“Berg Files Response to Defense Motion for Protective Order” Phil Berg v Barack Obama

“The Appeal of Opposition”

http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/berg-v-obama-update-thursday-october-9.html

In the response Berg insists, among other things, that he is not seeking the documents specified in his motion for expedited discovery for any improper purpose, that the information requested through discovery is of extreme importance and a matter of public safety, and argues that Barack Obama and the DNC

• have not pointed to any “legitimate privacy concerns.”

• have not pointed out any “substantiated specific examples” showing that disclosure of the information requested through discovery would “cause and defined and serious injury.”

• have not effectively demonstrated “any risk that particularly serious embarrassment will result” from turning over the requested documents.

• have failed to show “good cause” and are not entitled to a protective order.

On the latter, Berg cites a 1994 decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals–the appellate court sitting here in Philadelphia and the natural next step in this case should the losing party in District Court choose to appeal–in which the court held that “good cause” exists when the moving party can specifically demonstrate “that disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury” based upon a seven-factor test:

1. Whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests;
2. Whether the information is sought for a legitimate purpose or for an improper purpose;
3. Whether disclosure of the information will cause a party embarrassment;
4. Whether confidentiality is sought over information important to public health and safety;
5. Whether sharing information among the litigants will promote fairness and efficiency;
6. Whether a party who would benefit from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and
7. Whether the case involves issues important to the public.

He is requesting that the court order Barack Obama and the DNC to answer ten admissions apiece, all dealing with Obama’s citizenship, constitutional requirements for the presidency, and donations made to Obama’s presidential campaign.

The filed materials also include–and read this carefully–a pair of PROPOSED ORDERS, a procedural fill-in-the-blank measure filed by attorneys to “assume the sale” and make the judge’s job easier, theoretically allowing him or her to simply sign off on a previously crafted document should he or she come down on the side of the filing party. It is important to know this, as Internet rumors have been mistakenly swirling that Judge Surrick has ordered this or ordered that, when in fact people are simply misinterpreting what is a proposed order.

In the case of this responsorial pleading, Berg has filed two separate proposed orders — the first a ready denial of the motion for protective order filed by Obama and the DNC, the second a ready order granting in part and denying in part, a measure which would essentially commence limited discovery.

I’m still working my way through it whenever I have a few minutes. Keep checking back here for some reflection from Phil Berg, for more details and as objective an analysis as I can muster. — Jeff

Posted by Jeff Schreiber

Phil Berg Barack Obama Ron Polarik Jeff Schreiber