NHCaseLaw.com

The parties are before the Court in a civil action concerning a telephone jamming operation said to have been engaged in by defendants during the November, 2002 elections. That jamming operation was intended to disrupt or frustrate a "Get Out The Vote" telephone effort on the part of the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs Raymund Buckley, Jane Gremons, the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Jane Doe ("the plaintiffs") have brought a civil action against defendant New Hampshire Republican State Committee ("NHRSC"), Charles McGee, Milo Enterprises, Inc. Allen Raymond, Chris Cupit, and GOP Marketplace concerning an alleged telephone jamming scheme that is said to have taken place during the November, 2002 election. With respect to each defendant, the plaintiffs allege four counts, including: (1) interference with federal and state constitutional rights to vote and participate in elections; (2) interference with state and federal constitutional rights to free association; (3) civil conspiracy; (4) a request for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

This matter arises out of an alleged phone-jamming scheme during the November 2002 election. The background of this matter has been summarized in earlier orders. Therefore, the Court proceeds directly to the merits of the pending motions to dismiss, regarding which a hearing was held on April 11, 2006.

At issue in plaintiffs' motion to compel are various documents that plaintiffs had sought from defendant New Hampshire Republican State Committee ("NHRSC") during discovery in this civil action. In earlier proceedings, the Court had entered various discovery orders. Plaintiffs assert that NHRSC has failed to comply with the discovery orders as entered by the Court. The items which presently appear to constitute the central focus of the plaintiffs' motion concern a report arising from an investigation of the underlying telephone jamming issues that had been conducted by legal counsel for defendant NHRSC, and its supporting documents. Counsel for NHRSC submits that the material at issue is protected by the attorney-client privilege as well as the attorney work-product privilege.