IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
|
|
- Neil Singleton
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 E-FILED 2014 JAN PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY BELLE OF SIOUX CITY, L.P., v. Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant MISSOURI RIVER HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., Defendant Counterclaimant MISSOURI RIVER HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., v. Third Party Plaintiff, PENN NATIONAL GAMING, INC., Third Party Defendant, SIOUX CITY ENTERTAINMENT, INC., v. Intervenor, BELLE OF SIOUX CITY, L.P., and PENN NATIONAL GAMING, INC., Intervention Defendants. CL RULING ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM SERVED UPON DAVID BERNSTEIN AND CURTIS BEASON This matter came before the court on November 8, 2013, on the motions to quash subpoenas duces tecum served upon David Bernstein and Curtis Beason. Attorneys Mark Weinhardt and Steven Wandro represented Belle of Sioux City, L.P. ( Belle ). Attorney Douglas L. Phillips represented Missouri River Historical Development, Inc. ( MRHD ). Having 1
2 E-FILED 2014 JAN PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT reviewed the court file, considered the arguments of counsel for the parties, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the court makes the following ruling I. PERTINENT BACKGROUND INFORMATION The factual background to this matter was recently provided by the court in its ruling on Belle s motion to appoint a receiver and will not be repeated herein. During the course of discovery in this matter, Belle served David Bernstein ( Bernstein ) with a subpoena duces tecum seeking documents and communications relating to Bernstein s negotiations with Belle, negotiations with MRHD, and communications with any other individual or entity regarding Bernstein s affiliation with MRHD and the development of a land-based casino in Woodbury County. Belle also sought documents and communications regarding the exact date on which Bernstein became licensed with the IRGC, regarding any property interest Bernstein has relating to a land-based casino, and regarding numerous other specified subjects. Belle served Curtis Beason ( Beason ) with a subpoena duces tecum seeking documents and communications relating to Belle, relating to MRHD, relating to negotiations relating to the 2012 operating agreement extension, and relating to development of a land-based casino in Woodbury County. On June 14, 2013, MRHD filed its privilege log pertaining to the Bernstein and Beason subpoenas, asserting that attorney client privilege and work product privilege shielded numerous documents and communications from discovery. MRHD also asserted that other documents and communications were not relevant to any issues in the litigation. MRHD contemporaneously filed a motion to quash the Bernstein and Beason subpoenas and a supporting brief. In support of its motion to quash subpoenas, MRHD argues that the Bernstein subpoena is overly broad and burdensome as it seeks documents and communications with no set time period, and that the only relevant time period is from August 26, 2011 until July 6, MRHD 2
3 E-FILED 2014 JAN PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT argues that much of the requested information is not relevant to this case, as many categories of documents and communications sought have nothing to do with establishing a contract between Belle and MRHD, or with establishing any alleged breach of that contract. MRHD argues that the Bernstein and Beason subpoenas seek documents and communications protected by the attorney client privilege and work product privilege. MRHD also argues that Belle is attempting to abuse the discovery process in this civil litigation to obtain documents pertinent to its pending petitions for judicial review. Therefore, MRHD argues the subpoenas should be quashed. On June 24, 2013, Belle resisted the motions to quash the Bernstein and Beason subpoenas. Belle briefly withdrew its resistance during negotiations regarding discovery, then subsequently filed a brief in support of its resistance to the motions to quash on August 26, In support of its resistance, Belle argues that, overall, Bernstein s and Beason s interactions with MRHD and other entities are relevant to its claims against MRHD and that the motions to quash should be denied. Specific to the Bernstein subpoena, Belle argues that MRHD may not rely on the lack of relevance argument in refusing to produce requested documents dating before 2011, or after July 6, Belle argues that MRHD has failed to substantiate its claims that production of these documents would be burdensome. Therefore, Belle argues that Bernstein should be ordered to produce all responsive documents. Specific to the Beason subpoena, Belle argues that the attorney client privilege and work product privilege do not apply as Beason was not working as an attorney for Bernstein or MRHD when the subpoenaed documents and communications were created. Belle points to testimony from Bernstein regarding the role Beason played, and the fact that another individual claims Beason as his attorney, to show that Beason could not have represented Bernstein or MRHD during the times in question. Belle argues that any privilege attached to certain documents and 3
4 E-FILED 2014 JAN PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT communications was waived, and that other documents and communications do not originate from a client seeking legal advice. Therefore, Belle argues that Beason should be ordered to produce all responsive documents. On November 15, 2013, Belle supplemented its brief, identifying specific documents and communications from the Beason and Bernstein privilege logs which Belle asserts must be produced. Belle noted that it only challenged the documents identified in the brief supplement, and that Belle may later challenge other privilege log entries. From the Beason privilege log, Belle identifies numerous documents and communications with individuals outside of MRHD, and argues that disclosure of a document to a third party waives any applicable privilege. Therefore, Belle argues that the documents specifically identified in its brief supplement must be produced. Belle also identified specific documents and communications from the Bernstein privilege log, arguing that the documents identified are highly relevant to the claims brought against MRHD and must be produced. Belle argues that both Bernstein and Beason should be ordered to search for additional documents which fall under the subpoenas, dating back to at least January 1, Belle argues that MRHD s motions to quash should be denied in their entirety, that Bernstein and Beason should be ordered to provide full and complete responses to the subpoenas, and that documents improperly placed on privilege logs and all other responsive documents and communications should be produced. II. LEGAL STANDARD a. Discovery Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure provides 1.501(1) Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; 4
