom-Send. ?if 395-9303 A230 31 DA CABF C480 9534 5630 A333 EXHIBIT Branstetter, et al. v. Fallin, et. al. Summary of 8/6 Call From: Katie Townsend To: Jennifer Chance Cc: Adam Marshall Subject: Branstetter, et al. v. Fallin, et. al. Summary of 8/6 Call Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 11:19 AM Size: 33 KB Dear Jennifer: This email is intended to summarize the telephonic meet and confer discussion we had on Friday, August 6, 2015 concerning the Governor's responses (the ?Responses?) to Plaintiffs? first set of requests for production and first set of interrogatories Please let me know if anything below is inconsistent with your understanding. First, we were able to clarify the following during our discussion: With regard to the scope of the Governor?s Responses, you confirmed that the Governor is responding in her official capacity and in accordance with the definitions set out in Plaintiffs? RFPs and Ftogs. We confirmed that Plaintiffs are only seeking discovery of dOCuments and information in the possession, custody, or control of the Governor?s office. - With regard to the searchfes conducted to identify electronic documents responsive to the RFPs and Rogs, you represented that there is one central networked server where all electronic records, including email, are stored and are accessible, and that this server was searched using certain search terms. You did not provide us with those search terms, and indicated that you did not keep a record of the search terms used. However, you indicated a willingness to run additional searches based on search terms proposed by Plaintiffs. In addition, with respect to RFP No. 10, you indicated that you would look into which email accounts were searched and the search terms used to identify responsive documents. With respect to the more specific issues identified in my prior meet and confer correspondence, you stated that the Governor would provide supplemental responses to the RFPs and Rogs, and address the following issues: - To the extent that any documents andfor information is being withheld in response to the RFPs or Hogs on the basis of privilege, the Governor will provide a privilege log identifying what is being withheld, and the privilege that is being asserted. - You will supplement the Governor's responses to Rogs calling for information concerning discussions regarding ?red flagged? documents to include all responsive information within the Governor?s possession, custody, or control. - With regard to Interrogatory No. 12, you will supplement the Governor?s response to correct what appears to be a typo. With regard to RFP No. 6, you stated that you will look into the issue of ORA logs that appear to be missing from the Governor?s production. - With regard to RFP Nos. 4 and 9, your represented that you will either identify responsive documents or supplement the Governor?s responses to indicate that no responsive documents exist. We suggested during our telephone call that you identify the responsive documents by Bates number. However, upon further review, it appears that the documents produced by the Governor were not Bates numbered. For the general convenience of the parties moving forward, it would liker be easiest for the Governor to produce a Bates numbered set of documents in response to the RFPs and R093. There are two main issues on which the parties substantively disagree. You indicated that Steve Mullins was out of the office last week, and that you would discuss these (and any other issues for which you needed his input) with him this week, and get back to us: First, you reiterated the Governor?s ?relevance? objection to the timeframe identified in Plaintiffs? discovery requests (January 1, 2011 to the present), and have taken the position that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any documents or information that predate their ORA requests. As I indicated during our discussion, we view that objection to be frivolous. The timeframe we have selected is narrowly tailored to target information and documents relating to the Governor?s 2012 adoption of the current policy for responding to ORA requests, including the reasons for the change in existing policy, and its impact. Such information is well within the scope of permissible discovery under Oklahoma law, and plainly relevant to the claims set forth in the Petition, and the arguments/defenses the Governor has asserted in this case. - Second, you reiterated the Governor?s ?relevance? and ?overbreadth? objections to RFP Nos. 18, 19, and 20. Again, as I explained in my prior meet and confer correspondence, and during our telephone conversation, Plaintiffs are members of the news media whose ORA requests were submitted to aid their reporting on the executions of Clayton Lockett and Charles Warner. Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery relating to whether the subject matter of their requests andz?or their status as members of the news media had any impact on the Governor?s processing of their ORA requests. Nor are the requests overbroad or unduly burdensome. However, in an effort to reach a compromise on this issue that would avoid the need for motion practice, we are willing to consider potentially narrowing the scope of these requests to exclude the daily media ?blast? emails that we discussed during our call. In an effort to facilitate that discussion, it would be helpful if you would provide us with a sample of such a ?bias email, as well as an estimate of the number of documents responsive to these RFPs if such emails are excluded from their scope. You indicated that you would provide us with an update concerning the above matters on or before next Tuesday (August 18). In addition, with regard to Piaintiffs' pending ORA requests, you informed us during our call that the records responsive to those requests been collected and are ready for your review. We look forward to receiving those records. I appreciate your willingness to discuss the discovery issues we identified with respect to the Governor's responses to plaintiffs? first set of special interrogatories and requests for production, and hope that we'll be able to reach an informal resolution of these issues. Best regards, Katie Katie Townsend - Litigation Director - 1155 35th Street NW, Suite 1250, Washington, DC 20005 ktownsend?rcfocro - (202} 1?9543303 PGP: poop 810A case E25E case C48C 9E34 A333 EXHIBIT Branstetter, et al. v. Fallin, et. al. Summary of 8/6 Call From: Katie Townsend To: Jennifer Chance Cc: Adam Marshall Subject: Fie: Branstetter, et al. v. Fallin, et. al. - Summary of BIG Call Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 11:40 AM Size: 49 KB Hi Jennifer: Per our telephone discussion on are, we were anticipating an update from you yesterday. Please advise. Than ks, Katie On 8/1215 11:19 AM, Katie Townsend wrote: Dear Jennifer: This email is intended to summarize the telephonic meet and confer discussion we had on Friday, August 6, 2015 concerning the Governor?s responses (the ?Responses?) to Plaintiffs? first set of requests for production and first set of interrogatories Please let me know if anything below is inconsistent with your understanding. First, we were abie to clarify the following during our discussion: With regard to the scope of the Governor's Responses, you confirmed that the Governor is responding in her official capacity and in accordance with the definitions set out in Plaintiffs? RFPs and Hogs. We confirmed that Plaintiffs are only seeking discovery of documents and information in the possession, custody, or control of the Governor?s office. - With regard to the search/?es conducted to identify electronic documents responsive to the RFPs and Rogs, you represented that there is one central networked server where all electronic records, including email, are stored and are accessible, and that this server was searched using certain search terms. You did not provide us with those search terms, and indicated that you did not keep a record of the search terms used. However, you indicated a willingness to run additional searches based on search terms proposed by Plaintiffs. In addition, with respect to RFP No. 10, you indicated that you would look into which email accounts were searched and the search terms used to identify responsive documents. With respect to the more specific issues identified in my prior meet and confer correspondence, you stated that the Governor would provide supplemental responses to the RFPs and Rogs, and address the foilowing issues: - To the extent that any documents and/or information is being withheld in response to the RFPs or Flogs on the basis of privilege, the Governor will provide a privilege log identifying what is being withheld, and the privilege that is being asserted. - You will supplement the Governor?s responses to R093 caliing for information concerning discussions regarding ?red flagged? documents to include ail responsive information within the Governor?s possession, custody, or control. With regard to lnterrogatory No. 12, you wiil supplement the Governor?s response to correct what appears to be a typo. - With regard to RFP No. 6, you stated that you will look into the issue of ORA logs that appear to be missing from the Governor's production. - With regard to RFP Nos. 4 and 9, your represented that you will either identify responsive documents or supplement the Governor?s responses to indicate