WILLIAM THOMAS, et al, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 84-3552 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al. Defendants. FILED AUG 18 1986 CLERK, U.S. DISTR1CT COURT DlSTRlCT OF COLUMBlA
having advised by letter response to a letter from the United States Magistrate that there is no statutory authority or appropriated fUnds by the United States Congress for this purpose, and thus the Court must rely on the electronic recording of the proceedings on tape. It would thus appear that for purposes of resolving pretrial, dispositive motions, such as for partial or full summary judgment, the Court would have to listen to the tape recordings of the oral depositions, to the extent necessary to resolve such motion or motions, unless the defendants were to pay for the transcripts of the depositions as an aid in resolution of their motions.
advising any arrest by any other officer, 
defendants responded with a Motion for Protective Order as to some of the plaintiff's current discovery requests. The District of Columbia, regarding Captain Michael Canfield, filed a response to the plaintiff's request on August 12, 1986. Upon review of the Federal defendants' memorandum in response to plaintiff's various discovery requests and in support of their Motion for Protective Order, the Plaintiff's opposition, filed August 11, 1986, and the court record, it is concluded by the United States Magistrate that the Federal defendants' motion should be GRANTED, except for the items the Federal defendants have committed themselves to produce in their August 6, 1986 memorandum by August 18, 1986 (which was in fact done by a Notice of Filing made in the morning of August 18, 1986), and United States Park Police reports that refer to William Thomas, Concepion Picciotto, and Ellen Thomas for the period January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1984 in any way bearing on their demonstration activities, any such additional records and documents to be produced no later than September 10, 1986. The United States Magistrate fully recognizes that a search for and production of these additional documents and reports will impose some burden, but deems it absolutely necessary to resolve,once and for all time, whether there was any conspiracy or any other action by the United States Park Police or any of its members to violate Mr. Thomas' First Amendment rights, in particular, and his constitutional and civil rights, in general. The expenditure of this effort now may well save much litigation time and even avoid appellate problems in the future. The Magistrate
limited the time period to two (2) years to minimize the burden and the expense, rather than going back to June 3, 1981, the date Mr. Thomas claims he started his demonstration activities. This discovery goes to the heart of the case if there is any substance to Mr. Thomas' allegations. Notwithstanding the expense and burden, Mr. Thomas should be afforded access to governmental records and documents involving surveillance of him and his activities to·determine if there is any evidence in them supporting his claims in this case If not, production now may assure him, and ultimately the court, and the appellate court which may later review these proceedingsr that his allegations have been totally unfounded and that all of the law enforcement action against him from June 3, 1981 to date has been proper under the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States, including regulations, applicable thereto. If Mr; Thomas finds probative supportive documents in the two (2) years for which production is being required, he may then request the Court to extend discovery for the limited purpose of requiring production of documents and records for the earlier periodof June 3, 1981 to December 31, 1982 and for the period January 1, 1985 to the present. Likewise, the United States Park Police shall produce all photographs of Mr. William Thomas taken of him involved in alleged demonstration activities during the period of January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1984, relevant both to the intensity of the surveillance and the nature and size of
the signs and structures with which Mr. Thomas was purportedly associated. As to all other pending discovery requests of the plaintiff, the Motion for Protective Order is hereby GRANTED to the Federal defendants.
pendency of these matters need not interfere with the preparation for the pretrial conference and the trial, if one should be necessary, In preparation for the formal final pretrial conference the plaintiff shall file his trial brief, with contents as required by the Court's Order of June 5, 1986, this to be done no later than 4:00 P. M., September 8, 1986, with a copY hand delivered to each of the opposing counsel's offices on the same date. The defendants shall file their respective trial briefs, in response to plaintiff's trial brief, no later than 4:00 P. M., September 12, 1986. The formal final pretrial conference shall be held before the undersigned United States Magistrate on September 15, 1986 at 9:00 A. M. This require- ment of trial briefs in advance oe the pretrial conference eliminates duplicative preparation of both pretrial statements and trial briefs and assures more thorough preparation for the formal pretrial conference,