We also reverse the dismissal of the other named plaintiffs. App. 37(d)) For example, in one interrogatory appellees asked for all documents describing the functions of the Party's Central Committee. It may also prove to be unduly incriminating and hence essential to the defense.Identify all chapters which continued to function after the revocation of their chapter by the national organization and state whether such former chapters currently are functioning.Plaintiff does not have information on this subject.(App. What I maintain is simply that absent specific guidance the district court has power to act reasonably. The Supreme Court recognized this need in NAACP v. Alabama, Appellees suggest that even if the Party's membership list would ordinarily be entitled to some First Amendment protection, it automatically waived whatever constitutional rights it possessed when it filed this lawsuit. * * * (W)e cannot agree with the trial court's distinction of that case on the basis that the N.A.A.C.P.
We will not resolve this dispute here; the District Court should further explore these issues before reaching its decision on the privilege question. (Williams Affidavit) See Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion of Certain Defendants for Summary Judgment, R 71 at 11-12. The Party stated its position as follows:The Party, and its officers, continue to object to the disclosure of information for which the Party has claimed a First Amendment privilege. Several factors are relevant in conducting this examination. A plaintiff in a civil action who exercises his privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to answer questions pertinent to the issues involved will have his complaint dismissed upon timely motion. at 162-164 (criticizing voluntary/involuntary distinction); Note, Toward a Rational Treatment of Plaintiffs Who Invoke the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination During Discovery, supra note 142, 66 Iowa L.Rev. Cf. The rule provides that if a party fails to obey an order to provide discovery under Rule 37(a), the court "may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just * * *." If the Party fails to comply with this order, sanctions may be appropriate. See note 66 infra See Plaintiff Black Panther Party's Further Supplemental Response to 107 Interrogatories as Ordered by This Court on August 6, 1979, reprinted at JA 874-911; Plaintiff Black Panther Party's Further Supplemental Responses Based Upon a Search of "The Black Panther" Newspaper From 1967 Through 1970 as Ordered by This Court on August 6, 1979, reprinted at JA 928-990; Plaintiff Black Panther Party's Further Supplemental Responses Based Upon a Search of "The Black Panther" Newspaper From 1971 Through 1974 as Ordered by This Court on August 6, 1979, reprinted at JA 995-1071; Plaintiff Black Panther Party's Further Supplemental Responses Based Upon a Search of "The Black Panther" Newspaper From 1975 Through 1979 as Ordered by This Court on August 6, 1979, reprinted at JA 1072-1130 See id.
Newton stated that as soon as the remaining investigations and prosecutions were resolved he would respond in full to the remaining 30 interrogatories. That was a false arrest suit by plaintiffs who refused to answer any deposition questions relating to any conversations or conduct on the day of the arrest. 1768-69, reprinted at JA 677-685 (responses prepared by Elaine Brown) Plaintiff Black Panther Party's Further Supplemental Response to 107 Interrogatories as Ordered by This Court on August 6, 1979 at JA 876 See Statement of Plaintiffs Black Panther Party and Huey P. Newton Why Motion of Defendants Civiletti, et al., For the Sanction of Dismissal Should Be Denied, R 230 at 12 See id. Newton asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on the ground that this incident was the subject of a pending criminal prosecution against him. See 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, supra, ยง 2291.Because we do not believe the District Court properly ordered the Party's officers to respond to the 107 interrogatories, the Party's failure to obey this order cannot support imposition of the sanction of dismissal. The first, entitled "COINTELPRO: The FBI's Covert Action Programs Against American Citizens," S.Rep. Consequently, to the extent that Party officers and authorized spokesmen have such information, they may be required to disclose it.Describe in detail the purposes, aims, goals, and actions of The Emergency Conference to Defend the Right of the Black Panther Party to Exist held on or about March 7-8, 1970, in Chicago, Illinois.Response:Plaintiff has no knowledge or documents with regard to this Conference which was not held or sponsored by the Party.Since the Party has claimed it has "no knowledge or documents with regard to this conference" which was allegedly not held or sponsored by the Party, if any of the officers or spokesmen have any information in connection with it, they may be required to disclose it.Identify all other Conferences, ad hoc organizations, programs, and conventions (by title, date, and location) with purposes, aims, goals, and actions similar to the Chicago conference referenced in the preceding interrogatory.Plaintiff has no knowledge or documents with regard to such conferences, organizations, programs or conventions and none were held or sponsored by the Party.Identify all documents distributed at or generated as a result of the Chicago conference and the conferences, ad hoc organizations, programs, and conventions identified in answer to the preceding interrogatory which discuss, mention, or in any way refer to nation-wide harrassment of repression against the Party.Since the Party claims not to have any information concerning these matters it is proper to ask the Party officers and former spokesmen to respond to such interrogatories to the extent of their ability.With regard to those documents identified in answer to interrogatories 62 and 63 which are not retained by the national office, identify which persons or organization (including affiliates) might have the documents.Plaintiffs are not aware of any other organization or affiliate that might be in possession of these documents with the exception of the defendants.(App. (emphasis added). National Right to Work, supra note 82, 590 F.2d at 1152-1153 (identity of right-to-work organization supporters sought because union hoped to show that they were interested employers)Appellees do contend that they need the information in order to find out "what exactly they are accused of doing." In addition, interrogatories were served on the other plaintiffs. Subparagraph 57(e) of the Amended Complaint suggests that these investigations were undertaken for the purpose of harassing Newton. In this motion appellees claimed that summary judgment was appropriate because the other plaintiffs, unlike the Party and Newton, had only requested declaratory and injunctive relief.
We will not resolve this dispute here; the District Court should further explore these issues before reaching its decision on the privilege question. (Williams Affidavit) See Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion of Certain Defendants for Summary Judgment, R 71 at 11-12. The Party stated its position as follows:The Party, and its officers, continue to object to the disclosure of information for which the Party has claimed a First Amendment privilege. Several factors are relevant in conducting this examination. A plaintiff in a civil action who exercises his privilege against self-incrimination to refuse to answer questions pertinent to the issues involved will have his complaint dismissed upon timely motion. at 162-164 (criticizing voluntary/involuntary distinction); Note, Toward a Rational Treatment of Plaintiffs Who Invoke the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination During Discovery, supra note 142, 66 Iowa L.Rev. Cf. The rule provides that if a party fails to obey an order to provide discovery under Rule 37(a), the court "may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just * * *." If the Party fails to comply with this order, sanctions may be appropriate. See note 66 infra See Plaintiff Black Panther Party's Further Supplemental Response to 107 Interrogatories as Ordered by This Court on August 6, 1979, reprinted at JA 874-911; Plaintiff Black Panther Party's Further Supplemental Responses Based Upon a Search of "The Black Panther" Newspaper From 1967 Through 1970 as Ordered by This Court on August 6, 1979, reprinted at JA 928-990; Plaintiff Black Panther Party's Further Supplemental Responses Based Upon a Search of "The Black Panther" Newspaper From 1971 Through 1974 as Ordered by This Court on August 6, 1979, reprinted at JA 995-1071; Plaintiff Black Panther Party's Further Supplemental Responses Based Upon a Search of "The Black Panther" Newspaper From 1975 Through 1979 as Ordered by This Court on August 6, 1979, reprinted at JA 1072-1130 See id.
Newton stated that as soon as the remaining investigations and prosecutions were resolved he would respond in full to the remaining 30 interrogatories. That was a false arrest suit by plaintiffs who refused to answer any deposition questions relating to any conversations or conduct on the day of the arrest. 1768-69, reprinted at JA 677-685 (responses prepared by Elaine Brown) Plaintiff Black Panther Party's Further Supplemental Response to 107 Interrogatories as Ordered by This Court on August 6, 1979 at JA 876 See Statement of Plaintiffs Black Panther Party and Huey P. Newton Why Motion of Defendants Civiletti, et al., For the Sanction of Dismissal Should Be Denied, R 230 at 12 See id. Newton asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on the ground that this incident was the subject of a pending criminal prosecution against him. See 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, supra, ยง 2291.Because we do not believe the District Court properly ordered the Party's officers to respond to the 107 interrogatories, the Party's failure to obey this order cannot support imposition of the sanction of dismissal. The first, entitled "COINTELPRO: The FBI's Covert Action Programs Against American Citizens," S.Rep. Consequently, to the extent that Party officers and authorized spokesmen have such information, they may be required to disclose it.Describe in detail the purposes, aims, goals, and actions of The Emergency Conference to Defend the Right of the Black Panther Party to Exist held on or about March 7-8, 1970, in Chicago, Illinois.Response:Plaintiff has no knowledge or documents with regard to this Conference which was not held or sponsored by the Party.Since the Party has claimed it has "no knowledge or documents with regard to this conference" which was allegedly not held or sponsored by the Party, if any of the officers or spokesmen have any information in connection with it, they may be required to disclose it.Identify all other Conferences, ad hoc organizations, programs, and conventions (by title, date, and location) with purposes, aims, goals, and actions similar to the Chicago conference referenced in the preceding interrogatory.Plaintiff has no knowledge or documents with regard to such conferences, organizations, programs or conventions and none were held or sponsored by the Party.Identify all documents distributed at or generated as a result of the Chicago conference and the conferences, ad hoc organizations, programs, and conventions identified in answer to the preceding interrogatory which discuss, mention, or in any way refer to nation-wide harrassment of repression against the Party.Since the Party claims not to have any information concerning these matters it is proper to ask the Party officers and former spokesmen to respond to such interrogatories to the extent of their ability.With regard to those documents identified in answer to interrogatories 62 and 63 which are not retained by the national office, identify which persons or organization (including affiliates) might have the documents.Plaintiffs are not aware of any other organization or affiliate that might be in possession of these documents with the exception of the defendants.(App. (emphasis added). National Right to Work, supra note 82, 590 F.2d at 1152-1153 (identity of right-to-work organization supporters sought because union hoped to show that they were interested employers)Appellees do contend that they need the information in order to find out "what exactly they are accused of doing." In addition, interrogatories were served on the other plaintiffs. Subparagraph 57(e) of the Amended Complaint suggests that these investigations were undertaken for the purpose of harassing Newton. In this motion appellees claimed that summary judgment was appropriate because the other plaintiffs, unlike the Party and Newton, had only requested declaratory and injunctive relief.