5 E-FILED 2014 JAN PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property, for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations; and requests for admission (2) The rules providing for discovery and inspection shall be liberally construed and shall be enforced to provide the parties with access to all relevant facts. Discovery shall be conducted in good faith, and responses to discovery requests, however made, shall fairly address and meet the substance of the request. Iowa R. Civ. P [Courts] begin [their] analysis by noting the philosophy underlying [Iowa s] discovery rules is that litigants are entitled to every person's evidence, and the law favors full access to relevant information. Thus, the district court should liberally construe our discovery rules. However, there are several avenues available to those who wish to resist discovery.... Rule 1.503, relating to scope of discovery, provides Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with the rules in this chapter, the scope of discovery is as follows 1.503(1) In general. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things... It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As this rule makes clear, a party is entitled to discover any information that is not privileged and that is relevant to the subject matter of the lawsuit. Relevancy to the subject matter of the lawsuit is broader than relevancy to the precise issues in the pleadings because the rule allows discovery of inadmissible information as long as it leads to the discovery of admissible evidence. Mediacom Iowa, L.L.C. v. Inc. City of Spencer, 682 N.W.2d 62, 66 (Iowa 2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted). When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under these rules by claiming that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material, the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, 5
6 E-FILED 2014 JAN PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection. Iowa R. Civ. P (5)(a). In a discovery dispute, the burden to establish an applicable privilege is on the party resisting discovery. If the privilege is established and the question becomes whether an exception to it applies, the burden of persuasion shifts to the proponent of the exception. City of Coralville v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Johnson Cnty., 634 N.W.2d 675, (Iowa 2001). b. Communications Protected by Privilege i. Requirements to Establish Attorney-Client Privilege Iowa Code section provides 1. A practicing attorney... who obtains information by reason of the person's employment,... shall not be allowed, in giving testimony, to disclose any confidential communication properly entrusted to the person in the person's professional capacity, and necessary and proper to enable the person to discharge the functions of the person's office according to the usual course of practice or discipline. 2. The prohibition does not apply to cases where the person in whose favor the prohibition is made waives the rights conferred; nor does the prohibition apply... in a civil action in which the condition of the person in whose favor the prohibition is made is an element or factor of the claim or defense of the person or of any party claiming through or under the person. The evidence is admissible upon trial of the action only as it relates to the condition alleged. Iowa Code (1) (2) (2013). The rule is quite clear that to constitute a privileged communication to an attorney there must be some element of confidence imposed in the attorney himself, and for him to accept that relationship it must be apparent that the transaction or his action in relation thereto is for the mutual benefit of the parties, knowingly and willingly seeking his professional services. Henke v. Iowa Home Mut. Cas. Co., 87 N.W.2d 920, (Iowa 1958). 6
7 E-FILED 2014 JAN PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT The party seeking to assert the privilege bears the burden to show an attorney-client relationship existed and that the communication was made in confidence. Keefe v. Bernard, 774 N.W.2d 663, 669 (Iowa 2009). ii. Requirements to Establish Work Product Privilege Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.503(3) provides Subject to the provisions of rule 1.508, a party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under rule 1.503(1) and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative (including the party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the case and that the party seeking discovery is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation. A party may obtain without the required showing a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that party. Upon request, a person not a party may obtain without the required showing a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that person. If the request is refused, the person may move for a court order. The provisions of rule 1.517(1)(d) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion. For purposes of this rule, a statement previously made is any of the following a. A written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it. b. A stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement by the person making it and contemporaneously recorded. Iowa R. Civ. P (3). Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.503(3) codifies a qualified immunity from discovery of materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. Keefe, 774 N.W.2d at 673. [T]he overarching inquiry in determining whether a document was prepared in anticipation of litigation is whether, in light of the nature of the document and the factual situation in the particular case, the document can fairly be said to have 7
8 E-FILED 2014 JAN PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation. If documents would have been created in essentially similar form irrespective of the litigation,... it cannot fairly be said that they were created because of actual or impending litigation. Wells Dairy, Inc. v. Am. Indus. Refrigeration, Inc., 690 N.W.2d 38, 48 (Iowa 2004) (internal citations, quotations, and brackets omitted). Attorney notes of a witness's statement created in anticipation of litigation are protected by work product privilege. Keefe, 774 N.W.2d at 673. Attorney notes have been held to be opinion work product. Attorney notes reveal an attorney's legal conclusions because, when taking notes, an attorney often focuses on those facts that she deems legally significant. Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). iii. Extension of the Attorney-Client and Work Product Privileges a. Joint Client Privilege Iowa recognizes an exception to the attorney-client privilege where two or more persons jointly consult with the same attorney to act for them in a matter of common interest. This exception is known as the joint-client exception.... Thus, when the same attorney acts for two parties, the communications are privileged from third persons in the controversy, but not in a subsequent controversy between the two parties. Brandon v. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 681 N.W.2d 633, 639 (Iowa 2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Brandon recognizes that a common interest exists where two or more parties consulted an attorney for the mutual benefit of the parties. Id. at 641. The Iowa Supreme Court characterized a common interest as two or more parties having an interest in some problem or situation. Id. When two or more persons, each having an interest in some problem, or situation, jointly consult an attorney, their confidential communications with the attorney, 8
