EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown.

Filing 86

MOTION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to compel Deponent William White to Answer Questions Regarding his conversations with Sidley Management and for completion of his deposition (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit Exhibit G)(Hamilton, Deborah)

EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown.

Doc. 86 Att. 5

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 86-6

Filed 09/05/2006

Page 1 of 5

EXHIBIT E

161

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

BY THE WITNESS: A. of that. BY MS. HAMILTON: Q. At the time that you signed this I have no idea. I was not made aware

letter, did you know that this statement in the letter was incorrect? A. Q. No. At the time that you signed this

letter, you had responsibility for payments to partners both while they were partners and in their retirement, is that correct? MR. CONWAY: BY THE WITNESS: A. Yes. Object to form.

BY MS. HAMILTON: Q. But yet you had no knowledge regarding

the time at which a partner of Sidley & Austin was expected to retire, is that correct? MR. HANNAFAN: Objection, argumentative.

But you can answer, unless Mike has an objection. MR. CONWAY: form. I have the same objection in

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 86-6

Filed 09/05/2006

Page 2 of 5

162

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

But you can go ahead and answer. BY THE WITNESS: A. Basically, when they alerted me when You know, I didn't

the payments were to be made. make those decisions. times. BY MS. HAMILTON: Q.

People retired at different

At the time that you signed this

letter, were you aware of the general expectation at Sidley & Austin that retirement would occur around age 65? A. Q. No. Does Karen Reber still work for the

firm, to your knowledge? A. Q. Yes. What did you do with the copy of this

letter that you kept? A. It was put in my general correspondence

file by my secretary. Q. As a result of the change in status of

several or a group of partners in October of 1999, were you aware of any change that was made to Sidley's retirement policy? A. No.

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 86-6

Filed 09/05/2006

Page 3 of 5

163

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Q.

Why was Mr. Conlon providing you with

legal advice or assistance in February of 2006? MR. CONWAY: Objection. Wait, wait. Can you

repeat that question? MR. HANNAFAN: MS. HAMILTON: MR. HANNAFAN: MS. ELKIN: question. BY MS. HAMILTON: Q.

I think that's --

He didn't say that. I'm sorry. He didn't testify to that. She's going to ask a

All right.

Was Mr. Conlon providing you with legal

advice or assistance in February of '06? A. Q. Was he providing me with legal advice? Yes. You can answer that yes or no.

MR. CONWAY: BY THE WITNESS: A. No.

BY MS. HAMILTON: Q. Then what's the basis for the claim of

privilege with regard to that conversation between Conlon, Bergen and White? MR. CONWAY: This was a conversation by a So

Sidley lawyer who was investigating the case.

it's protected either by the attorney-client or

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 86-6

Filed 09/05/2006

Page 4 of 5

164

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

work product privileges or both.

So I'm

instructing him not to -- or I'm requesting that Mr. Hannafan instruct him not to answer on that basis. You're entitled to discover the facts. You're asking him questions about the facts, but you're not allowed to discover the communications themselves. MS. ELKIN: MR. CONWAY: Under the work product? Work product and attorney-client

privilege, because -MS. ELKIN: advice? MR. CONWAY: MS. ELKIN: He could have been. The witness just said --- he wasn't. What if he wasn't providing legal

MS. HAMILTON: BY MS. HAMILTON: Q.

Were you seeking Mr. Conlon's legal

advice during the conversation that you had with Mr. Conlon and Mr. Bergen in February of 2006? A. Q. A. Q. No. Who initiated the communication? He did. What exactly did you say to Mr. Conlon

Case 1:05-cv-00208

Document 86-6

Filed 09/05/2006

Page 5 of 5

165

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

during the conversation? MR. CONWAY: Objection -I'll let Mr. -- I'll let Mike

MR. HANNAFAN: go first. MR. CONWAY:

Again, on privilege grounds. I'll instruct you not to

MR. HANNAFAN:

answer until -- this is not -- this is not our battle. THE WITNESS: MR. HANNAFAN: Okay. So you should not answer the

question until it might be later determined by a court that you should answer it. MS. HAMILTON: why I don't -MR. CONWAY: I don't want to waste time with I understand Let me explain to you, Mike,

you explaining to me your position. that you disagree with me. debate the issue.

We're not here to He's been

I made my objection.

instructed not to answer.

Why don't you just

continue with the deposition. MS. HAMILTON: We'll just reserve the right

to recall Mr. White if necessary when we receive a ruling on the issue from the Judge. BY MS. HAMILTON: