Scott Graham
The Recorder
A San Diego magistrate judge said a LeClairRyan partner gave false assurances that sought-after documents didn't exist...
Showing posts with label discovery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discovery. Show all posts
Friday, August 14, 2015
Federal Judge in San Diego Slams Defense Lawyer for Discovery Breaches
Scott Graham
The Recorder
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Christie Aides Don’t Have to Turn Over Bridge Scandal Documents, Judge Rules
A judge appointed by a Republican says emails of public officials must be kept out of investigation.
Christie Aides Don’t Have to Turn Over Bridge Scandal Documents, Judge Rules
By KATE ZERNIKE
APRIL 9, 2014
NYT Now
In a major setback to the legislative investigation into the George Washington Bridge lane closings scandal, a New Jersey judge ruled on Wednesday that two of Gov. Chris Christie’s former aides do not have to comply with subpoenas seeking emails and other communications about the closings and attempts to cover them up.
In the ruling, Judge Mary C. Jacobson of State Superior Court in Mercer County criticized the subpoenas as “a fishing expedition” by the State Legislature, controlled by Democrats, which is investigating why Mr. Christie’s allies closed two access lanes at the bridge in September — and what the governor, a Republican, knew.
Judge Jacobson agreed with lawyers for the two aides, Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Stepien, saying the subpoenas “clearly violate” federal and state protections against self-incrimination and unlawful search and seizure. She disagreed with lawyers for the legislative panel who had argued that Ms. Kelly and Mr. Stepien were required, as public employees, to turn over their records.
“The fundamental problem with the subpoenas is that they are overbroad,” she wrote.
Judge Jacobson left open the possibility that the Legislature could compel the aides to testify by offering them immunity from prosecution. But that could significantly tie the hands of the United States attorney who is conducting a separate inquiry into the closings and allegations that emerged in the wake of the scandal — about misuse of Hurricane Sandy funds and the politicization of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the bridge.
The court’s decision is likely to renew calls, among even Democrats in the Legislature, to shut down the investigation and defer to the United States attorney, Paul J. Fishman.
Judge Jacobson, who was appointed by a Republican governor, Christie Whitman, is widely praised for her evenhandedness, and ruled against Mr. Christie last summer in a case that established a right to same-sex marriage in New Jersey. But in this case, she was harsh on the investigators in the Legislature, repeatedly emphasizing that the subpoenas had overreached.
“A blanket subpoena calling for a fishing expedition without the promise of immunity calls for a blanket response,” she wrote.
Ms. Kelly, a former deputy chief of staff to Mr. Christie, sent an email calling for “some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” the town at the end of the bridge that was gridlocked for four days as a result of the closed lanes. Mr. Stepien held the job before her, and managed Mr. Christie’s campaigns for governor.
The bipartisan investigative committee was formed in January after legislators learned that Ms. Kelly and the governor’s allies at the Port Authority had worked to shut down the lanes soon after the mayor of Fort Lee declined to endorse Mr. Christie for re-election.
Republicans have criticized the investigation as a partisan witch hunt against the governor, whose overwhelming re-election victory last year had put him among the expected leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.
In recent weeks, Democrats have begun to worry they are overplaying their hand against a weakened governor — and trying the patience of taxpayers, who are paying Mr. Christie’s lawyers ($650 an hour) as well as the special legislative counsel ($350 an hour).
Mr. Christie’s popularity has dropped significantly since the scandal. He has told allies that he can rebuild his national prospects by isolating the bridge scandal as the work of rogue aides.
State Assemblyman John Wisniewski, a Democrat who is co-chairman of the legislative committee, said on Wednesday that he was confident the committee could continue its work despite the judge’s ruling.
“There is more than one method for the committee to pursue the information that it seeks,” he said. “We’re going to continue to explore all those resources to get to the fundamental question of why Bridget Kelly sent the email she did and who authorized her and how this abuse of power could have happened in the first place.”
Kevin Marino, a lawyer for Mr. Stepien, said the judge’s ruling was “a complete vindication of Bill Stepien” and called into question Mr. Christie’s decision to sever ties with him.
Ms. Kelly’s lawyer, Michael Critchley, said, “To all those naysayers who doubted our position and our desire to protect our client’s constitutional rights, I suggest Judge Jacobson’s opinion as a free tutorial on what the Fifth Amendment means.”
Christie Aides Don’t Have to Turn Over Bridge Scandal Documents, Judge Rules
By KATE ZERNIKE
APRIL 9, 2014
NYT Now
In a major setback to the legislative investigation into the George Washington Bridge lane closings scandal, a New Jersey judge ruled on Wednesday that two of Gov. Chris Christie’s former aides do not have to comply with subpoenas seeking emails and other communications about the closings and attempts to cover them up.
In the ruling, Judge Mary C. Jacobson of State Superior Court in Mercer County criticized the subpoenas as “a fishing expedition” by the State Legislature, controlled by Democrats, which is investigating why Mr. Christie’s allies closed two access lanes at the bridge in September — and what the governor, a Republican, knew.
