IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
FOR THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
HALO4ASIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIDGEWAY PARKS SERVICE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. RSC-CV-0750
PROPOSED SHORT RESPONSE
TO SECOND OPPOSITION
PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED SHORT RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SECOND
OPPOSITION REGARDING PRIVILEGE
If the Court grants leave under Rid. R. Civ. P. 7.1(5), Plaintiff submits this limited response to the
new privilege arguments in Defendant’s second opposition. The second opposition overstates
both Rid R. Evid. 504 and 506 and, importantly, confirms that Ridgeway’s rules provide a
mechanism for resolving privilege claims without public filing of the disputed material.
I. RULE 504 DOES NOT CATEGORICALLY PROTECT THE
APPLICATION TRACKER OR ITS AUDIT HISTORY
1. Rid. R. Evid. 504(a) protects material prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial. An
application tracker, ordinary course evaluation record, version history, and system
generated audit metadata are not transformed into trial preparation material merely
because litigation later exists. Defendant’s second opposition identifies no facts showing
that the tracker or its underlying system logs were created for litigation rather than for the
RPS application process.
2. Rule 504(c) absolutely protects an attorney’s or representative’s mental impressions,
conclusions, opinions, and legal theories concerning the litigation. Plaintiff does not seek
counsel’s litigation strategy. The requested timestamps, edit history, identity of editors,
adopted Final Outcome, factual incidents actually relied upon, and merit/demerit
assessment are administrative facts concerning the challenged decision.
3. Even ordinary work product is not described by Rule 504 as categorically immune. Rule
504(d) permits discovery upon substantial need and inability without undue hardship to
obtain the substantial equivalent. The contemporaneous administrative record is uniquely
within RPS’s control and cannot be reconstructed by Plaintiff from another source.
II. RULE 506 REQUIRES A PARTICULARIZED CLAIM AND EXPRESSLY
PERMITS IN CAMERA REVIEW
4. Defendant’s statement that the requested materials are “completely protected” is
inconsistent with the text of Rid. R. Evid. 506. Rule 506(c) excludes from deliberative
protection purely factual portions that can be separated, an adopted decision or statement
of reasons, and material created to conceal or explain away misconduct.
5. Rule 506(f), together with Rid. R. Evid. 501(g), requires the State to identify the record,
file, or information withheld, state the specific harm disclosure would cause, and state
whether the information can be disclosed with sensitive matter omitted. Rule 501(g)(4)
expressly provides that a blanket assertion or category only assertion is insufficient.
Defendant’s second opposition identifies categories, not the individual withheld items or
the particular harm associated with each.
6. The claim that Plaintiff improperly seeks in camera review is also incomplete. Rule
506(g) expressly authorizes the Court to examine withheld material in camera and
requires balancing the asserted harm, whether the relevant investigation is ongoing or
closed, the importance of the material, alternative sources, and whether redacted or
summarized disclosure is possible. Rule 506(h)(2) further states that the privilege is not a
ground for withholding material from the Court during that examination.
7. Plaintiff has nonprivileged evidence supporting judicial review beyond an HKT notation
alone: a contemporaneous screenshot showing a Failed Final Outcome without a stated
reason, the later added section 121.102(e) rationale, the application coordinator’s
statements concerning the reevaluation, and Defendant’s own first opposition
representing that concrete evidence exists but had not been introduced into the judicial
record. That record supports at least a reasonable belief that item by item review may
reveal factual, adopted, nonprivileged, or otherwise disclosable material.
III. THE LACK OF EFILING SEALING SUPPORTS THE RULES’ OFF
RECORD REVIEW PROCEDURE
8. Plaintiff agrees that the electronic filing system does not provide document level sealing.
That does not defeat in camera review. Rid R. Evid. 501(j) directs that privileged matter
not be transmitted through efiling, while rule 501(i) permits the judge to receive it by
restricted channel, direct message, or another method the judge directs. Rid. R. Civ. P.
32(6)(b)(3) likewise provides that material submitted for determination of privilege shall
not be filed and shall instead be received by the Court outside the record for in camera
examination.
9. The Court therefore need not choose between public disclosure and blind acceptance of
Defendant’s privilege characterization. The Rules provide the middle course Plaintiff
requested: identify the withheld items, produce the nonprivileged portions, and submit
genuinely disputed material to the judge outside the public docket.
IV. DEFENDANT HAS PLACED THE WITHHELD BASIS OF ITS DENIAL
AT ISSUE
10. Defendant’s first opposition relied affirmatively on supposed concrete evidence of
Plaintiff’s conduct to establish the lawfulness of the section 121.102(e) denial. To the
extent Defendant now claims that the very evidence on which its merits defense depends
is privileged, Rid. R. Evid. 509(b)(2)-(3) presents an at issue waiver question. Plaintiff
does not ask the Court to find a blanket waiver without examining the claim, but
Defendant should not be permitted to use undisclosed material as both a sword
supporting its defense and a shield against any meaningful test of that defense.
V. THE COURT HAS ALREADY REQUIRED VERSION HISTORY
PRODUCTION IN THIS CASE
11. On July 29, 2026, this Court issued a subpoena duces tecum to Superintendent
ItzCrazyAaron requiring production of the RPS application tracker and all Google Sheet
version history relating to Plaintiff’s application, including notes, comments,
amendments of status, and the time and date of relevant changes. The present request
concerns the same categories of record for the later court ordered reevaluation.
Defendant’s new blanket assertion that those materials are categorically nondiscoverable
is difficult to reconcile with the Court’s prior order in this same action.
VI. RELIEF REQUESTED
A. Overrule Defendant’s blanket privilege objection without prejudice to properly asserted
item specific claims;
B. Require any privilege claim to comply with Rid. R. Evid. 501(g), 504(i), and 506(f),
including an itemized description and specific harm, and to identify whether factual,
redacted, or summarized disclosure is available;
C. Order production of nonprivileged factual portions, adopted reasons, administrative
metadata, and other responsive matter not within a sustained privilege;
D. For genuinely disputed items, direct submission outside the electronic filing system for in
camera review under Rid. R. Evid. 501(i)-(k), 506(g)-(h), and Rid. R. Civ. P. 32(6)(b)(3);
and
E. Grant the preservation and other narrow relief requested in Plaintiff’s Supplemental
Motion pending resolution of the privilege claims.
Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________
Halo4asin
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Dated: September 14, 2026