that no responsive documents exist. We suggested during our telephone cail that you identify the responsive documents by Bates number. However, upon further review, it appears that the documents produced by the Governor were not Bates numbered. For the general convenience of the parties moving forward, it would likely be easiest for the Governor to produce a Bates numbered set of documents in response to the RFPs and Rogs. There are two main issues on which the parties substantively disagree. You indicated that Steve Mullins was out of the office last week, and that you would discuss these (and any other issues for which you needed his input) with him this week, and get back to us: - First, you reiterated the Governor?s ?relevance? objection to the timeframe identified in Plaintiffs? discovery requests {January 1, 2011 to the present), and have taken the position that Piaintiffs are not entitled to any documents or information that predate their ORA requests. As i indicated during our discussion, we view that objection to be frivolous. The timeframe we have selected is narrowly tailored to target information and documents rotating to the Governor?s 2012 adoption of the current policy for responding to ORA requests, including the reasons for the change in existing policy, and its impact. Such information is well within the scope of permissible discovery under Oklahoma law, and plainly relevant to the claims set forth in the Petition, and the the Governor has asserted in this case. - Second, you reiterated the Governor?s ?relevance? and ?overbreadth? objections to RFP Nos. 18, 19, and 20. Again, as I explained in my prior meet and confer correspondence, and during our telephone conversation, Plaintiffs are members of the news media whose ORA requests were submitted to aid their reporting on the executions of Ciayton Lockett and Charles Warner. Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery relating to whether the subject matter of their requests andIor their status as members of the news media had any impact on the Governor?s processing of their ORA requests. Nor are the requests overbroad or unduly burdensome. However, in an effort to reach a compromise on this issue that would avoid the need for motion practice, we are willing to consider potentiaily narrowing the scope of these requests to exclude the daily media ?blast? emails that we discussed during our call. In an effort to facilitate that discussion, it would be helpfui if you would provide us with a sample of such a ?blast? emaii, as well as an estimate of the number of documents responsive to these RFPs if such emails are exciuded from their scope. You indicated that you would provide us with an update concerning the above matters on or before next Tuesday {August 18). In addition, with regard to Plaintiffs? pending ORA requests, you informed us during our call that the records responsive to those requests been coilected and are ready for your review. We look forward to receiving those records. I appreciate your willingness to discuss the discovery issues we identified with respect to the Governor?s responses to plaintiffs? first set of special interrogatories and requests for production, and hope that we?ll be able to reach an informal resolution of these issues. Best regards, Katie f; - Katie Townsend - Litiga'tian Diractor 20005 - {2023) 795-9303 PGP: A200 810A {3536 E25E A237 CABF 9534 5530 A333 .3 Katie Townsend - D?rector 1156 15th Street NW, Suite 1250?, Washington, DC 20095 .. .. .. {262) ?95-9303 mp; A200 B1DA {3630 525% CABF C480 9534 5520 A333 EXHIBIT Subject:Re: Branstetter, et al. v. Failin, et. al. Summary of 8/6 Call Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:27:58 +0000 From: Jennifer To: Katie Katie: l?m in an arbitration for the day and all day Friday. 1 am still consulting with my client on these issues. i will let you know our positions on the issues we discussed early next week. Respectfully, Jennifer Sent from my iPhone On Aug 26, 2015, at 8:59 AM, Katie Townsend wrote: iJ?nn?ifefrz. for acr?spemg?rt? August-16. I acm' {On 8119/1 5 11:40 AM. Katie Townsend wrote: Hi Jennifer: Per-our telephone discussion-on?i?s, we I ere-anticipating from-you. ye?terdr advise. 1 - Thank5,__ i net?Wi .. *3'5-5disiccive'ryrequests (Jammy: - -- enfit'led to any?dcuments discussiqn View to be I Katie Townsen? - . ?it-51mm . - 1155 15th Street NW, Suite 1-25'02-5-ngazgihgt'_ . -. I I . 