I cannot believe I am writing this but I am actually agree with Geraldo in that Casey Anthony’s Defense team of forensic experts and whose who of the forensic world is being denied access to any autopsy or to the alleged possible crime scene.
As one expert tells Geraldo, once the alleged crime scene is disturbed and searched with potential evidence removed it is almost impossible to recreate that scene for other forensic specialists to go through. They also explain that even an autopsy does additional trauma to the remains, which makes it that much harder for potential defense experts to tell what has been altered and damaged during an autopsy.
Add to all of this that the FBI is now involved with all of their secrecy, and no one knows exactly where the next set of tests are even being performed. The FBI was seen on Sunday, December 14 going through the site where the remains were found and sifting through dirt for additional possible clues as to what has happened.
Casey Anthony’s defense team was allowed for the first time to entered and walked through the taped off part of the woods where the remains were found on December 11 by a meter man who just happened to have stepped off of the road by a few feet and found a plastic bag with the remains inside.
On Sunday, December 14, the second of the Anthony family spokesperson, Michelle Bart, left, “I am stepping aside, but I am not going away. I will continue to be here until the end.” Bart said she was stepping aside for health reasons. She is preparing to undergo surgery at the end of the month in Washington State. Ms. Bart made the announcement Sunday night at Eastside Baptist Church where in the past family members and supporters normally held weekly candlelight vigils for Caylee Anthony.
George and Cindy Anthony’s new attorney Bradley Conway will now be the family’s primary spokesman. Mr. Conway recently became the Anthony’s family attorney after Mark Nejame left.
On Saturday, Bart said the family is suspicious of the circumstances leading to the findings. “It’s been searched dry, it’s been searched wet, it’s been searched in between. It’s been searched over by Tim Miller [of Texas EquuSearch] twice, who we hold in high regards with his professional organization,” Bart told News 13.
Anyway back to yes I admit it, I agree with Geraldo this weekend and his panel whom seemed all to agree with each other. I too love the show Doctor G. and if she is in charge you have to wonder why she would exclude the defense forensic specialists from just watching from afar. However, with the FBI taking over much of the case it appears perhaps Doctor G had no say in any of this.
In an ironic note, there was also another missing girl, who disappeared in 1997, and has yet to be found. Her name is Sabrina Paige. What if the worse of the worse occurs and this child is Sabrina Paige. I wonder how her family feels seeing the 24/7 crazed infotainment coverage of all things Caylee Anthony.
We have spent the weekend trying to organize all of the paperwork that has been released over the last few months by the state of Florida and hope to have all of it up near the beginning of this week. We will announce when any of the documents go up, and try to have some discussion especially on the previous interviews of friends and family of Casey Anthony.
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.
I have been remised on writing about this case because of the number of google alerts a day that comes out. This case is saturating news media in print, internet news, the blogosphere and on the 24-hour infotainment “news” shows, which many of us saw in the Anna Nicole Smith saga.
In some ways, it feels like February 2007 all over again. Before you think I am not worried about where Caylee Anthony is and what happened to her, rest assure, I don’t watch the news about her because it makes me sick, and like all of you I feel so helpless and confused with the differing reports we all are getting.
I do feel something happened to her and her grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony or her mother, Casey Anthony knows what that was or could point the police in the right direction. Will they come forward with the truth, who knows!
However, the state has passed out thousands of pages of information because Florida is the “sunshine state” meaning they believe in the transparency of the courts, papers filed etc. unless it involves a minor. We all saw what that “sunshine” allowed to be shown and passed around for dissecting on the 24/7 infotainment channels called “news”, and how they devoured all things Anna Nicole Smith. Could that be happening with the Caylee Anthony case? In fairness the state of Florida has also released the multiple Motions Casey Anthony’s attorney, Jose Baez, has filed to gain access to some of the state’s evidence against Caylee’s mother.
With all that said; here are some of my thoughts of who is “cashing in” on this poor girl’s disappearance and what is “feeding the beast” of greed.
Since I find it almost impossible for me to write about this poor child, I decided to turn and look at the greed in this case. We have the former spokesman, Larry Garrison, for the Anthony family selling pictures to NBC for $6,500 for one interview and then allegedly pocketing the money. The emails from NBC to Cindy Anthony that appears to substantiate that, thus exit stage left Larry Garrison as the family spokesman, one wonders if it was just the alleged $6,500.00 or more than that Mr. Garrison had pocketed as a “licensing fee”. Why did he not see that it went into a fund to find out what really happened to Caylee; that is for him to answer.