9 E-FILED 2014 JAN PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT though known to each other, will of course be privileged in a controversy of either or both of the clients with the outside world, that is, with parties claiming adversely to both or either of those within the original charmed circle. But it will often happen that the two original clients will fall out between themselves and become engaged in a controversy in which the communications at their joint consultation with the lawyer may be vitally material. In such a controversy it is clear that the privilege is inapplicable. Id. (quoting 1 John W. Strong, McCormick on Evidence 91, at (5th ed.1999)). b. Common Interest / Joint Defense Privilege Though other jurisdictions have recognized the common interest, or joint defense, privilege, Iowa courts have not specifically recognized this extension of the attorney-client and work product privilege. The joint defense privilege is quite different from the joint client exception to the attorney-client privilege, which withholds the privilege from communications made in circumstances where two clients employ the same attorney for the same action, at least as far as the ability to assert the privilege against one of the joint clients. The joint defense privilege is not an independent privilege, but an extension of the privilege for attorney-client communications or the work product immunity, and only applied when conditions for the application of the attorney-client privilege or the work product privilege have been met. Lee R. Russ, Couch on Insurance Third Edition Joint Defense Privilege to Preclude Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege (Westlaw 2012) available at Westlaw 17A Couch on Ins [T]he common-interest doctrine, which expands the coverage of the attorneyclient privilege in certain situations[, provides] If two or more clients with a common interest in a litigated or nonlitigated matter are represented by separate lawyers and they agree to exchange information concerning the matter, a communication of any such client that otherwise qualifies as privileged... that relates to the matter is privileged as against third persons. Any such client may invoke the privilege, unless it has been waived by the client who made the communication. 9
10 E-FILED 2014 JAN PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910, 922 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS 76(1) (2000)). This doctrine softens the ordinary requirement that lawyer-client communications must be made in confidence in order to be protected by the privilege. Id. The so-called joint defense or common interest privilege, which protects communications among its participants from disclosure, is an extension of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Thomas G. Pasternak & R. David Donoghue, Making Joint Defense Agreements Work, 34 No. 4 LITIGATION 26 (Summer 2008). This protection has been extended to communications between different persons or separate corporations when the communications are part of an on-going and joint effort to set up a common defense strategy. In order to establish the existence of a joint defense privilege, the party asserting the privilege must show that (1) the communications were made in the course of a joint defense effort, (2) the statements were designed to further the effort and (3) the privilege has not been waived. Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 94 (3d Cir. 1992) (internal citations and quotations omitted). To be entitled to the protection of the joint-defense privilege, the parties must share a common interest about a legal matter and the term "common interest" typically entails an identical, or nearly identical, legal interest as opposed to a merely similar interest. However, it is unnecessary that there be actual litigation in progress for the joint-defense privilege to apply to parties sharing a common interest about a legal matter. Communications between potential codefendants and their counsel are protected under the common legal interest theory if, at the time of the communications, there is a palpable threat of litigation, rather than a mere awareness that one's questionable conduct might some day result in litigation; a cognizable, common legal interest does not exist where a group of individuals seeks legal counsel not to prepare for future litigation but only to avoid conduct that might lead to litigation. 81 AM. JUR. 2D Witnesses 368 (internal footnotes omitted). Under the privilege, any member of a client set a client, the client's agent for communication, the client's lawyer, and the lawyer's agent (see 70) can exchange communications with members of a similar client set. However, a communication directly among the clients is not privileged unless made for the 10
11 E-FILED 2014 JAN PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT purpose of communicating with a privileged person as defined in 70. A person who is not represented by a lawyer and who is not himself or herself a lawyer cannot participate in a common-interest arrangement within this Section. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS 76(d) (2000) Exchanging communications may be predicated on an express agreement, but formality is not required. It may pertain to litigation or to other matters. Separately represented clients do not, by the mere fact of cooperation under this Section, impliedly undertake to exchange all information concerning the matter of common interest. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS 76, cmt. c (2000) iv. Waiver / Disclosure The attorney-client privilege may be waived. The waiver may be express or implied. It may be based not only on words expressing intent to waive, but conduct making it unfair for a client to invoke the privilege. Thus, we recognize waiver occurs when a person holding a privilege discloses or, for purposes of discovery, plans to disclose privileged matters. Brandon, 681 N.W.2d at 642 (internal citations and quotations omitted). If privileged communications are revealed, then waiver occurs. Id. [T]he waiver of the privilege by sharing it with third persons requires that the sharing be done by the client. State v. Jackson, 587 N.W.2d 764, 766 (Iowa 1998). However, disclosures made by attorneys may waive the attorney-client and work product privileges, just as disclosures made by clients. See Young v. Gibson, 423 N.W.2d 208, (Iowa Ct. App. 1988). [I]n some situations joint clients' interests may be so intrinsically adverse as to make a finding of a joint-client relationship untenable[.] [T]he critical time for determining whether an attorney-client relationship exists is when the relationship is formed. Coralville, 634 N.W.2d at