810A (3636 E25E A237 mac I f} Katie Townsend - Litigation?recto EXHIBIT I SubjectFlE: Branstetter, et al. v. Fallin, et. al. - Summary of 8/6 Call Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 23:12:56 +0000 From: Jennifer To: Katie Katie: 1 will. simply address your issues in the order in which they were presenter] in your email. My responses (indicated. in blue font) are embedded. in your email (which is in. black font) I copied below for eveiyone?s clarity and convenience. I am currently processing the execution ORA. requests. Any time I spend reviewing documents :i'or discovery takes time away from. my review of the execution documents. I am. prioritizing the processing ofthe execution records above the processing of discovery in. this lawsuit. l. apologise for the but that is simply the reality. My responses to your summary are ibllows: With regard to the scope of the Governor?s Responses, you con?rmed that the Governor is responding in her of?cial capacity and in accordance with the de?nitions set out in Plaintiffs? RFPs and Regs. We con?rmed that Plaintiffs are only seeking discovery of documents and information in the possession, custody, or control of the Governor?s of?ce. agree. - With regard to the search/es conducted to identify electronic documents responsive to the RFPs and Rogs, you represented that there is one central networked server where all electronic records, including email, are stored and are accessible, and that this server was searched using certain search terms. You did not provide us with those search terms, and indicated that you did not keep a record of the search terms used. However, you indicated a willingness to run additional searches based on search terms proposed by Plaintiffs. In addition, with respect to RFP No. 10, you indicated that you would look into which email accounts were searched and the search terms used to identify responsive documents. RFP o. 10, requests, MULUNS andany to the ORA andEor any rcqeestls?or 2-1ccess to .tiromlanuary l, 20'] to tlicpresem.? am running additional searches on Mr. Mullins? email account, and will. give you an update later this week. i. will. include the search terms with the update. (ii-enera'lly, regarding electronic documents responsive to the RIFPs and illogs. have not yet received any proposed arid-icons] search terms. 1 will consider that request .I receive it. .1. do not agreeing that any document containing your proposed search term(s) will be discoverable in this lawsuit. Additionally, depending on the sire of the result, 1 reserve my ability to determine a. of those artditional documents is objectionable tor any reason. With respect to the more speci?c issues identi?ed in my prior meet and confer correspondence, you stated that the Governor would provide supplemental responses to the RFPs and Rogs, and address the following issues: - To the extent that any documents andlor information is being withheld in response to the RFPs or Rogs on the basis of privilege, the Governor will provide a privilege log identifying what is being withheld, and the privilege that is being asserted. i will respond to this issue i a. separate email later this week. - You will supplement the Governor?s responses to Rogs calling for information concerning discussions regarding ?red ?agged? documents to include all responsive information within the Governor?s possession, custody, or control. if apologise tor my crmtusion, but there are not interrogatories that request informatitm. of red flagged docmnents. Th ere is, ltt'JWt'EV'??f, an that references commanicaliens. For clarity. i will address all interrogatorics and the RFP regarding red~fl.agged recruits individually. 'l'nterrogatory No. 8 asks, ?For each PU mred? ?agged't?or sensitivity,? asdescrihed in Paragraph it.) of the 1T, sinceianuary 1, 201 the PUBLIC it was responsive to. her purposes to state: theosme oi" the requester, (ii')the general subject matterof the request. the detethe request was the dete the reqoestwas ful?lled, and thenumber of pages of records produced or rnadeavailahle in. response therequest.? have responded full to this interrogatory. As we discussed. in. our ?meet and. confer,? documents that. are red ?agged during my review of the reeozrds ere- oot maintained in. a perpetual red ?ag record. Onee those records have been reviewed. by or discussed with other staff members or the governor. all of those documents are trtutsferred into the ?responsive? file to be produced in response to the open records request. to almost every open. production. there are red ?agged. documents. We do not keep a record o'li?how many documents are red??agged For any given For requests that only require at very small amount of records. there may be no red?flogged doeumeots. Thus. in response to linterrogatozry No. referred. you. to the open. records productirm log prodneed in wlitieh what you. requested to be identified. in 'l'nterrogatory zoo. 8. Also. .1 hevc been employed to. this orifice since November 