Amy v. Curtis

Background

The court considered a jointly filed letter brief concerning Defendant Randall Steven Curtis’s request to compel discovery. Curtis sought four categories of documents concerning communications that Plaintiffs allegedly exchanged with members of either chamber of Congress about amending 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The requests broadly defined “you” to include each responding Plaintiff and people acting or claiming to act on that Plaintiff’s behalf.

Curtis argued that the requested documents were relevant to arguments he was pursuing after his affirmative defenses had been stricken. He had moved for judgment on the pleadings and, alternatively, for partial or complete summary judgment. In those motions, he argued that the constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder required applying the version of the statute in effect when he engaged in the conduct at issue, rather than a later amended version. He also argued that Plaintiffs’ or their counsel’s participation in later statutory amendments supported that position.

Parties’ Positions

Curtis contended that Plaintiffs’ failure to respond timely to his requests waived objections, including privilege and work-product objections. He also characterized Plaintiffs’ objections as frivolous and argued that James Marsh had communicated with Congress on behalf of multiple Plaintiffs and was their agent for purposes of the discovery requests.

Plaintiffs responded that they did not possess communications between Plaintiffs and Congress. They also stated that Marsh was not a party and was not counsel of record in the case.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 permits discovery of nonprivileged matters relevant to a party’s claim or defense. The party seeking to compel discovery bears the burden of showing relevance. The court found that Curtis did not establish any concrete and articulable relevance between communications involving members of Congress and Marsh and any claim or defense in the case.

The court also emphasized that Plaintiffs could not produce documents they did not possess. It found Curtis’s request to compel production of those documents frivolous in light of Plaintiffs’ stated lack of possession. The court further stated that the question whether an amendment to § 2255 constituted an impermissible bill of attainder was not before it and that Curtis had not shown a logical connection between that argument and Marsh’s alleged involvement with Congress.

Disposition

Judge Robert M. Illman denied Curtis’s request to compel Plaintiffs to produce the requested documents because Plaintiffs did not possess them and because the documents had no apparent relevance to the case.