12 E-FILED 2014 JAN PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT III. ANALYSIS a. Beason Privilege Log Documents In its motion to quash, MRHD asserts that the documents and communication identified by Belle in its supplemental brief are privileged; therefore, it is MRHD s burden to show the privilege exists. Keefe, 774 N.W.2d 669. As pointed out by Belle, Beason s privilege log entries 1 6, 8 29, 37, and each provide that the document or communication was shared with Brian Ohorilko and/or other members of the IRGC. There has been no showing that Beason was acting as an attorney for the IRGC in these communications. Likewise, there has been no showing that any extension of the attorney client privilege under the joint client or common interest / joint representation doctrine applies here. There has been no showing that the parties involved in the communications had a common, or nearly identical, interest in the litigated matter, and no showing that the communications detailed in the supplemental brief were made in the course of any joint defense effort. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d at 922; Haines, 975 F.2d at 94; 81 AM. JUR. 2D Witnesses 368. The court finds no attorney client privilege exists to protect these documents and communications from production. The court further finds that the disclosure of these documents and communications to Ohorilko and members of the IRGC waived any privilege, were a privilege to exist. MRHD s motion to quash relating to these documents must be denied. 1 Further, MRHD has provided no evidence to show that Beason s privilege log entries 7, 31 36, 38 43, and are protected by a privilege. Even if a privilege did exist, the court finds that privilege waived by the disclosure of these documents and communications to a third 1 Given the court s finding that waiver through disclosure defeats any privilege claim, the motion to quash based on the work product privilege similarly fails. 12
13 E-FILED 2014 JAN PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT party with whom no privilege was shared. MRHD s motion to quash relating to these documents must be denied. 2 b. Bernstein Privilege Log Documents In support of its motion to quash, MRHD also argues that certain items in Bernstein s privilege log are not relevant to this matter. As Belle points out in its supplemental brief, entries in the Bernstein privilege log relate to Bernstein s interactions with MRHD, individual members of MRHD, and other related individuals and entities in Woodbury County. As provided by rule 1.503, a party is entitled to discover any information... relevant to the subject matter of the lawsuit. Relevancy to the subject matter of the lawsuit is broader than relevancy to the precise issues in the pleadings because the rule allows discovery of inadmissible information as long as it leads to the discovery of admissible evidence. Mediacom Iowa, L.L.C., 682 N.W.2d at 66 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The court finds that the Bernstein privilege log documents and communications identified by Belle in its supplemental brief are relevant to the subject matter of the law suit, and, regardless of these communications admissibility, may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, the court concludes that MRHD s motion to quash regarding these documents must be denied. c. General Relevance and Burden Arguments MRHD asserts that other documents and communications requested in the Bernstein and Beason subpoenas are not relevant, and that the requests are overly burdensome. As discussed above, the court finds that, overall; the documents and communications subpoenaed are relevant to the subject matter of the law suit and may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The 2 The court notes that Belle is only challenging the assertions of privilege over the documents and communications specifically identified in its supplemental brief. Therefore this court s order regarding production of these documents and communications is limited to only those identified in Belle s supplemental brief. 13
14 E-FILED 2014 JAN PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT court also finds that, given the relatively short span of time in which the alleged actions leading to this suit occurred, the production of the subpoenaed documents and communications is not overly burdensome. Therefore, the court concludes that MRHD s motion to quash based on these arguments must be denied and MRHD may not rely on the relevance or burden arguments to resist production of documents under these subpoenas. IV. JUDGMENT IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that MRHD s motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum served upon David Bernstein and Curtis Beason is DENIED. David Bernstein and Curtis Beason are ordered to produce any and all documents or things responsive to said subpoenas duces tecum as more specifically identified in Belle s supplemental brief within ten (10) days of the entry of this order. DATED January 2, ROBERT B. HANSON, District Judge Fifth Judicial District of Iowa 14
15 E-FILED 2014 JAN PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT Copies to Douglas L. Phillips Klass Law Firm, L.L.P Sergeant Road, Suite 290 Sioux City, IA phillips@klasslaw.com Mark E. Weinhardt Weinhardt & Logan, P.C Grand Avenue, Suite 210 Des Moines, IA mweinhardt@weinhardtlogan.com Steven Wandro 2501 Grand Avenue, Suite B Des Moines, IA swandro@2501grand.com 15
16 E-FILED 2014 JAN PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT State of Iowa Courts Type Case Number LACL OTHER ORDER Case Title BELLE OF SIOUX CITY LP VS MISSOURI RIVER HISTORICAL So Ordered Electronically signed on page 16 of 16
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
1 of 7 10/10/2005 11:14 AM Federal Rules of Civil Procedure collection home tell me more donate search V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY > Rule 26. Prev Next Notes Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery;
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND R U L E S O R D E R. This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND R U L E S O R D E R This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure having submitted its One Hundred Fifty-Second Report to the Court, recommending
More informationRule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure [ Proposed Amendment ]
Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure [ Proposed Amendment ] (a) Required Disclosures; Methods to Discover Additional Matter. (1) Initial Disclosures. Except to the extent
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 1A Article 5 1
Article 5. Depositions and Discovery. Rule 26. General provisions governing discovery. (a) Discovery methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral
More informationINVESTIGATIONS, ATTORNEYS & PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
INVESTIGATIONS, ATTORNEYS & PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS Wes Bearden, CEO Attorney & Licensed Investigator Bearden Investigative Agency, Inc. www.beardeninvestigations.com PRIVILEGE KEY POINTS WE ALL KNOW
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 H 1 HOUSE BILL 380. Short Title: Amend RCP/Electronically Stored Information.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 0 H 1 HOUSE BILL 0 Short Title: Amend RCP/Electronically Stored Information. (Public) Sponsors: Representatives Glazier, T. Moore, Ross, and Jordan (Primary Sponsors).
More informationS ~E. Pe~ioner, Case No. Ct1 93?