2013. because of my date oi"employment, this orin encompass the time I have been employed in this ol'i? ee. loterrogattn?y No. Asks: all PUBLIC RECORDS '"red-lilagged' for sensitivity," as described in Psragraph 20 of the since January 1., 2011.? As stored. almve. we. do not keep e. record ot?how many or which documents are red-?agged for any given request. Doeomeuts that are red ?agged. during my (or previous attorney) review of the records are not maintamed in a perpetual red. ?ag record. "I?here are no records within the possession ofthis office responsive to lrnerrogstory No. 7. if there were. I would assert. the same obj eetioos .l asserted to. Governor Felliio?s original discovery No. 13 reqoests. ?All relating to ?sensitive.? "potentially sensitive." aodfor "?ed??agged? PU 1:3 as relerred to it]. .E?aregrs ph '20 of the CHAN CE. AhlillDAVlT. {from January 1, 2m '1 to the present.? I. explained during our meet and coaster. internal communicatiozos regarding sensitive. potentially sensitive or reddisgged records are verbal. comrami?cations between or among go vernor?s staff members auditor the governor. There are no documents is. the possession. of this of?ce responsive to .No. l. 3. Ilfthere were. or if there ever are responsive drmumeuts. it would maintain the some o'hjectitm. and also object or; the besis of attorneyfclieot privilege. Addi'ti(molly, the time limitation on this response would also he limited to my time of employrrzerit in this edifice sinee November 2013. - With regard to Interrogatory No. 12, you will supplement the Governor?s response to correct what appears to be a typo. Response to l'nterrogatory No. 12 should. read: See Governor Fallin?s Response to Plaintiff?s Request tor Productitm Number so specifically direct you to Page 2 of '2 of documents produced i n. response to #16. - With regard to RFP No. 6, you stated that you will look into the issue of ORA logs that appear to be missing from the Governor?s production. have reviewed our response to RFP No. 6 and there are no ORA. logs missing. There are logs from 2, 20.13, 201.4, 20.1.5. .lf you. feel there are still ?missing? logs, please be more specific. By way of the ORA logs did. not exist in this of?ce until. September 2012. - With regard to RFP Nos. 4 and 9, your represented that you will either identify responsive documents or supplement the Governor?s responses to indicate that no responsive documents exist. We suggested during our telephone call that you identify the responsive documents by Bates number. However, upon further review, it appears that the documents produced by the Governor were not Bates numbered. For the general convenience of the parties moving forward, it would likely be easiest for the Governor to produce a Bates numbered set of documents in response to the RFPs and Rogs. RFP No. 4 requests, ?All to YOtEitspolieies andforprocedures for responding to requestsior access to OS from}anuary 1., Bill 1 to thepresent. This Requestinchides, out is notlimited to hothwritten and unwrittenpolicies audiorproceduresf? My response to RH) ti 4 plainly answers this request. The last sentence of the Response states, ?documents responsive to this Request under the current open. records policy are attached in response to Request for Production No. above.? A quick. review ofthe documents produced. in response to ltl?il) o. reveal all docui?uents relevant to RF No. 4. Speci?cally, the policy labeled as Page l. .12 of "l l2. Further, every document produced in. No. relates to our policies andi?or procedures for responding to requests for access to PUBUC RECORDS. RFP No. 9 requests, betwceiiNORTHRUP andany PERSON(S)relating to the OR Aand/or any access toPUBl..lC DSlrorn January 1,201. l. to the present." i. will. address this issue in. a separate email. later this week. Regarding Bates stamping all. documents produced were marked indicating to which RF or lnten?ogatory the documents were responsive, and were marked with Page ofX. This can. easily be used to identify speci?c documents, and. specifically compiies with the Oklahoma Discovery Code Title i. 2 0.8. Section i. do not intend to produce an additional copy of documents in response to the RFPs and. Wigs a d. ifterent nu mberin system. There are two main issues on which the parties substantively disagree. You indicated that Steve Mullins was out of the of?ce last week, and that you would discuss these (and any other issues for which you needed his input) with him this week, and get back to us: - First, you reiterated the Govemor?s ?relevance? objection to the timeframe identi?ed in Plaintiffs? discovery requests (January 1, 2011 to the present), and have taken the position that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any