Rose speaks

On September 9, Magistrate Robin Rosenbraum of the Southern District Federal Court in Florida issued an Order setting Ex Parte Hearing for Monday, September 15, 2008, at 1:30 P.M.

In the Order Magistrate Rosenbraum stated that, “This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court is in receipt of the September 4, 2008, updated privilege log that Defendants provided to the Court as directed by the August 29, 2008, Omnibus Order. The Court has reviewed the updated privilege log and underlying documents, which Defendants contend, are covered by work-product protection”. After reviewing the documents, Magistrate Rosenbraum issued her “Order for an Ex Parte hearing” with respect to the documents which Defendants contend are covered by work-product protection. Because this matter involves materials that Defendants assert are covered by work-product protection, only counsel for John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn law firm shall attend the hearing. This Magistrate further stated in her Order that, “Counsel for Defendants shall bring a copy of the underlying documents listed on the amended privilege log with them to the September 15, 2008, hearing.” It appears from this Order the Magistrate has questions she feels she needs to direct to the Defendants’ lawyers. These questions appear to be in regards to the items that John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn law firm maintains that are protected by work-product that can best be addressed in a hearing in person before the Court.

In further news concerning the Florida proceedings, the parties filed a, “Joint Motion to Extend Discovery Deadlines”. The parties stated this was due, “in part because the parties jointly agreed to forego discovery from the parties, while the venue motion was pending, and initially focused their discovery on the subpoena of documents from non-parties, pursuant to a joint, proposed Scheduling Order which had been submitted to the Court. Accordingly, and in light of a separate Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash a deposition subpoena that was served on behalf of a non-party witness, Wilma Vicedomine, the parties agreed to forego further depositions, pending the Court’s resolution of the privilege issues. The parties in this case and two other related lawsuits essentially agreed that it would make no sense to go forward with some of the party and witness depositions given the nature and extent of the varying privilege issues which were asserted by both the independent witness [Wilma Vicedomine], and by the O’Quinn Firm, which itself is counsel of record in another pending matter in Texas, involving Plaintiff, Howard Stern.” The Joint Motion goes on to say, “Defendants are in the process of formalizing the required responses to the Magistrate’s Order, the vast majority of which are due today, {September 11]. The defendants go on to state that, “numerous documents are being produced today, [September 11] along with other discovery responses.” The Joint Motion goes on to state that the parties believe that they will be in a position to commence depositions of the parties and certain nonparty witnesses shortly since the Court issued it’s Omnibus Order with the guidelines and deadlines for the parties to meet.

The Joint Motion for an Extension add that, “the issues were particularly complicated, given the fact that the O’Quinn Firm and Plaintiff’s counsel’ firm are involved in other, related litigation, and given the pendency of other cases which require the testimony of witnesses who have been disclosed in this cause. The parties have conducted a conference call, in order to discuss the scheduling of the key witness depositions in this matter. The scheduling of those witnesses has also entailed communication with attorneys in a Federal Court matter pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which also involves Mr. Stern. The parties have agreed that the depositions of the witnesses who will have to be deposed in this matter will require another 60 days, but should be completed by the end of November, assuming cooperation of some of the non-party witnesses, or counsel in other, related matters which may implicate the involvement of some of these very same witnesses. Accordingly, the parties would ask the Court to extend the discovery cut-off until November 30, 2008 and the filing of substantive pre-trial motions until December 15, 2008. The parties also believe that the mediation cut-off date should be extended until mid-December, 2008”.

Lawyers for John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn lawyer Firm points out that, “the O’Quinn Firm’s continuing role as counsel in another matter that has been brought against Mr. Stern in Texas, and the pendency of other related actions and has required the coordination of attorneys in other actions. Under the circumstances, and given the parties’ good faith attempts to avoid depositions which could not realistically have gone forward until privilege issues had been resolved”. This would appear it seems that the parties are cooperating in this lawsuit as well as the overlapping lawsuits in both New York federal court and the Houston federal court. The suit in the State Court in Texas was not mentioned in this Joint Motion to extend the time for discovery in particular the deposition of Wilma Vicedomine. Vicedomine’s name continues to pop up as what appears to be a critical person in the Florida and New York cases it appears to me.

However, by the next day, September 12, it appears from the letter to the Magistrate by L. Lin Wood on behalf of Howard K. Stern that not everything ordered by the Magistrate in the Omnibus Order has been handed over to lawyers for Stern. The letter outlines that the Omnibus Order entered by the Court on August 29, 2008, made clear that no work-product existed for pre-March 27, 2007 of the “O’Quinn Materials and Investigation Materials”. Stern’s lawyers received documents on September 5, 2008. However, after comparing the produced documents to the latest privilege log submitted to the Court, it appears that O’Quinn and the O’Quinn law firm are still withholding a number of pre-March 27, 2007 materials. The letter lists a series of document ranges, which appears to be approximately 28 sets of documents. The letters is requesting that those sets of documents, which appear to be missing, be addressed in the Ex Parte hearing to be held on Monday, September 15. Remember Howard K. Stern’s lawyers cannot be present at the hearing and that is what appears to be addressed in this letter to the Magistrate and possibly will avoid any further Motions to Compel.

The letter goes on to list other things that the Omnibus Order covered that the lawyers for Howard K. Stern still have not received. These items include, “non-privileged documents relating to the underlying facts; interrogatories to be completed and that the defendants do not rely on any facts not mentioned in the interrogatory responses”. The letter goes on to address Wilma Vicedomine including all of the screen names and pseudonyms used by Wilma Vicedomine on the internet when discussing the deaths of the Smiths, the paternity of Dannielynn or Mr. Stern have not been verified and submitted yet to Stern’s lawyers. The “copies of ALL postings made by Wilma Vicedomine (a/k/a Vice) on the Internet that relate to the underlying investigation conducted in furtherance of the Broward County proceedings, and all of the “source materials” regarding the deaths of Anna Nicole Smith and Daniel Smith”, still appear to not have been handed over by Vicedomine.

Because of the Joint Consented Protective Order, in this case we will not know what is going on except if Motions to Compel are filed in the future during these proceedings. It would appear that the deposition of Wilma Vicedomine cannot go forward even in the New York case until the things Ordered by the Florida Court relating to Vicedomine’s internet activities are received.

©Rose Turner
September 13, 2008
All Rights Reserved, do not reproduce in whole or in part without the express written consent of the author.

This article is the sole property of Rose Speaks unless otherwise stated. This article as with other articles is based on the opinion of Rose Turner, or our guest authors if so indicated. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following this article are the opinions and sole property of the site members and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.

Please also read our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 13th, 2008 at 10:32 am and is filed under All Things Anna Nicole Smith, Anna Nicole Smith, Celebrity Trials, Daniel Smith, Daniel Smith's Inquest, Dannielynn, Debunking the myths on ALL cases related to Anna Nicole, Douglas Maynard, Elizabeth McNamara, High Proflie Trials, Howard K Stern, John O'Quinn, Lin Wood, Rita Cosby, The John O'Quinn Law Firm, Virgie Arthur, Wilma Vice, Wilma Vicedomine.You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.