Curiosity Never Kills the Cat: Legal Questions for VERIFIED LAWYERS- ~No Discussion~

[*Lash*]

Once the issues with the Complaints are all figured out and assuming the cases are not dismissed entirely, I would expect depositions to start in one or both cases within a couple of months. I imagine the first priority will be to depose the individual defendants, although down the road I wouldn't be surprised if law enforcement people are deposed as well. Both sides are allowed to ask questions, but many times the person's own lawyer doesn't ask questions, because the primary purpose for most depositions is to gather information you don't already have.

BBM - The Zahau lawyers state in the SAC...Plaintiffs intend to seek leave to amend the Complaint as additional facts are developed and uncovered during the course of discovery. The judge dismissed the case once for being too vague. In your opinion/experience, before dismissing the case would a judge take this into consideration? Would the judge allow the case to move forward with the belief depositions may provide more specific details and possible evidence? TIA

 

[Betty P]

I showed some of this info to an attorney today. After speaking with her, I am so disappointed about the mistakes that the Zahau lawyers made. It shouldn't have happened. She doesn't think that there's much of a chance that the case will proceed because of all the mistakes that were made on filings. AZ lawyer is right. The judge had been VERY nice to give the Zahau's more chances. There simply aren't any more chances after this next ruling. It will be dead in the water. Hope for the best but expect the worst. I'm pretty appalled about the carelessness by the Zahau defense team. Appalled and disappointed. Wow.

It goes without saying that our current judicial system tilts in favor of those who have the wealth and power to secure the best legal representation. Every day, people like the Zahau family (immigrants of moderate means, unfamiliar with the US legal system) face an uphill struggle to access good legal representation.

As originally conceived, our courts are supposed to serve as the great levelers of our society and legal system. It's their sworn duty to take every possible step to ensure every person receives fair treatment under the law, regardless of race, income, education or quality of legal representation. So while its nice to thank any judges for giving the Zahau family access to the courts, lets also remember those judges are obligated to do so. Its so easy to lose sight of that fact in our modern system of justice.

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM - The Zahau lawyers state in the SAC...Plaintiffs intend to seek leave to amend the Complaint as additional facts are developed and uncovered during the course of discovery. The judge dismissed the case once for being too vague. In your opinion/experience, before dismissing the case would a judge take this into consideration? Would the judge allow the case to move forward with the belief depositions may provide more specific details and possible evidence? TIA

Yes--plaintiffs are not expected to have all the details "up front."

 

[K_Z]

Can you discuss briefly the circumstances under which it might be possible to sever the parties to a federal lawsuit into separate actions? I've tried to research this a little, and find that it is hard to figure out a straightforward answer to this. I am a little familiar with section in the federal rules of civil procedure under "parties" (rule 4, I think) that require joinder of parties when the plaintiff is filing the case, and there is a lot of overlap, or the actions of the parties are sufficiently entwined.

However, as I ponder this case in particular, it's crossed my mind that each defendant could stand to benefit substantially by having their name "carved out" of the joinder of parties-- either by dismissal (of course that's beneficial!), or by somehow moving to have the case against them personally separated out from the other defendant/s.

For example, let's speculate that JS would like to financially "help" his brother, AS to settle the case, but not "help" his ex-wife, DS, and his ex-SIL, NR. Is there any way that legal forces could be brought to bear to try to "carve out" AS into his own case, apart from DS and/ or NR?

How does all that work at the federal level? Does it matter that the dead line to file a "new" wrongful death suit has passed? (As in, a separate action severing one of the parties now?)

Thank you for your time and patience with questions!

 

[inthedark14]

I have another, only for a lawyer question...

I don't know how many of you followed the WM3 case, and everything the has happened.

I am IN NO WAY comparing these two cases.

I'm wondering because the depositions of a certain "person of interest" became public knowledge after the fact. The actual video of it. IIRC, they were used in some of the documentaries that have been made about the case. Are the depositions public information after they have been made, or perhaps after the case has been decided? This case was of course, far more well known than what happened to RZ, and a well known music artist was a defendant in the case. How is it that those videos were made public? Is that part of the suit once it's settled? What happens to these dispositions that are being taken and when are they available for viewing? Does this information have to be public or is there any way to make it be?