Judge Jacobson agreed with lawyers for the two aides, Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Stepien, saying the subpoenas “clearly violate” federal and state protections against self-incrimination and unlawful search and seizure. She disagreed with lawyers for the legislative panel who had argued that Ms. Kelly and Mr. Stepien were required, as public employees, to turn over their records.
“The fundamental problem with the subpoenas is that they are overbroad,” she wrote.
Judge Jacobson left open the possibility that the Legislature could compel the aides to testify by offering them immunity from prosecution. But that could significantly tie the hands of the United States attorney who is conducting a separate inquiry into the closings and allegations that emerged in the wake of the scandal — about misuse of Hurricane Sandy funds and the politicization of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the bridge.
The court’s decision is likely to renew calls, among even Democrats in the Legislature, to shut down the investigation and defer to the United States attorney, Paul J. Fishman.
Judge Jacobson, who was appointed by a Republican governor, Christie Whitman, is widely praised for her evenhandedness, and ruled against Mr. Christie last summer in a case that established a right to same-sex marriage in New Jersey. But in this case, she was harsh on the investigators in the Legislature, repeatedly emphasizing that the subpoenas had overreached.
“A blanket subpoena calling for a fishing expedition without the promise of immunity calls for a blanket response,” she wrote.
Ms. Kelly, a former deputy chief of staff to Mr. Christie, sent an email calling for “some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” the town at the end of the bridge that was gridlocked for four days as a result of the closed lanes. Mr. Stepien held the job before her, and managed Mr. Christie’s campaigns for governor.
The bipartisan investigative committee was formed in January after legislators learned that Ms. Kelly and the governor’s allies at the Port Authority had worked to shut down the lanes soon after the mayor of Fort Lee declined to endorse Mr. Christie for re-election.
Republicans have criticized the investigation as a partisan witch hunt against the governor, whose overwhelming re-election victory last year had put him among the expected leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.
In recent weeks, Democrats have begun to worry they are overplaying their hand against a weakened governor — and trying the patience of taxpayers, who are paying Mr. Christie’s lawyers ($650 an hour) as well as the special legislative counsel ($350 an hour).
Mr. Christie’s popularity has dropped significantly since the scandal. He has told allies that he can rebuild his national prospects by isolating the bridge scandal as the work of rogue aides.
State Assemblyman John Wisniewski, a Democrat who is co-chairman of the legislative committee, said on Wednesday that he was confident the committee could continue its work despite the judge’s ruling.
“There is more than one method for the committee to pursue the information that it seeks,” he said. “We’re going to continue to explore all those resources to get to the fundamental question of why Bridget Kelly sent the email she did and who authorized her and how this abuse of power could have happened in the first place.”
Kevin Marino, a lawyer for Mr. Stepien, said the judge’s ruling was “a complete vindication of Bill Stepien” and called into question Mr. Christie’s decision to sever ties with him.
Ms. Kelly’s lawyer, Michael Critchley, said, “To all those naysayers who doubted our position and our desire to protect our client’s constitutional rights, I suggest Judge Jacobson’s opinion as a free tutorial on what the Fifth Amendment means.”
Monday, June 4, 2012
Discovery suddenly stayed in Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz defamation suit against this blogger
See all posts re Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Maura Larkins
I got a minute order from the San Diego Superior Court in the mail today. The timing is very, very strange. The last hearing in the case was March 9, 2012--two months and three weeks ago. My discussion with Commander Darin Fotheringham in the Santa Barbara Sheriff's office two days ago is the only event that I can connect even remotely to this bolt out of the blue.
June 1, 2012
Commander Darin Fotheringham
Office of the Sheriff of Santa Barbara
Dear Commander Fotheringham:
I was amused that on the very day I contacted you about my subpoena for business records from the Sheriff of Santa Barbara showing that Deputy Michael Carlson and his sister Robin Donlan involved Chula Vista Elementary School District in criminal actions, Judge Judith Hayes suspended all discovery in the case at issue.
My, my. The timing is fascinating. No papers had been filed asking that discovery be stayed. In fact, no papers had been filed in this case for two months.
I bow to your amazing—what shall I call it?—luck, perhaps?
Sincerely,
Maura Larkins
Note: I tried to fax the above letter to the fax number Commander Fotheringham gave me on May 30, 2012 for faxing the subpoena to him. My fax machine dialed the number, then the call was picked up. Next I heard a raspberry sound, and soon a man was telling me that if I'd like to make a call, I should hang up and dial again. I guess the guys who work for the Sheriff of Santa Barbara like to have fun. They seem to be really funny guys.
I think that it is highly unlikely that Commander Fotheringham or Sheriff Bill Brown contacted Judge Hayes. Here's the scenario I came up with for what most likely happened:
Commander Fotheringham may have talked to Michael Carlson. Michael Carlson went into cover-up mode (again). Carlson seems to have no remorse at all, not even for causing problems for the Sheriff of Santa Barbara. My guess is he thinks of himself as a victim. He has never indicated any regret for all the problems his actions caused to me, to my school district (including $100,000s in legal fees to defend Carlson's sister and others), and to the children in my school.
