Wichansky v. Zowine et al

Filing 281

ORDER re: 279 Report - Other filed by Charles Johnson, Michael Narducci, Zoel Holding Company Incorporated, Kai Knowlton, Brett Costello, Martha Leon, Justin Grant, Alisa Ilardo, MGA Home Healthcare LLC, Mike Ilardo, Patricia Gonzale z, Sarah Shanahan, Pat Shanahan, Don Maniccia, David T Zowine, Andrea Costello, Karina Zowine, Rio Mayo, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearing as to 279 Report - Other, 263 First MOTION in Limine re: Evidence of Initmidation and Manipulation, 264 Second MOTION in Limine re: Elizabeth Hogue Expert Report: Responses due 11/16/2015. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/27/2015. (DGC, nvo)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Marc A. Wichansky,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-13-01208-PHX-DGC

David T. Zowine, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

The Court has reviewed the matrix submitted by the parties pursuant to the Court’s

16

direction. Doc. 279. The numbered paragraphs that follow correspond to the issues

17

identified in the matrix.

18

1.

Mr. Quinlan instructed Defendant Zowine not to answer questions about

19

three subjects: an email produced in the litigation, Mr. Zowine’s alleged gambling, and

20

Mr. Zowine’s mental health. Defendants do not dispute that these instructions were

21

given, but argue that the first category of questions concerned a document Mr. Quinlan

22

thought should be sequestered (Defendants do not say why). Defendants no longer claim

23

the document should be sequestered. Defendants assert that the latter two categories of

24

questions were irrelevant.

25

Rule 30(c)(2) is clear:

26

An objection at the time of the examination – whether to evidence, to a
party’s conduct, to the officer’s qualifications, to the manner of taking the
deposition, or to any other aspect of the deposition – must be noted on the
record, but the examination still proceeds; the testimony is taken subject to

27
28

1
2

any objection. . . . A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only
when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by
the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).

3
4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) (emphasis added).

5

Mr. Quinlan’s instructions were improper. Defendants do not contend that his

6

instruction not to answer questions about the document was based on a privilege or was

7

given to enforce a limitation ordered by the Court, and Defendants never presented a

8

motion under Rule 30(d)(3) with respect to the document. And instructions not to answer

9

based on irrelevancy are improper. See, e.g., Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dabney, 73 F.3d

10

262, 266 (10th Cir. 1995) (“It is inappropriate to instruct a witness not to answer a

11

question on the basis of relevance.”).

12

Plaintiff may resume the deposition of Mr. Zowine, to inquire into these three

13

topics only, in connection with other litigation events that will require Plaintiff’s counsel

14

to be in Phoenix. The resumed deposition will be limited to one hour. The Court makes

15

no determination regarding the relevancy of these topics at trial. Mr. Quinlan shall pay

16

the cost of the court reporter for this one-hour deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2). The

17

Court will not require payment of travel expenses for Plaintiff’s counsel because the

18

deposition will be held in connection with other Phoenix events, nor will the Court

19

require payment of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees because those fees would have been

20

incurred in completing the questioning if the instructions had not been given.1

21

2.

The Court has reviewed the portions of the Glassman transcript provided

22

with the matrix (Doc. 279-2) and does not find that defense counsel engaged in improper

23

conduct or coaching. Defense counsel called for a break in the deposition and, during the

24

break, reminded the witness to be careful in responding to questions and seek

25

clarification if she was confused. This was not improper coaching. The witness then told

26

defense counsel that she had, in fact, been confused by questions asked before the break,

27

and defense counsel suggested the witness mention this to the questioning attorney and

28
1

This resumed deposition is a limited exception to the Court’s order at Doc. 280.
-2-

1

clarify her answers when an appropriate opportunity arose. The witness did so after the

2

break, and appears to have provided candid clarification consistent with her earlier

3

testimony.

4
5
6

3.

Plaintiff shall respond to the pending motions in limine on or before

November 16, 2015.
4.

Plaintiff, through his counsel, waived any privilege in the Plattner email by

7

not objecting to use of and questions about the email in the deposition of Rick Nye. See

8

Luna Gaming-San Diego, LLC v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, 2010 WL 275083, at *5 (S.D.

9

Cal. 2010) (“Under both state and federal law, if a privileged document is used at a

10

deposition, and the privilege holder fails to object immediately, the privilege is

11

waived.”); Brandon v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 2008 WL 2096883, *3 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (Failure

12

to assert the privilege at client’s deposition is clear proof that, even if there was a

13

privilege, it was absolutely and irrevocably waived, regardless of whether disclosure was

14

inadvertent); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Ernst & Whinney, 137 F.R.D. 14, 19 (E.D.

15

Tenn. 1991) (Finding a waiver of privilege where a document was marked as an exhibit

16

at a deposition without a claim of privilege or objection at the time); Perrignon v. Bergen

17

Brunswig Corp., 77 F.R.D. 455, 459 (N.D. Cal. 1978) (Waiver of privilege found where

18

information disclosed in deposition without objection).

19

5.

By October 30, 2015, Plaintiff shall produce to the Court, in camera, copies

20

of the documents that Darrin Jeffries and his counsel found subject to production but that

21

Plaintiff instructed them not to produce. The Court will review the documents and

22

determine whether they should have been produced under Doc. 247.

23

6.

The Court’s order with respect to Defendants’ work product claim was not

24

limited to “employee-to-employee” communications as Defendants suggest. Doc. 279-1

25

at 6. It included “documents that were compiled by Defendants’ employees, under the

26

direction of attorney Julie Nelson, for the purpose of responding to the AHCCS

27

investigation.” Doc. 247 at 4. Defendants describe the document in question as having

28

been “created exclusively for Julie Nelson, the Company’s lawyer, and was

-3-

1

communicated directly to her.” Doc. 279-1 at 6. The document thus was created by

2

another in the company for use by Ms. Nelson, and Defendants do not dispute that it was

3

created as part of the investigation that was the subject of the Court’s previous order.

4

The Court declines Defendants’ request to sanction Plaintiff and hold the supplemental

5

expert reports inadmissible on this basis.

6

Dated this 27th day of October, 2015.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-