Baldus et al v. Brennan et al

Filing 74

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 12/8/11: denying 63 non-party movants' Motion to Quash plaintiffs' subpoena issued to Joseph Handrick; denying 72 non-party movants' Motion to Quash plaintiffs' subpoena issued to Tad Ottman; and, directing plaintiffs to redraft and reissue subpoenas to Joseph Handrick and Tad Ottman which correct any issues related to the overbreadth or recording method attendant to their discovery requests. (cc: all counsel) (nm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ALVIN BALDUS, CARLENE BECHEN, ELVIRA
BUMPUS, RONALD BIENDSEIL, LESLIE W DAVIS,
III, BRETT ECKSTEIN, GLORIA ROGERS, RICHARD
KRESBACH, ROCHELLE MOORE, AMY RISSEEUW,
JUDY ROBSON, JEANNE SANCHEZ-BELL,
CECELIA SCHLIEPP, TRAVIS THYSSEN, CINDY
BARBERA, RON BOONE, VERA BOONE,
EVANJELINA CLEERMAN, SHEILA COCHRAN,
MAXINE HOUGH, CLARENCE JOHNSON,
RICHARD LANGE, and GLADYS MANZANET

Case No. 11-CV-562
JPS-DPW-RMD

Plaintiffs,
TAMMY BALDWIN, GWENDOLYNNE MOORE and
RONALD KIND,
Intervenor-Plaintiffs,
v.
Members of the Wisconsin Government
Accountability Board, each only in his official
capacity: MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVID
DEININGER, GERALD NICHOL, THOMAS CANE,
THOMAS BARLAND, and TIMOTHY VOCKE, and
KEVIN KENNEDY, Director and General Counsel for
the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board,
Defendants,
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., THOMAS E.
PETRI, PAUL D. RYAN, JR., REID J. RIBBLE, and
SEAN P. DUFFY,
Intervenor-Defendants.
VOCES DE LA FRONTERA, INC., RAMIRO VARA,
OLGA VARA, JOSE PEREZ, and ERICA RAMIREZ,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Members of the Wisconsin Government
Accountability Board, each only in his official
capacity: MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVID
DEININGER, GERALD NICHOL, THOMAS CANE,
THOMAS BARLAND, and TIMOTHY VOCKE, and
KEVIN KENNEDY, Director and General Counsel for
the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board,
Defendants.

Case No. 11-CV-1011
JPS-DPW-RMD

ORDER

Before WOOD, Circuit Judge, DOW, District Judge, and STADTMUELLER,
District Judge
This matter comes before the court on two separate motions (Docket
#63, #72) to quash third-party subpoenas issued by plaintiffs to Joseph
Handrick and Tad Ottman.
On November 28, 2011, Joseph Handrick was served with a subpoena
from the plaintiffs calling for his testimony and production of documents, all
related to ongoing pretrial discovery. Mr. Handrick is a lawyer employed
with Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP, who was hired by the Wisconsin
Legislature (“Legislature”) as a consulting expert to provide legal advice
related to the development of Wisconsin’s redistricting plan, which is now
being challenged in this case. In their subpoena, the plaintiffs demand that
Mr. Handrick: (1) produce “any and all documents used by you or members
of the Legislature to draw the 2011 redistricting maps”; and (2) appear for a
deposition on December 1, 2011. (Docket #64, Ex. 1).
Several days later, on December 4, 2011, Tad Ottman, a legislative aide
to Wisconsin State Senate Majority Leader Scott L. Fitzgerald, was served
with a subpoena by the plaintiffs. That subpoena requested: (1) “any and all
documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things used by
you or members of the Legislature to draw the 2011 redistricting maps”; and
(2) that Mr. Ottman appear for a deposition on December 7, 2011.
The Wisconsin Assembly and Senate (the “non-parties”) have moved
to quash both Mr. Handrick’s and Mr. Ottman’s respective subpoenas.
Having received the plaintiffs’ brief opposing the non-parties’ motion to
quash Mr. Handrick’s subpoena, the Court believes it has received sufficient

Page 2 of 7

briefing to render its decision on both of the non-parties’ motions. For the
reasons which follow, the non-parties’ motions to quash will be denied.
The information the plaintiffs seek from both Mr. Handrick and Mr.
Ottman is relevant. In this case, the plaintiffs make claims under both the
Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause. (See Docket #12). And, as
the plaintiffs correctly point out, proof of a legislative body’s discriminatory
intent is relevant and extremely important as direct evidence in both types
of claims. (Pl.’s Br. Opp. Mot. Quash, 2–3 (citing Village of Arlington Heights
v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265–66 (1977), Comm. for a Fair &
Balanced Map v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, No. 11-CV-5065, 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 117656, at *11 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2011))). Thus, any documents or
testimony relating to how the Legislature reached its decision on the 2011
redistricting maps are relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims as proof of
discriminatory intent.
From the record before the court, it is apparent that attorney-client
privilege has no application to the communications between the Legislature
and Mr. Handrick. To be sure, the attorney-client privilege protects
communications made from a client to an attorney who is acting as an
attorney, but does not cover communications seeking only consulting service.
See Sandra T.E. v. S. Berwyn Sch. Dist. 100, 600 F.3d 612, 618 (7th Cir. 2009), In
re Grand Jury Proc., 220 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir. 2000). Despite Mr. Handrick’s
being a lawyer, the defendants state that he performed consulting work in
connection with the redistricting legislation. (Defs.’ Mot. Quash Handrick, 2)
(stating “Handrick provided consulting services in connection with the
undersigned firm’s representation of the State Senate and State Assembly.”).
Because, as the defendants acknowledge, Mr. Handrick acted as a consultant,