TIA Awesome Lawyers Who Read This Thread!!!

 

[bourne]

Hi AZlawyer,

Can you tell me if defendants in the suit (Dina, Nina and Adam) are allowed to take the fifth with respect to answering questions in the deposition?

 

[AZlawyer]

Can you discuss briefly the circumstances under which it might be possible to sever the parties to a federal lawsuit into separate actions? I've tried to research this a little, and find that it is hard to figure out a straightforward answer to this. I am a little familiar with section in the federal rules of civil procedure under "parties" (rule 4, I think) that require joinder of parties when the plaintiff is filing the case, and there is a lot of overlap, or the actions of the parties are sufficiently entwined.

However, as I ponder this case in particular, it's crossed my mind that each defendant could stand to benefit substantially by having their name "carved out" of the joinder of parties-- either by dismissal (of course that's beneficial!), or by somehow moving to have the case against them personally separated out from the other defendant/s.

For example, let's speculate that JS would like to financially "help" his brother, AS to settle the case, but not "help" his ex-wife, DS, and his ex-SIL, NR. Is there any way that legal forces could be brought to bear to try to "carve out" AS into his own case, apart from DS and/ or NR?

How does all that work at the federal level? Does it matter that the dead line to file a "new" wrongful death suit has passed? (As in, a separate action severing one of the parties now?)

Thank you for your time and patience with questions!

In a civil case, that's not going to happen.

I have another, only for a lawyer question...

I don't know how many of you followed the WM3 case, and everything the has happened.

I am IN NO WAY comparing these two cases.

I'm wondering because the depositions of a certain "person of interest" became public knowledge after the fact. The actual video of it. IIRC, they were used in some of the documentaries that have been made about the case. Are the depositions public information after they have been made, or perhaps after the case has been decided? This case was of course, far more well known than what happened to RZ, and a well known music artist was a defendant in the case. How is it that those videos were made public? Is that part of the suit once it's settled? What happens to these dispositions that are being taken and when are they available for viewing? Does this information have to be public or is there any way to make it be?

TIA Awesome Lawyers Who Read This Thread!!!

A deposition wouldn't become public unless (1) it is filed with the court or (2) it is released by a party. A deposition would almost always be filed in court at the time of trial, if the person is expected to be a witness, but might be filed in court earlier, e.g., in connection with a motion. If it is a video deposition, it would be rare for it to be filed in court prior to trial, because even with e-filing most judges would rather read a transcript, and it would be very rare for the ENTIRE deposition to be filed in court prior to trial. But at the time of trial it would be common for a video deposition to be filed in court, along with a transcript.

Hi AZlawyer,

Can you tell me if defendants in the suit (Dina, Nina and Adam) are allowed to take the fifth with respect to answering questions in the deposition?

Yes, but in a civil case, unlike a criminal case, the judge/jury may assume, if they take the fifth, that they did whatever they're accused of.

 

[bourne]

In a civil case, that's not going to happen.



A deposition wouldn't become public unless (1) it is filed with the court or (2) it is released by a party. A deposition would almost always be filed in court at the time of trial, if the person is expected to be a witness, but might be filed in court earlier, e.g., in connection with a motion. If it is a video deposition, it would be rare for it to be filed in court prior to trial, because even with e-filing most judges would rather read a transcript, and it would be very rare for the ENTIRE deposition to be filed in court prior to trial. But at the time of trial it would be common for a video deposition to be filed in court, along with a transcript.



Yes, but in a civil case, unlike a criminal case, the judge/jury may assume, if they take the fifth, that they did whatever they're accused of.

THANK YOU AZlawyer! Cool about the defendants' assumption of guilt by judge/jury if they take the fifth in WDS suit

My follow-up Q is:
What happens after all the depositions are given? Do the lawyers from both sides then argue their case before the judge and the lawsuit parties alone, and the judge then decides whether or not the case has compelling evidence to go forward to trial? Or do the plaintiff and defendants settle out of court?