I imagine Michael Carlson would have called his attorney, Deborah Garvin, after Commander Fotheringham spoke to him. And perhaps his sister, Robin Donlan, who turned his misdemeanor into a huge mess for Chula Vista Elementary School District.
Deborah Garvin and Robin Donlan would probably each have contacted Dan Shinoff of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, with whom they worked in the earlier case involving Carlson.
And that's where the chain of likely events gets murky for me. What happened next???? I'm simply unable to conjure an explanation for what could have happened.
The minute order I received from Judge Hayes says that discovery is stayed.
But actually it's a lot more complicated. Hayes also finally made a decision about two of the three March 9, 2012 motions. After almost three months of silence, she finally denied my motion to set aside the summary adjudication, even though I was able to provide documentary evidence proving that the decision was deeply flawed.
For the past two months and three weeks she pretended that discovery was open--even gave us a discovery cut-off date--but obviously it was never really open, since the summary adjudication was never set aside. I suspected that I would be shut down the minute I started discovery, so I gave myself a long vacation (including a month in Washington DC) and waited as long as possible to start discovery.
Judge Hayes is still delaying (until August 27, 2012) her decision on Stutz' motion to strike my answer. There is absolutely no case law to support such a decision in a case with a history like this one. San Diego County Office of Education has also refused to allow discovery in this case. It even hired Stutz law firm to make sure Diane Crosier didn't have to take a deposition or produce documents. I recently filed a public records request to at least get the records.
I got a minute order from the San Diego Superior Court in the mail today. The timing is very, very strange. The last hearing in the case was March 9, 2012--two months and three weeks ago. My discussion with Commander Darin Fotheringham in the Santa Barbara Sheriff's office two days ago is the only event that I can connect even remotely to this bolt out of the blue.
June 1, 2012
Commander Darin Fotheringham
Office of the Sheriff of Santa Barbara
Dear Commander Fotheringham:
I was amused that on the very day I contacted you about my subpoena for business records from the Sheriff of Santa Barbara showing that Deputy Michael Carlson and his sister Robin Donlan involved Chula Vista Elementary School District in criminal actions, Judge Judith Hayes suspended all discovery in the case at issue.
My, my. The timing is fascinating. No papers had been filed asking that discovery be stayed. In fact, no papers had been filed in this case for two months.
I bow to your amazing—what shall I call it?—luck, perhaps?
Sincerely,
Maura Larkins
Note: I tried to fax the above letter to the fax number Commander Fotheringham gave me on May 30, 2012 for faxing the subpoena to him. My fax machine dialed the number, then the call was picked up. Next I heard a raspberry sound, and soon a man was telling me that if I'd like to make a call, I should hang up and dial again. I guess the guys who work for the Sheriff of Santa Barbara like to have fun. They seem to be really funny guys.
I think that it is highly unlikely that Commander Fotheringham or Sheriff Bill Brown contacted Judge Hayes. Here's the scenario I came up with for what most likely happened:
Commander Fotheringham may have talked to Michael Carlson. Michael Carlson went into cover-up mode (again). Carlson seems to have no remorse at all, not even for causing problems for the Sheriff of Santa Barbara. My guess is he thinks of himself as a victim. He has never indicated any regret for all the problems his actions caused to me, to my school district (including $100,000s in legal fees to defend Carlson's sister and others), and to the children in my school.
I imagine Michael Carlson would have called his attorney, Deborah Garvin, after Commander Fotheringham spoke to him. And perhaps his sister, Robin Donlan, who turned his misdemeanor into a huge mess for Chula Vista Elementary School District.
Deborah Garvin and Robin Donlan would probably each have contacted Dan Shinoff of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, with whom they worked in the earlier case involving Carlson.
And that's where the chain of likely events gets murky for me. What happened next???? I'm simply unable to conjure an explanation for what could have happened.
The minute order I received from Judge Hayes says that discovery is stayed.
But actually it's a lot more complicated. Hayes also finally made a decision about two of the three March 9, 2012 motions. After almost three months of silence, she finally denied my motion to set aside the summary adjudication, even though I was able to provide documentary evidence proving that the decision was deeply flawed.
For the past two months and three weeks she pretended that discovery was open--even gave us a discovery cut-off date--but obviously it was never really open, since the summary adjudication was never set aside. I suspected that I would be shut down the minute I started discovery, so I gave myself a long vacation (including a month in Washington DC) and waited as long as possible to start discovery.
Judge Hayes is still delaying (until August 27, 2012) her decision on Stutz' motion to strike my answer. There is absolutely no case law to support such a decision in a case with a history like this one. San Diego County Office of Education has also refused to allow discovery in this case. It even hired Stutz law firm to make sure Diane Crosier didn't have to take a deposition or produce documents. I recently filed a public records request to at least get the records.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)