documents or information that predate their ORA requests. As I indicated during our discussion, we view that objection to be frivolous. The timeframe we have selected is narrowly tailored to target information and documents relating to the Governor?s 2012 adoption of the current policy for responding to ORA requests, including the reasons for the change in existing policy, and its impact. Such information is well within the scope of permissible discovery under Oklahoma law, and plainly relevant to the claims set forth in the Petition, and the arguments/defenses the Governor has asserted in this case. i maintain my relevance t'ihiection. Your ?narrowly tailored? time frame includes the very day Governor Fallin took" of?ce. I. respeetlully disagree with your claim my objection is frivolous and that your time frame is narrowly tailored, Further, your time frame makes otherwise reasonable requests unduly burdensome. l. wholly disagree such. information is ?well. within.? the scope of permissible discovery under Oklahoma. law. am. not inclined to withdraw any obj ections regarding the appropriate time frame for any discovery request. - Second, you reiterated the Governor?s ?relevance? and ?overbreadth? objections to RFP Nos. 18, 19, and 20. Again, as I explained in my prior meet and confer correspondence, and during our telephone conversation, Plaintiffs are members of the news media whose ORA requests were submitted to aid their reporting on the executions of Clayton Lockett and Charles Warner. Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery relating to whether the subject matter of their requests and/or their status as members of the news media had any impact on the Governor?s processing of their ORA requests. Nor are the requests overbroad or unduly burdensome. However, in an effort to reach a compromise on this issue that would avoid the need for motion practice, we are willing to consider potentially narrowing the scope of these requests to exclude the daily media ?blast? emails that we discussed during our call. In an effort to facilitate that discussion, it would be help?il if you would provide us with a sample of such a ?blast? email, as well as an estimate of the number of documents responsive to these RFPs if such emails are excluded from their scope. RFP l8 requests, ?All. internal CO rel atitt to media coverage of the execution oli'tfflaytou looked author Charles Wmoer. This request includes? but is not limited to. internal relating to media coverage by Tulsa world." RFP No. 19 requests, ?All. between "fr?t'fltU aod DPS relating to media coverage of the execution of Claytrm. Locked. andr?or Charles Warner. This request :i.:nc.l.udes, but is not limited to, relating to media coverage by "l?ulsa World." RFP No. 20 requests ?All. relating to plaintift?Ziva l3 ranstetter since l, I disagree to your assertion you are entitled. to conduct discovery regarding whether the subject matter of a request andror your clients? status as 'rnei'nbezrs oit?the news media had any impact on the processing of their ORA. Your .lii?et'itioo tor Rel iet? contains no allegations the (firwemor litas discriminated against those who request open records based upon the subject matter, or an individual?s status as a member of the media. Your clients claim the Governor is widtholding records. All. three of these RF E?s go well. beyond the scoot: of this lawsuit and well beyond the scope of permissible discovery under Oklahoma law. Jntortunate.l.y, excluding the daily :otterlia ?blast? only decreases the amount ot?pages we would orr.)duce, and not the amount of records I would be required to review. 'l-lowever, I am currently processing the execution open records requests. All documents responsive to RFP Not 18 and RFP No. it) will he ziucflur?led in. that ORA response. "Ili?hus. those records will he produced as soon. as I can process the request. 1 am not willing to withdraw my objections to these. three but the production of the execution records will. moot our disagreement on No. 1.8 and. i9. Regarding No. 20., maintain my ohiectioa to the relevance and. the over broad! unduly burdensome nature of this request. There are absolutely no allegations in. your Petition for Relief that this office has acted. it: had. tatth or discriminated. against Branstetter. We have searched our server for ?Ziva? and "?liilraustetter,l? from. J'z-iouary 20'! to the present which yielded over ?71th0 files. I am. not inclined to withdraw my objections to REP No. 20. Sincerely, Jenrnter b. Chance Deputy General Counsel Of?ce of Governor Mary Fallin 2300 North Lincoln Boulevard, Suite 212 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 (405)522-8336 direct