Page 3 of 7

the Court finds that his communications are not covered by attorney-client
privilege.
Similarly, legislative privilege does not protect any documents or
other items that were used by the Legislature in developing the redistricting
plan. First, and most importantly, the Court finds it all but disingenuous for
the Legislature to argue that these items be subject to privilege in a Court
proceeding determining the constitutionality of the Legislature’s actions,
when the Legislature clearly did not concern itself with maintaining that
privilege when it hired outside consultants to help develop its plans. The
Legislature has waived its legislative privilege to the extent that it relied on
such outside experts for consulting services. Comm. for a Fair & Balanced Map,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117656, at *35. And, even without that waiver, the
Court would still find that legislative privilege does not apply in this case.
Legislative privilege is a qualified privilege that can be overcome by a
showing of need. Id., at *24–*25. Allowing the plaintiffs access to these items
may have some minimal future “chilling effect” on the Legislature, but that
fact is outweighed by the highly relevant and potentially unique nature of
the evidence. Id., at *25–*26. Additionally, given the serious nature of the
issues in this case and the government’s role in crafting the challenged
redistricting plans, the Court finds that legislative privilege simply does not
apply to the documents and other items the plaintiffs seek in the subpoenas
they have issued. Id.
The remainder of the non-parties’ arguments, all of which are
procedural, fail or can easily be cured. As the plaintiffs correctly note, Mr.
Handrick was not employed by a party to this case, but instead by the
Legislature, and he is, therefore, not excused from testifying under Rule

Page 4 of 7

26(b)(4)(D). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(D) (limiting a party’s ability to depose “an
expert who has been retained or specifically employed by another party in
anticipation of litigation... ”).
Next, while the initial subpoenas provided a potentially-inadequate
time to comply under Rule 45(c)(2)(B), that problem has been substantially
cured by the Court’s delay while awaiting briefs. Having missed both
requested deposition dates, the plaintiffs will now have to reschedule those
depositions for a later time. Given the expedited schedule in this case, it is
important for the parties to have a shortened turnaround between the
issuance of a subpoena and the requested date for production and
deposition. The Court notes that three days may be an excessively quick
turnaround, however, in the future—except in an extraordinary
circumstance—it will not find a five-day compliance interim to be
unreasonable. The Court also adds that it is apparent that the Legislature has
had a hand in causing the three-day interims by apparently refusing to accept
service on behalf of its staff and consultants. Considering the need for a quick
turnaround in this case, the Court fully expects that the Legislature and its
staff, consultants, and members, will cooperate with the efforts of the Court
and the parties to expeditiously complete discovery.
Finally, the plaintiffs’ overly-broad production requests and failure to
include a recording method may easily be cured. Perhaps as a result of
oversight, the plaintiffs may have omitted phrases limiting their discovery
requests to documents in Mr. Handrick’s and Mr. Ottman’s “possession,
custody, or control.” Accordingly, the Court would suggest that they modify
their subpoenas so as to limit their requests and, at the same time, modify the
subpoenas to specify the recording method for taking depositions.

Page 5 of 7

Provided the plaintiffs make those changes, the Court finds no reason
to quash the subpoenas the plaintiffs have issued to Mr. Handrick and Mr.
Ottman. Therefore, the non-parties’ motions to quash will be denied.
The Court also recommends that all parties (and non-parties) who
consider filing motions to quash read very carefully Committee for a Fair &
Balanced Map, which the Court has cited extensively in this order. The
opinion and order in that case addresses head-on many of the issues raised
by the non-parties in their motions to quash. Had the non-parties been aware
of that case, perhaps they would not have filed their motions to quash or
may have tailored their arguments more effectively. Thus, in this instance the
Court will not grant costs and attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs for their
defense against these motions.
However, having now brought that case to the non-parties’ attention,
it should go without saying that the Court will not hesitate to award costs
together with actual attorneys’ fees related to defending future motions to
quash, if the Court deems those motions frivolous or otherwise made in bad
faith.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the non-party movants’ motion to quash the
plaintiffs’ subpoena issued to Joseph Handrick (Docket #63) be and the same
is hereby DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the non-party movants’ motion to
quash the plaintiffs’ subpoena issued to Tad Ottman (Docket #72) be and the
same is hereby DENIED, and

Page 6 of 7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall redraft and
reissue subpoenas to Joseph Handrick and Tad Ottman which correct any
issues related to the overbreadth or recording method attendant to their
discovery requests.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 8th day of December, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 7 of 7