Filed: Sep. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM LAURIE SMITH CAMP , Chief District Judge . On September 13, 2018, the undersigned was contacted in chambers telephonically by Katherine Matthews, counsel for the United States of America, Plaintiff in Case No. 8:16cv233, Maegan Woita, counsel for the State of Nebraska, Plaintiff in Case No. 8:16cv351, William Dittrick, counsel for Defendants in both cases, and James Luers of Wolfe, Snowden, Hurd, Luers, and Ahl, LLP, representing deponent Jack Wolfe, in the midst of his depositio
Summary: MEMORANDUM LAURIE SMITH CAMP , Chief District Judge . On September 13, 2018, the undersigned was contacted in chambers telephonically by Katherine Matthews, counsel for the United States of America, Plaintiff in Case No. 8:16cv233, Maegan Woita, counsel for the State of Nebraska, Plaintiff in Case No. 8:16cv351, William Dittrick, counsel for Defendants in both cases, and James Luers of Wolfe, Snowden, Hurd, Luers, and Ahl, LLP, representing deponent Jack Wolfe, in the midst of his deposition..
More
MEMORANDUM
LAURIE SMITH CAMP, Chief District Judge.
On September 13, 2018, the undersigned was contacted in chambers telephonically by Katherine Matthews, counsel for the United States of America, Plaintiff in Case No. 8:16cv233, Maegan Woita, counsel for the State of Nebraska, Plaintiff in Case No. 8:16cv351, William Dittrick, counsel for Defendants in both cases, and James Luers of Wolfe, Snowden, Hurd, Luers, and Ahl, LLP, representing deponent Jack Wolfe, in the midst of his deposition. Counsel for the Plaintiffs represented that the Defendants had voluntarily disclosed purported attorney-client communications with Wolfe, asserting an advice-of-counsel defense, yet now invoked attorney-client privilege to preclude counsel for Plaintiffs from verifying the accuracy of the disclosures. Accordingly, deponent Wolfe declined to respond to the questions, asserting his former clients' privilege.
The Court directed the deponent to respond to questions from Plaintiffs' counsel in the scope of the purported waiver, and acknowledged the preservation of Defendants' objection for the record and with respect to any future use of the testimony. See United States v. Workman, 138 F.3d 1261, 1263 (8th Cir. 1998).