We next have the bounty hunter bondsman, Leonard Padilla, all decked out in his California western gear for interviews. Mr. Padilla we have seen from putting up the $500k bond, parking outside the Anthony home seeking the truth, of course all in front of the beast that he knows how well to feed; those 24/7 infotainment channels which they all try to pass as news channels. He seemed available to every paper, local and national station that would interview him. Then we have Padilla changing his mind about Casey’s innocence and revoking that bond and back to jail for Casey Anthony with cameras tipped off and rolling at her home. Padilla was once again touting his theory of what has happened to Caylee but this time he no longer believed in Casey Anthony’s innocence, and again made the rounds of any media that would have him as to why he changed his mind and how he came to that. Worse of all Padilla has been accused of allegedly planting “evidence” in a river in Florida, to collect money to continue the search. Padilla made sure and called the media for the cameras before calling the police now that shows real caring for preserving any evidence that “might have been found”. However decked out in California western ensemble he once again appears to have made all of the show circuits, print media anyone that would interview him. It seems it matters not what snake oil Padilla is selling this day the beast called “infotainment” must be fed.
How many interviews do we have by the investigator working for the family Mr. Dominic Casey, I have not heard of many perhaps he is not as colorful of a P. I. as Padilla is riding that infotainment beast. For any of you who missed Padilla never fear he intends to be back in Florida again this week fresh with a benefactor for him to continue his “search”, “spin”, etc. Does anyone else have visions of Jack Harding and his many appearances and the ever-changing story or is it just me?
Then we have the greatest beast of all 24/7 news/infotainment, same ones as before just a new case and “fresh” new interviews. This beast needs to be fed often so we have Greta, “On the Record” and Geraldo “At Large” on Fox promising us to get the “real” truth and not to stop until it is found. We have Nancy Grace on HLN nightly, with all of the experts she can get that Fox has not booked first.
In the state of Florida thousands of documents released they include both the grand jury indictment and the witness list of people to be called as witnesses for the state and they too seem to be trying Casey Anthony in public long before her “televised trial” in January for Capital Murder.
How did we get here, very simple, this thirsty beast of news/infotainment is fed by the ratings which in turn translates to bringing in paid advertising. Keep in mind what O’Quinn said in his filings in Florida, if you believe what is said you be stupid cause no one believes those shows. That is probably about the truest statement I have seen in his filings and one all of us need to take to heart. Forget who gave us that advice but it shall forever stay with me in regards to what was done to Howard K. Stern and what might be done to anyone who the beast turns upon to feast.
If we were not obsessed with this beautiful angelic child, if the news/infotainment did not continue to weave, if there were no needs for the ratings to feed the beast… well that discussion is best saved for another day.
Now do I think Casey Anthony had something to do with her daughter’s disappearance and her family helped in the cover up, I am not sure, but what ever has happened to Caylee is heart wrenching. I hope we read and discuss every document and every interview by police that is released by the state of Florida in this case and find each of our own truths.
Rose Speaks.com will house all of the documents in this case as they are released, right up and through the televised trial in January. We have about 91 documents up now in what we hope we have broken down to bite size pieces and we are working fast to get the latest documents released to the public up for you to read and then discuss with us. Remember our documents are opened to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
Stay tuned, I have another article that will be going up today about Howard K. Stern. Remember that little trip we all took in that other 24/7 “news/infotainment” we craved in what seems like such a long time ago by infotainment clock. We were willing to feed the beast at the cost of his reputation for life.
I am not saying these cases are even remotely similar, except for many people cashing in, sadly in way too many ways.
I also want to thank all of you for the ten days I just took off from the site including the blog they were much needed. However, I am back and will be trying to keep up with all of the cases you want to see covered here for what I hope will be intelligent discussion. If you have one, email me, if we can make it happen in coverage that will work that gray matter we have called brains and make us think, then let’s discuss that and see where we shall go together. We will always and until the last case cover all things Anna Nicole Smith, but please remember we are opened to all of your suggestions as to which celebrity or high profile cases/trials you want to see here.
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.
