## Facts

- A coal mining company sued several environmental activists for trespass and related property damage arising from a protest at a surface mine in West Virginia and sought injunctive relief to prevent future entry.
- The company alleged the activists acted with others “in concert” and staged actions to be photographed or filmed for publication.
- During discovery, at a defendant’s deposition, the company asked questions aimed at identifying nonparty individuals who allegedly planned, financed, publicized, or participated in the protest.
- Defendants objected and sought protection, arguing the questioning was irrelevant given admissions of trespass liability, would chill association with advocacy groups protected by the First Amendment, and could create self-incrimination risks under the Fifth Amendment.
- The parties presented competing motions: the company moved to compel answers; defendants cross-moved to bar the questioning and for a protective order.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 26(b)(1) permitted discovery of the identities and roles of nonparty protest participants as information relevant to any party’s claims or defenses.
2. Whether compelled disclosure of nonparty activists’ identities would violate or substantially burden First Amendment rights of association and expression.
3. Whether potential exposure to criminal liability supported denying compelled testimony based on Fifth Amendment self-incrimination concerns.

## Decision

- The court denied the company’s motion to compel deposition testimony identifying nonparty activists and supporters.
- The court granted defendants’ cross-motion to preclude the disputed deposition questioning and entered a protective order.
- The court held the requested information was not sufficiently relevant to the claims and defenses and, in any event, could not be compelled in light of First Amendment associational protections and Fifth Amendment concerns.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 26(b)(1) limits discovery to nonprivileged matter relevant to a party’s claims or defenses; discovery cannot be used primarily to identify additional targets or explore a broader movement untethered to the needs of the case.
- Compelled disclosure of membership, supporters, or internal structure of advocacy groups can trigger a qualified First Amendment associational privilege; courts balance the requesting party’s need against the risk of chilling association and require a substantial connection and necessity for the information.
- When deposition answers could reasonably increase exposure to criminal liability, courts may deny compelled testimony or restrict discovery to avoid forcing potentially self-incriminating disclosures.
- Protective orders are appropriate to prevent discovery that is minimally probative yet significantly burdens constitutional rights.

## Conclusion

The court restricted civil discovery that sought to identify nonparty protest participants, finding the information lacked sufficient relevance to the litigated claims and that compelled disclosure would substantially burden associational privacy and raise self-incrimination concerns, warranting a protective order.


Marfork Coal Co. v. Smith, 274 F.R.D. 193 (S.D.W. Va. 2011)