 

[AZlawyer]

THANK YOU AZlawyer! Cool about the defendants' assumption of guilt by judge/jury if they take the fifth in WDS suit

My follow-up Q is:
What happens after all the depositions are given? Do the lawyers from both sides then argue their case before the judge and the lawsuit parties alone, and the judge then decides whether or not the case has compelling evidence to go forward to trial? Or do the plaintiff and defendants settle out of court?

Often one side or another will file a Motion for Summary Judgment following the primary depositions, stating that there is insufficient evidence to support a judgment for the other party. Settlement is also an option.

 

[bourne]

Thanks AZlawyer!

If the Judge decides in favor of the Zahaus due to the "preponderance of evidence" shown in court (and there is no settlement out of court), can the judge then push/legally compel that the SDSO or Federal investigators (?) to pursue a criminal case? Is that possible?

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks AZlawyer!

If the Judge decides in favor of the Zahaus due to the "preponderance of evidence" shown in court (and there is no settlement out of court), can the judge then push/legally compel that the SDSO or Federal investigators (?) to pursue a criminal case? Is that possible?

No, he can't do that.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Hi AZLawyer,

I believe that after the Zahaus are allowed some time for discovery, the Shacknais and Dina Romano will ask for a Motion of Summary Judgement.

If that happens, and Judge Whelan finds that the Zahaus have no evidence to back their accusations and the case is dropped, would Dina and Adam Shacknai, and Nina Romano have grounds for a defamation of character and/or libel case against the Zahaus for their media comments? Could the court fine the Zahaus for filing a false suit?

Thanks in advance!

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi AZLawyer,

I believe that after the Zahaus are allowed some time for discovery, the Shacknais and Dina Romano will ask for a Motion of Summary Judgement.

If that happens, and Judge Whelan finds that the Zahaus have no evidence to back their accusations and the case is dropped, would Dina and Adam Shacknai, and Nina Romano have grounds for a defamation of character and/or libel case against the Zahaus for their media comments? Could the court fine the Zahaus for filing a false suit?

Thanks in advance!

You can't sue for defamation for something said in a lawsuit or courtroom. I don't know what's been said outside the context of the court case. But assuming there were something said that was false, there might be a defamation case.

If the suit were really without any basis whatsoever, the Zs might have to pay the attorneys' fees of the other side as a sanction. There is some possibility of a lawsuit for malicious prosecution if the current lawsuit was brought with knowledge that it was false--but I don't see how that could be proved in this case.

 

[Inparadise]

You can't sue for defamation for something said in a lawsuit or courtroom. I don't know what's been said outside the context of the court case. But assuming there were something said that was false, there might be a defamation case.

If the suit were really without any basis whatsoever, the Zs might have to pay the attorneys' fees of the other side as a sanction. There is some possibility of a lawsuit for malicious prosecution if the current lawsuit was brought with knowledge that it was false--but I don't see how that could be proved in this case.

AZlawyer,
I would think that the Zahau's could sue dina for her very public insinuation that Rebecca and or Xena harmed Max.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

AZlawyer,
I would think that the Zahau's could sue dina for her very public insinuation that Rebecca and or Xena harmed Max.

AZlawyer has graciously covered a suit against Dina in depth in the first five pages or more of this thread if you would like to read her answers on the subject. IIRC, she said that technically, Dina did not say anything that would allow the Zahaus to sue her for defamation/libell/slander.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer,
I would think that the Zahau's could sue dina for her very public insinuation that Rebecca and or Xena harmed Max.

Defamation of the dead is not actionable. Xena could sue if a false statement of fact was made against her. I think Dina has always been careful to say "well it had to be someone in the house and these 2 people were in the house so I don't know who it was" or something similar.

ETA: I definitely am not familiar with everything Dina has said--I haven't followed this case closely.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

You can't sue for defamation for something said in a lawsuit or courtroom. I don't know what's been said outside the context of the court case. But assuming there were something said that was false, there might be a defamation case.

