◆ SpookStack

68 Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 VII. CHALLENGED DISCOVERY RULINGS Even though the judgments for the defendants must be vacated and the cause remanded for a new trial because of the trial judge’s errors in directing verdicts for the defendants, we deem it necessary to discuss a separate issue: the delaying and obstructive tactics of the federal defendants and their counsel in matters of discovery. To demonstrate the importance of the delay and its crippling effect on plaintiffs’ case, a full sum- mary must be undertaken. Only for the sake of brevity do we refrain from reciting all the details. A. Pre-Trial Discovery In March 1974 a subpoena duces tecum was issued for FBI Agent Roy Mitchell’s deposition calling for all in- formation furnished by O’Neal on plaintiffs and the BPP from 1968 through 1970. In April 1974 thirty-four documents were turned over by the defendants. By af- fidavit the FBI represented that these were the only ones within the scope of the subpoena. Government counsel affirmed this in open court. ‘In July 1974 a subpoena duces tecum was served on Marlin Johnson for FBI files on plaintiffs and the BPP, No documents were produced, and Johnson refused to answer questions on deposition about the FBI’s counterintelligence program and the federal grand jury proceedings. In the latter part of 1974 plaintiffs subpoenaed FBI Agent Robert Piper and the Special agent-in-charge of the Chicago FBI office, Richard Held, for depositions duces tecum. No documents were furnished. Assistant United States Attorney Arnold Kanter informed the ‘court that he had reviewed the FBI files and found the thirty-four documents already furnished were the only ones that were relevant. Piper refused to answer deposi- tion questions on matters such as the counterintelligence program, wiretaps, and informants. In response to the Held subpoena, Government counsel, in February 1975, delivered a packet of