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY BELLE OF SIOUX CITY, UP. S ~E. Pe~ioner, Case No. Ct1 93? ~Ev. ~ = PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW LdIOy~& RARING AND GAMING CO~MIS~ON, Defe ndant-respondent COMES
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 1 0 1 McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney KENDALL J. NEWMAN Assistant U.S. Attorney 01 I Street, Suite -0 Sacramento, CA 1 Telephone: ( -1 GREGORY G. KATSAS Acting Assistant Attorney General
More informationBEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA. v. Polk County Case No. CVCV IOWA RACING AND GAMING COMISSION, SCE PARTNERS, LLC,
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA BELLE OF SIOUX CITY, L.P. Petitioner/Appellant, Supreme Court No. 14-1158 ELECTRONICALLY FILED DEC 05, 2014 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT v. Polk County Case No. CVCV04779 1 IOWA
More informationPART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY
PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8 Overview of the Discovery Process The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure regulate civil discovery procedures in the state. Florida does not require supplementary responses to
More informationDISCOVERY & E-DISCOVERY
DISCOVERY & E-DISCOVERY The Supreme Court of Hawai i seeks public comment regarding proposals to amend Rules 26, 30, 33, 34, 37, and 45 of the Hawai i Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposals clarifies
More informationThe attorney-client privilege
BY TIMOTHY J. MILLER AND ANDREW P. SHELBY TIMOTHY J. MILLER is partner and general counsel at Novack and Macey LLP. As co-chair of the firm s legal malpractice defense group, he represents law firms and
More informationCase 3:08-cv JA Document 103 Filed 09/27/10 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Case :0-cv-0-JA Document 0 Filed 0//0 Page of 0 BETTY ANN MULLINS, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 0 Plaintiff v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OF PUERTO RICO, et al., Defendants
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
AO 88B (Rev. 06/09 Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Eastern District of of Michigan AETNA
More informationCase 3:16-cv JAM Document 50 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
Case 3:16-cv-00054-JAM Document 50 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT SUPREME FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL KENNEDY and FERRELL WELCH,
More informationPennsylvania Code Rules Rule and
Pennsylvania Code Rules Rule 4003.3 and 4003.5 Reference Sources: http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/231/chapter4000/s4003.3.html http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/231/chapter4000/s4003.5.html Rule 4003.3.
More informationCase: 1:10-cv Document #: 189 Filed: 11/09/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:2937
Case: 1:10-cv-02348 Document #: 189 Filed: 11/09/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:2937 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LORI WIGOD; DAN FINLINSON; and SANDRA
More informationTEXAS DISCOVERY. Brock C. Akers CHAPTER 1 LAW REVISIONS TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERNING DISCOVERY
TEXAS DISCOVERY Brock C. Akers CHAPTER 1 LAW 2. 1999 REVISIONS TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERNING DISCOVERY 3. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLANS 4. FORMS OF DISCOVERY A. Discovery Provided for by the Texas
More informationTHE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT 31 U.S.C
THE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733 Reflecting proposed amendments in S. 386, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, as passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 6, 2009
More informationASSERTING, CONTESTING, AND PRESERVING PRIVILEGES UNDER THE NEW RULES OF DISCOVERY
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON LAW FOUNDATION CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION ADVANCED CIVIL DISCOVERY UNDER THE NEW RULES June 1-2, 2000 Dallas, Texas June 8-9, 2000 Houston, Texas ASSERTING, CONTESTING, AND PRESERVING
More informationSTATE OF VERMONT VERMONT SUPREME COURT TERM, Order Promulgating Amendments to Rules 16.2 and 26 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure
PROPOSED STATE OF VERMONT VERMONT SUPREME COURT TERM, 2018 Order Promulgating Amendments to Rules 16.2 and 26 of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure Pursuant to the Vermont Constitution, Chapter II, Section
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PREMIUM BEEF FEEDERS, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 13-CV-1168-EFM-TJJ MEMORANDUM AND
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO.: Civ-Martinez
Gainor v. Sidley, Austin, Brow Doc. 34 Case 1:06-cv-21748-JEM Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2007 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MARK J. GAINOR, Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 6:08-cv-01159-JTM -DWB Document 923 Filed 12/22/10 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 08-1159-JTM
More informationSTIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
Filed D.C. Sl\p"~rj:)r 10 Apr: ]() P03:07 Clerk ot Court C'j'FI. STEVEN 1. ROSEN Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION v. Case No.: 09 CA 001256 B Judge Erik P. Christian
More information2:14-cv RMG Date Filed 06/03/15 Entry Number 72 Page 1 of 9
2:14-cv-02567-RMG Date Filed 06/03/15 Entry Number 72 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION East Bridge Lofts Property Owners ) Civil Action
More informationDavid J. Bright MAINTAINING THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DURING COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND CORPORATE EMPLOYEES
MAINTAINING THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DURING COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND CORPORATE EMPLOYEES David J. Bright Direct Number: (515) 286-7015 Facsimile: (515) 286-7050 E-Mail: djbright@nyemaster.com
More information31 U.S.C. Section 3733 Civil investigative demands
CLICK HERE to return to the home page 31 U.S.C. Section 3733 Civil investigative demands (a) In General. (1)Issuance and service. Whenever the Attorney General, or a designee (for purposes of this section),
More informationAMENDED RULE 26 EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
CONSTRUCTION H. JAMES WULFSBERG, ESQ. Wulfsberg Reese Colvig & Fristman Professional Corporation DAVID J. HYNDMAN, ESQ. Wulfsberg Reese Colvig & Fristman Professional Corporation navigant.com About Navigant
More informationThis opinion is subject to revision before publication in the Pacific Reporter. IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS. ----ooooo---- ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
This opinion is subject to revision before publication in the Pacific Reporter. IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooooo---- Sabrina Rahofy, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, Lynn Steadman, an individual; and
More informationCase 2:08-cv GLF-NMK Document 78 Filed 01/20/10 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:08-cv-00575-GLF-NMK Document 78 Filed 01/20/10 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JOHN DOE, et al., Case No. 02:08 CV 575 Plaintiffs,
More informationIOWA. A. Requirements for Recovery of Medical Expenses. Under Iowa law, an injured plaintiff may recover the reasonable value of necessary medical
IOWA Richard J. Sapp Christian P. Walk NYEMASTER, GOODE, WEST, HANSELL & O BRIEN, P.C. 700 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: 515-283-3100 Facsimile: 515-283-8045 rjs@nyemaster.com