If the suit were really without any basis whatsoever, the Zs might have to pay the attorneys' fees of the other side as a sanction. There is some possibility of a lawsuit for malicious prosecution if the current lawsuit was brought with knowledge that it was false--but I don't see how that could be proved in this case.

Thanks, AZlawyer.

This is from the Coronado Patch article on Ann Rules' story about the death of Zahau:

"She (Anne Rule) did not travel to Coronado or to Arizona, where Shacknai lives, to conduct her research, Rule said, but talked extensively with Zahau's loved ones, who believe she was killed. She also has a long-time friendship with Seattle attorney Anne Bremner, who is representing the Zahau family in their quest to reopen the investigation."

Since Anne Rule wrote in her book that Dina had witnesses that placed her in Rady's hospital the during the time Rebecca committed suicide, and the Zahaus and their attorney worked with her, and they also received all the investigative files that would have said the same thing, would that be enough to help them prove the Zahaus knowingly brought malicious prosecution of Dina? It seems to me that this proves that they knowingly filed a false suit against Dina.

TIA!

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks, AZlawyer.

This is from the Coronado Patch article on Ann Rules' story about the death of Zahau:

"She (Anne Rule) did not travel to Coronado or to Arizona, where Shacknai lives, to conduct her research, Rule said, but talked extensively with Zahau's loved ones, who believe she was killed. She also has a long-time friendship with Seattle attorney Anne Bremner, who is representing the Zahau family in their quest to reopen the investigation."

Since Anne Rule wrote in her book that Dina had witnesses that placed her in Rady's hospital the during the time Rebecca committed suicide, and the Zahaus and their attorney worked with her, and they also received all the investigative files that would have said the same thing, would that be enough to help them prove the Zahaus knowingly brought malicious prosecution of Dina? It seems to me that this proves that they knowingly filed a false suit against Dina.

TIA!

It completely depends on whether the witnesses really exist, what they said, whether there is any reason to disbelieve them, whether any contrary evidence exists, etc.

 

[K_Z]

This is from the Zahau response to a request for telephonic presence vs continuance of the ENE hearing.

In his papers, without further explanation, Mr. Shacknai states that he
would prefer that the ENE Conference go forward on December 9 because
“discovery is moving forward in the parallel state-court proceeding.” Plaintiffs
respectfully submit that this is exactly the reason why there is no urgent need to
keep the December 9th date. Thousands of pages of documents have already been
produced in the state-court matter, and depositions are starting on December 16th.

Could you explain why (bolded by me) the term "state court proceeding" and "state court matter" is used? The county case (the only other one involving the Zahaus) to receive Rebecca's property and other documents was requested by them to be dismissed quite a while back, so we all assumed they got whatever they were seeking thru other avenues. Are they now referring to this federally filed case as a "state case"? What do they mean by "parallel" case proceedings? I think it's probably all the same wrongful death suit, but the language is confusing to non-attorneys. Could there be another lawsuit in progress that we don't know about?

Here's the post with the snips from the documents:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Wrongful-Death-action&p=11270148#post11270148

 

[AZlawyer]

This is from the Zahau response to a request for telephonic presence vs continuance of the ENE hearing.



Could you explain why (bolded by me) the term "state court proceeding" and "state court matter" is used? The county case (the only other one involving the Zahaus) to receive Rebecca's property and other documents was requested by them to be dismissed quite a while back, so we all assumed they got whatever they were seeking thru other avenues. Are they now referring to this federally filed case as a "state case"? What do they mean by "parallel" case proceedings? I think it's probably all the same wrongful death suit, but the language is confusing to non-attorneys. Could there be another lawsuit in progress that we don't know about?

Here's the post with the snips from the documents:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Wrongful-Death-action&p=11270148#post11270148

There's a state-court wrongful death case, right? The one that was filed when the federal case was first dismissed? That would be the one they're talking about. It's a "parallel" case because both cases involve the same issues, the same parties, the same evidence, etc. Only one will ultimately go to trial.