New Amsterdam Project Management Humanitarian Foundation v. Laughrin et al

Filing 72

THIRD INTERIM ORDER re 31 MOTION for Discovery To Compel Further Responses filed by New Amsterdam Project Management Humanitarian Foundation, 29 MOTION for Discovery To Compel Further Responses filed by New Amsterdam Project Managem ent Humanitarian Foundation, 30 MOTION for Discovery To Compel Further Responses filed by New Amsterdam Project Management Humanitarian Foundation, 32 MOTION for Discovery To Compel Further Responses filed by New Amsterdam Project M anagement Humanitarian Foundation, 33 MOTION for Discovery To Compel Further Responses filed by New Amsterdam Project Management Humanitarian Foundation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 10/14/08. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2008)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NEW AMSTERDAM PROJECT MANAGEMENT HUMANITARIAN FOUNDATION, a Dutch non-profit corporation, Plaintiff, v. KELLY M. LAUGHRIN, et al. Defendants. / Plaintiff New Amsterdam Project Management Humanitarian Foundation ("NAF") sued Margaret Laughrin for stealing $10 million dollars. In 2006, NAF received a default judgment against her. The money (which NAF wired to Margaret to invest in U.S. Treasury Bills) appears to have been transferred from the account NAF wired it into to a number of entities and people in July-August of 2001. Defendant Kelly Laughrin received $200,000 from that account during that time period. NAF also found out that Margaret gave money to Campbell Warburton, the law firm Kelly works at, allegedly for legal services. In this case, NAF sues Kelly and Campbell Warburton for the money they received. After propounding discovery and receiving an overwhelming number of objections based on privilege, NAF sought to compel additional discovery in five motions. Counsel for plaintiff NAF has forcefully argued that the evidence before the court shows that Margaret No.07-00935-JF (HRL) THIRD INTERIM ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY * E-filed 10/15/08* United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Laughrin retained the defendants to aid her in committing crime and fraud, and that the court should apply the crime-fraud exception. The party seeking discovery must establish the crime-fraud exception by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 479 F.3d 1078, 109495 (9th Cir. 2007)). As the Napster court stated, "[the attorney-client] privilege is central to the legal system and the adversary process and thus deserving of unique protection in the courts. It would be very odd if in an ordinary civil case a court could find such an important privilege vitiated where an exception to the privilege has not been established by a preponderance of the evidence." Napster, 479 F.3d at 1096 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Here, NAF has presented some evidence, but has not met the burden required for the court to vitiate the privilege. The court realizes that two factors make the crime-fraud exception difficult to prove: first, the analysis turns on the client's state of mind at the time of retention, and second, as the Napster court recognized, "the best evidence is likely to be in the hands of the party invoking the privilege." Id. at 1091 (citing United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 569 (1989). Therefore, the court will conduct an in camera review of all documents defendants have withheld on the basis of privilege created between July and August of 2001, and documents from any other time period that either (1) explain or reference the purpose of Campbell Warburton's representation of Margaret Laughrin, Clinton Holland, Hartford Holding Company or C.T. Ventures; or (2) indicate that Margaret Laughrin acquired money through either theft or fraud. The defendants shall submit these documents to the court not later then October 21, 2008. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10/14/08 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO: Heather Noelte hnoelte@dempseyjohnson.com John Mark Thacker jthacker@ropers.com * Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?