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2005 KELLY MATLACK, Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D04-2978 JAMES DAY, Respondent. / Opinion filed July 15, 2005 Petition for
More informationDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. Board Rules
District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility Board Rules Adopted June 23, 1983 Effective July 1, 1983 This edition represents a complete revision of the Board Rules. All previous
More informationLaRoche vs. Champlain Oil Company Inc. et al ENTRY REGARDING MOTION
STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT Bennington Unit CIVIL DIVISION Docket No. 363-10-15 Bncv LaRoche vs. Champlain Oil Company Inc. et al ENTRY REGARDING MOTION Count 1, Personal Injury - Slip & Fall (363-10-15
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D02-289
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2002 VESTA FIRE INSURANCE, ETC. Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 5D02-289 GLADYS FIGUEROA, Respondent. / Opinion filed July 26, 2002
More informationThe Common Interest Privilege in Bankruptcy: Recent Trends and Practical Guidance
The Common Interest Privilege in Bankruptcy: Recent Trends and Practical Guidance By Elliot Moskowitz* I. Introduction The common interest privilege (sometimes known as the community of interest privilege,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE Event Service of Complaint Scheduled Time Total Time After Complaint Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks Initial
More informationChicago False Claims Act
Chicago False Claims Act Chapter 1-21 False Statements 1-21-010 False Statements. Any person who knowingly makes a false statement of material fact to the city in violation of any statute, ordinance or
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 138 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2059
Case: 1:13-cv-01418 Document #: 138 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2059 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LISLEWOOD CORPORATION, v. AT&T CORPORATION, AT&T
More informationR in a Nutshell by Mark Meltzer and John W. Rogers
R-17-0010 in a Nutshell by Mark Meltzer and John W. Rogers R-17-0010 was a rule petition filed by the Supreme Court s Committee on Civil Justice Reform in January 2017. The Supreme Court s Order in R-17-0010,
More informationAttorney s BriefCase Beyond the Basics Depositions in Family Law Matters
Attorney s BriefCase Beyond the Basics Depositions in Family Law Matters Code of Civil Procedure 1985.8 Subpoena seeking electronically stored information (a)(1) A subpoena in a civil proceeding may require
More informationCase 2:05-cv TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-00195-TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DIGITAL CHOICE OF TEXAS, LLC V. CIVIL NO. 2:05-CV-195(TJW)
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/16/ :58 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/16/2017. Exhibit D
Exhibit D SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY ----------------------------------------------------------------- MAARTEN DE JONG, -against- WILCO FAESSEN, Plaintiff, Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------------
More informationbeing preempted by the court's criminal calendar.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF «County» «PlaintiffName», vs. «DefendantName», Plaintiff, Defendant. Case No. «CaseNumber» SCHEDULING
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
Brighton Crossing Condominium Association et al v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company Doc. 52 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION BRIGHTON CROSSING CONDOMINIUM
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2013 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/10/2013. Exhibit 2
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/10/2013 INDEX NO. 650587/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 265 RECEIVED NYSCEF 09/10/2013 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationCase 8:12-cv JDW-EAJ Document 112 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2875 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:12-cv-00557-JDW-EAJ Document 112 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2875 BURTON W. WIAND, as Court-Appointed Receiver for Scoop Real Estate, L.P., et al. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE
More informationCorporate Depositions: Limiting In-House Counsel Depos and Selecting/Preparing Employees for 30(b)(6) Depos
Kansas Missouri Corporate Depositions: Limiting In-House Counsel Depos and Selecting/Preparing Employees for 30(b)(6) Depos February 15, 2017 Association of Corporate Counsel Mid-America Chapter Preventing
More informationM.R IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Effective January 1, 2013, Illinois Rule of Evidence 502 is adopted, as follows.
M.R. 24138 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Order entered November 28, 2012. Effective January 1, 2013, Illinois Rule of Evidence 502 is adopted, as follows. ILLINOIS RULES OF EVIDENCE Article
More informationAlliance Bank & Trust Company ( Alliance Bank ) ( First Motion to Compel ); Plaintiffs
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA MECKLENBURG COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 11 CVS 9668 WNC HOLDINGS, LLC, MASON VENABLE and HAROLD KEE, Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANCE BANK & TRUST COMPANY,
More informationSection 1: Statement of Purpose Section 2: Voluntary Discovery Section 3: Discovery by Order of the Court... 2
Discovery in Criminal Cases Table of Contents Section 1: Statement of Purpose... 2 Section 2: Voluntary Discovery... 2 Section 3: Discovery by Order of the Court... 2 Section 4: Mandatory Disclosure by
More informationFiling an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12
ADVISORY LITIGATION PRIVATE EQUITY CONVERGENT Filing an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12 Michael Stegawski michael@cla-law.com 800.750.9861 x101 This memorandum is provided for
More informationCase 3:12-cv L Document 201 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 4769
Case 3:12-cv-00853-L Document 201 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 4769 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MANUFACTURERS COLLECTION COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff,
More informationDISCOVERY- LOCAL RULES JUSTICE COURTS OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
DISCOVERY- LOCAL RULES JUSTICE COURTS OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS EFFECTIVE: JULY 1, 2015 TARRANT COUNTY JUSTICE COURTS - LOCAL RULES FOR DISCOVERY OBJECTIVES In accordance with law, the Justice Courts conduct
More informationPlaintiff, Defendant. GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 1. The following responses are without in any way waiving or intending to waive:
STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Acme Home & Garden, LLC, v. John Doe, Plaintiff, DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Contract Court File No.: xx-cv-xx-xxx DEFENDANT S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION JENNIFER A. INGRAM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 01-0308-CV-W-3-ECF ) MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE ) COMPANY,
More informationJudgment Rendered FEB I
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2005 CA 1981 AMITECH U S A LTD VERSUS NOTTINGHAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Gt Judgment Rendered FEB I 4 2007 On Appeal from the
More informationWASHINGTON STATE MEDICAID FRAUD FALSE CLAIMS ACT. This chapter may be known and cited as the medicaid fraud false claims act.
