Everything about this is confusing! I agree that Pattis still has to give docs. My take...
CIVIL CASE UPDATE: 10.9.19 Motion 214.00
Pattis' Motion to Quash Subpoena: GRANTED
"The documents requested are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Prac. Book § 13-2. Accordingly, the court need not address the issues of privilege or confidentiality."
**SEE MORE INFO BELOW ON PRAC. BOOK 13-2**
The Judge granting this motion may not be as bad as it appears in print.
This may be a confusing post, and it's a long one, though before we get upset over this ruling, there is SO MUCH MORE to it and while Pattis may not have to supply the info requested, the Judge has already ruled that FD DOES have to supply the similar information requested of Pattis. I will try to lay everything out so it makes sense. MOO
Starting with Motion 214.00 (attached): GRANTED
Original request of Pattis by Weinstein includes:
- Source of funds in connection with criminal defense including third parties
- Copies of documents exchanged regarding source of payment including NY Atty (Phufas) who transmitted the funds
- All docs with total amount of funds received and disbursed to date, as well as total amount of funds being held in FD's funds.
- Retainer agreement between Pattis and FD
- Docs regarding the retention of PI McKenna
(PS. Norm was out-of-state on the date of the requested Subpoena and was in Texas with Alex Jones) As reported since in the media, though MOO for safety
The reason it may not be so bad...
Judge Noble
OVERRULED FD's Objection RE Discovery or Disclosure
MOTION 198.00 (attached in pics with Judge's decision highlighted in blue) which included:
WEINSTEIN PRODUCTION REQUEST 7: "Copies of records reflecting the source of funds paid to criminal attorneys and private investigator."
FD's OBJECTION TO PRODUCTION REQUEST 7: – "The Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants further object to this request 2 on the grounds that it seeks documents covered by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine."
JUDGE'S RULING ON OBJECTION TO PRODUCTION REQUEST 7: "This production seeks records reflecting the source of funds paid to criminal attorneys and private investigator. The defendants object on the grounds of relevancy and the attorney client privilege. The court finds that it is relevant to the third count which seeks to pierce the corporate veil. As to the attorney client privilege, the plaintiff asserts that Judge Budzik has already ruled on this issue in the present action. The court, however, is unable to find that ruling in either this case or the companion case. Nevertheless, this court holds that these records are not protected by the privilege. As a general rule, “[c]ommunications between client and attorney are privileged when made in confidence for the purpose of seeking legal advice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Olson v. Accessory Controls & Equipment Corp., 254 Conn. 145, 157, 757 A.2d 14 (2000). The attorney-client privilege is not a blanket one; rather, “
ecause the application of [the privilege] tends to prevent the full disclosure of information and the true state of affairs, it is both narrowly applied and strictly construed.” Harrington v. Freedom of Information Commission, 323 Conn. 1, 12, 144 A.3d 405 (2016). The defendants have not demonstrated how the records sought are related to the seeking of legal advice. The objection is overruled."
**Cont from top on PRAC. BOOK 13-2**
Ok, so this may get confusing because I'm combining 2 different comments from Judge Noble on Prac. Book 13.2: the first is his comment when Granting Pattis' Motion to Quash 214.00, and the Second is when used in Overruling FD's Objection re Discovery 198.00.
Motion 214.00 GRANTED Judge Noble states: "Prac. Book § 13-2. Accordingly, the court need not address the issues of privilege or confidentiality".
Motion 198.00 OVERRULED Judge Noble states: "Prac. Book § 13-2. Finally, any interest in the confidentiality of the records, sealed or not, is over ridden by the requirements of disclosure in this civil action."
I was SO CONFUSED by the use of Prac. Book 13-2 being used in support of the Judge's order on what seems to be opposing actions, so I read Prac. Book 13-2 Scope of Discovery on the CT judicial website (attached in pics). IMO, and by all means jump in if you have other thoughts: Pattis is a Non-Party Witness in this Civil case. FD, the Defendant, IS subject to Discovery and Judge Noble has overruled the objection on the same subject-"Production of records reflecting the source of funds paid to criminal attorneys and private investigator. The defendants object on the grounds of relevancy and the attorney client privilege. The court finds that it is relevant to the third count which seeks to pierce the corporate veil".
Pattis may not have to produce this information, BUT the Judge has already ruled that FD DOES. So, if I understand all of this correctly, the information on the source of funds WILL be provided in this case. MOO
MOO once again for safety
PS. Had to delete some of the doc pages (mainly last page signature files) to meet the 10 page upload limit
. It's not a good look!
