## Facts

- Reverend Stephen Tracy Anderson, a Black minister, was shot three times at his home by Benjamin Nathaniel Smith during a 1999 spree targeting racial and religious minorities.
- Anderson sued Matthew F. Hale and the World Church of the Creator (a white supremacist group led by Hale), and Smith’s estate, alleging a racially motivated conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and liability under the Illinois Hate Crimes Act.
- In discovery, Anderson served subpoenas on multiple state bars seeking Hale’s character-and-fitness investigative files tied to Hale’s bar admission applications.
- Defendants moved to stay or quash the subpoenas, arguing the requested bar files were irrelevant, overly broad, and improper under amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
- The magistrate judge had previously permitted production of a large investigative file from one state bar; defendants sought to block additional subpoenas and renewed their objections.

## Issues

1. Whether state bar character-and-fitness investigative files concerning Hale’s bar applications were discoverable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) as relevant to Anderson’s § 1985(3) conspiracy claim.
2. Whether discovery should be limited because the requested files were assertedly overbroad, character-based, or potentially inadmissible at trial.
3. Whether the subpoenaed state bars should be required to screen and produce only “relevant” portions, rather than producing the files in full.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ effort to block discovery and held Anderson was entitled to obtain the subpoenaed state bar investigative files.
- The court found the materials fell within Rule 26(b)(1)’s scope because they were relevant to the claims or defenses, or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
- The court approved broad production of the investigative files rather than requiring the state bars to perform document-by-document relevance determinations.
- The court left admissibility and evidentiary objections for later stages (e.g., motions in limine or trial).

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 26(b)(1), discoverable material includes nonadmissible information if it is relevant to a claim or defense or reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence.
- After the 2000 amendments to Rule 26(b)(1), discovery remains broader than admissibility; “relevant to the claim or defense” is construed to include information that may lead to evidence bearing on those claims or defenses.
- In a § 1985(3) conspiracy case alleging racially motivated conduct, discovery may include materials bearing on a defendant’s statements, communications, associations, and conduct that could show discriminatory animus or agreement to support violence.
- Concerns that requested materials could function as impermissible character evidence generally address admissibility, not discoverability.
- When third-party custodians cannot efficiently separate “relevant” from “irrelevant” documents, a court may order broader production to the requesting party, subject to protective measures as appropriate.

## Conclusion

The court ordered production of state bar character-and-fitness investigative files concerning Hale because the materials could lead to evidence relevant to Anderson’s § 1985(3) conspiracy allegations, and potential evidentiary limits on character use did not bar discovery under Rule 26(b)(1).


Anderson v. Hale, No. 00 C 2521, 2001 WL 641113 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2001)