Added by Chapter 241, Laws 2012. Effective date June 7, 2012. RCW 74.66.005 Short title. WASHINGTON STATE MEDICAID FRAUD FALSE CLAIMS ACT This chapter may be known and cited as the medicaid fraud false
More informationMAINE BAR ADMISSION RULES
Last reviewed and edited October 10, 2014 Includes amendments effective October 14, 2014 MAINE BAR ADMISSION RULES I. SCOPE AND PURPOSE Rule 1. Scope. 2. Purpose. Table of Rules II. THE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS
More informationDEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION. Notice; Method of Taking; Production at Deposition.
RULE 1.310. DEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION (a) When Depositions May Be Taken. After commencement of the action any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-00-ckj Document Filed // Page of Emilie Bell (No. 0) BELL LAW PLC 0 N. Pacesetter Way Scottsdale, Arizona Telephone: (0) - E-mail: ebell@belllawplc.com Attorney for Plaintiff Western Surety Company
More informationCase: 4:11-cv JAR Doc. #: 93 Filed: 04/20/17 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 710
Case: 4:11-cv-00523-JAR Doc. #: 93 Filed: 04/20/17 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 710 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT ) OF AMERICAN RIVER
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. TOYO TIRE U.S.A. CORP., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No: 14 C 206 )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TOYO TIRE & RUBBER CO., LTD., and TOYO TIRE U.S.A. CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Case No: 14 C 206 ATTURO TIRE CORP., and SVIZZ-ONE Judge
More informationPrompt Remedial Action and Waiver of Privilege
Prompt Remedial Action and Waiver of Privilege by Monica L. Goebel and John B. Nickerson Workplace Harassment In order to avoid liability for workplace harassment, an employer must show that it exercised
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION THE JOHN ERNST LUCKEN REVOCABLE TRUST, and JOHN LUCKEN and MARY LUCKEN, Trustees, Plaintiffs, No. 16-CV-4005-MWB vs.
More informationCase: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883
Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883 LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al., and ROBERT HART, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/23/ :51 AM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2015 EXHIBIT B
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/23/2015 1151 AM INDEX NO. 651659/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF 02/23/2015 EXHIBIT B SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------------
More information231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. 1 Definition No. 5 provides that identify when used in regard to a communication includes providing the substance of the communication.
More informationA Live 90-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive Q&A
presents Multi-Defendant Patent Litigation: Controlling Costs and Pooling Resources Strategies for Joint Defense Groups, Joint Defense Agreements, and Privilege Issues A Live 90-Minute Teleconference/Webinar
More informationFLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT OF SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS
FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT OF SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT OF SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS... 1 RULE 4.010. SCOPE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Plaintiff, Civil Action File No.: v. Defendant. CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER By stipulation and agreement of the parties,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Case:-mc-00-RS Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION PERSONAL AUDIO LLC, Plaintiff, v. TOGI ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and others, Defendants.
More informationMOTION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS FOR AN ORDER ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH 11 U.S.C.
KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 715-3275 Facsimile: (212) 715-8000 Thomas Moers Mayer Kenneth H. Eckstein Robert T. Schmidt Adam
More informationPART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS
PART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS What this Part is about: This Part is designed to resolve issues and questions arising in the course of a Court action. It includes rules describing how applications
More informationO.C.G.A. TITLE 23 Chapter 3 Article 6. GEORGIA CODE Copyright 2015 by The State of Georgia All rights reserved.
O.C.G.A. TITLE 23 Chapter 3 Article 6 GEORGIA CODE Copyright 2015 by The State of Georgia All rights reserved. *** Current Through the 2015 Regular Session *** TITLE 23. EQUITY CHAPTER 3. EQUITABLE REMEDIES
More informationResolution Through the Courts TEI Audits & Appeals Seminar
Resolution Through the Courts TEI Audits & Appeals Seminar May 3, 2018 Carley Roberts Partner Tim Gustafson Counsel 2018 (US) LLP All Rights Reserved. This communication is for general informational purposes
More informationFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 12/28/ :30 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/28/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS SUPPLYTEK INTERNATIONAL, LLC, D/B/A/ LASERTONE, AND LASERTONE, CORP.,.: Index No.: 508465/2017 Plaintiffs, : Assigned Justice: Hon. Lawrence Knipel
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/ :00 PM INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 461 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/18/2016
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/18/2016 0700 PM INDEX NO. 650587/2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 461 RECEIVED NYSCEF 11/18/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PLAINTIFF(S), Plaintiff(s), Case No. RG CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER RE: DESIGNATED DEFENSE COUNSEL DEFENDANTS, et al., ASSIGNED FOR ALL PRE-TRIAL PURPOSES TO: DEPARTMENT
More informationHAWAII ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TITLE 12 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SUBTITLE 7 BOARDS CHAPTER 47
HAWAII ADMINISTRATIVE RULES TITLE 12 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS SUBTITLE 7 BOARDS CHAPTER 47 LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Subchapter 1
More informationIN THE STATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA
IN THE STATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA PATRICK C. DESMOND, MARY C. DESMOND, Individually, and MARY C. DESMOND, as Administratrix of the Estate of PATRICK W. DESMOND v. Plaintiffs, NARCONON
More informationFILED: NIAGARA COUNTY CLERK 08/15/ :34 AM INDEX NO. E157285/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 42 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/15/2017 EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT F Case 1:14-md-02543-JMF Document 812 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationTitle 5: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND SERVICES
Title 5: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND SERVICES Chapter 10: UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES Table of Contents Part 1. STATE DEPARTMENTS... Section 205-A. SHORT TITLE... 3 Section 206. DEFINITIONS... 3 Section 207.
More informationStreamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures
RESOLUTIONS, LLC s GUIDE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures 1. Scope of Rules The RESOLUTIONS, LLC Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures ("Rules") govern binding
More informationRhode Island False Claims Act
Rhode Island False Claims Act 9-1.1-1. Name of act. [Effective until February 15, 2008.] This chapter may be cited as the State False Claims Act. 9-1.1-2. Definitions. [Effective until February 15, 2008.]
More informationDepartment of Labor Relations TABLE OF CONTENTS. Connecticut State Labor Relations Act. Article I. Description of Organization and Definitions
Relations TABLE OF CONTENTS Connecticut State Labor Relations Act Article I Description of Organization and Definitions Creation and authority....................... 31-101- 1 Functions.................................
More informationThe 30.02(6), or 30(b)(6), Witness: Proper Notice, Preparation, and Deposition Techniques
The 30.02(6), or 30(b)(6), Witness: Proper Notice, Preparation, and Deposition Techniques Materials By: James Bryan Moseley Moseley & Moseley, Attorneys At Law 237 Castlewood Drive, Suite D Murfreesboro,
More informationEXHIBIT J To THE DECLARATION OF HOLLY GAUDREAU IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXPEDITED
Case3:11-cv-00167-SI Document62-11 Filed02/04/11 Page1 of 6 EXHIBIT J To THE DECLARATION OF HOLLY GAUDREAU IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY Case3:11-cv-00167-SI Document62-11 Filed02/04/11
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA Plaintiff Case No. RG11 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER re: DESIGNATED DEFENSE COUNSEL, et al., ASSIGNED FOR ALL PRE-TRIAL PURPOSES TO: JUDGE JO-LYNNE Q. LEE DEPARTMENT
More informationARBITRATION: CHALLENGES TO A MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION: CHALLENGES TO A MOTION TO COMPEL TARA L. SOHLMAN 214.712.9563 Tara.Sohlman@cooperscully.com 2019 This paper and/or presentation provides information on general legal issues. I is not intended
More informationCase 1:17-mc DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:17-mc-00105-DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 20 Case 1:17-mc-00105-DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 2 of 20 but also DENIES Jones Day s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. Applicants may
More informationLegal Ethics of Metadata or Mining for Data About Data
Legal Ethics of Metadata or Mining for Data About Data Peter L. Ostermiller Attorney at Law 239 South Fifth Street Suite 1800 Louisville, KY 40202 peterlo@ploesq.com www.ploesq.com Overview What is Metadata?
More informationCASE NO. 1D J. Stephen O'Hara, Jr., Jeffrey J. Humphries, Kathryn N. Slade of O'Hara Harlvorsen Humphries, PA, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA MELINDA BUTLER, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-1342
More informationColorado Medicaid False Claims Act
Colorado Medicaid False Claims Act (C.R.S. 25.5-4-303.5 to 310) i 25.5-4-303.5. Short title This section and sections 25.5-4-304 to 25.5-4-310 shall be known and may be cited as the "Colorado Medicaid
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 4:14-cv-01421-AGF Doc. #: 75 Filed: 06/23/15 Page: 1 of 15 PageID #: 574 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION KIRBY PEMBERTON, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v.
More informationDECISION SHEET OF THE OIL & GAS APPELLATE REFEREEF COBALT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC COMMERCIAL DISPOSAL WELL (FORM 1015)
DECISION SHEET OF THE OIL & GAS APPELLATE REFEREEF I L E UG 2 02014 D APPLICANT: RELIEF SOUGHT COBALT ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC COMMERCIAL DISPOSAL WELL (FORM 1015) COURT CLERKS OFFICE OKC CORPORATION
More informationLA. REV. STAT. ANN. 9:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. In this [Act]: (1) Arbitration organization means an association, agency, board, commission, or other entity that is neutral and initiates, sponsors, or administers an arbitration
More informationDISQUALIFICATION OF THE ADVOCATE/WITNESS Adopted June 18, 1988 Revised June 18, 1994, May 10, 1997 and October 20, 2012
As revised by Editing Subcommittee 2/20/2013 78 DISQUALIFICATION OF THE ADVOCATE/WITNESS Adopted June 18, 1988 Revised June 18, 1994, May 10, 1997 and October 20, 2012 Introduction and Scope This opinion
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
ALEXEI G. ESTRADA, M.D. Plaintiff 92663465 92663465 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO Case No: CV-14-834630 Judge: MICHAEL E JACKSON ERICA J. GLANCY, M.D. Defendant JOURNAL ENTRY PLAINTIFF
More information