G. Ben Thompson missed the filing date the Court set of November 3 for his mandatory filing of the Rule 26 f of initial disclosures, also Howard K. Stern’s attorney pointed out that due to Thompson’s attorney being ill they had not been able to hold the required conference via phone.
The Court approved Susan Brown to represent Ben Thompson. Howard K. Stern has attorneys approved for Pro Hac Vice status, including Lin Wood, Luke Lantta, Nicole Jennings Wade of Powell Goldstein as well as his South Carolina attorneys.
The best reading in my opinion is the Rule 26f filings required by the Court of which to date Ben Thompson has not answered. Ford Shelley lists only 3 witnesses, himself, his wife Gina Shelley and Howard K. Stern. However, in Shelley’s rule 26-3-a local rule filings, he lists only himself and his wife Gina Shelly as witnesses or persons that have information relevant to these allegations.
What caught my eye was the list of people who have possessions of some of the items alleged to have been taken out of Horizons the day after Anna Nicole Smith’s death.
1. Defendant Shelley has possession of a copy of a clown video.
2. All documents and tangible items related to litigation in the Bahamas which are in possession of the Bahamian authorities. 3. All documents and tangible items in possession of the California Department of Justice as to any investigation relating to Ms. Smith.
4. All documents and tangible items in possession of co-defendant Ben Thompson and/or his agents.
5. All documents and tangible items in possession of Larry Birkhead and/or his agents.
Which leaves the question of who has the ORIGINAL copy of the infamous Clown Video?
Howard K. Stern’s filing is a tad more revealing about where Stern’s team is going. In his required Rule 26-f list of the following witnesses.
(1) Howard K. Stern
(2) Larry Birkhead
(3) Pol’ Atteau (4) Rita Cosby (5) Don Clark (6) Wilma Vicedomine
(7) Stancil “Ford” Shelley
(8) G. Ben Thompson (9) Tom Pirtle, on of Virgie Arthur’s Texas lawyer at the burial hearing (10) Tracy Ferguson an attorney that is part of Callendar’s in the Bahamas that G. Ben Thompson is suing.
(11) Gaither Thompson
(12) Melanie Thompson
(13) Gina Shelley (14) Representatives of Fox News (15) Representatives of Biscayne Professional Associates (possibly the company that imaged Anna Nicole Smith’s computers and hard drives when the Estate recovered them)
Howard K. Stern lists several Counts that make the basis of the Estate’s case against Ford Shelly and Ben Thompson and a couple caught my attention.
Count Three: Statutory and common law commercial appropriation of right of publicity:
Under California law, the right of publicity survives the death of a celebrity. Thus, any person who uses a deceased person’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner . . . without prior consent from the executor of the deceased person’s estate commercially misappropriates the deceased person’s right of publicity. Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.1.
There can be no dispute that Ms. Smith held a fully descendible right of publicity
in her Estate property. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3344.1. Further, Shelley has admitted to removing documents and materials from Horizons after Ms. Smith’s death. There is no question that these documents and materials are owned by the Estate. Further, there is no dispute that these items removed by Shelley contained Ms. Smith’s name, voice, signature, and photograph. Shelley used the property by, among other things, distributing it to third parties, including media entities. Shelley had no prior consent from the Executor to use the property he stole from Horizons.
Count Six: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:
Whoever knowingly causes transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; or intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct causes damage and Forensic analyses confirm that Shelley copied and deleted files contained on the password protected computers and external hard drives owned by the Estate, which Shelley unlawfully removed from Horizons. Shelley lacked authorization to access the computers and external hard drives. Shelley’s conduct caused damage and losses in excess of $5,000 in a one-year period. causes losses of at least $5,000 in a one-year period, violates federal statute. 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(5).
Forensic analyses confirm that Shelley copied and deleted files contained on the
password protected computers and external hard drives owned by the Estate, which Shelley unlawfully removed from Horizons. Shelley lacked authorization to access the computers and external hard drives. Shelley’s conduct caused damage and losses in excess of $5,000 in a one-year period.
Stern’s Local Rule 26-3-a, lists most of the same witnesses with the exception of Wilma Vicedomine which leads to ask when and why did she become involved with Ben Thompson and Ford Shelley?
Howard K. Stern’s lists the following evidence and documents in the same disclosure that he and/or the Estate (Dannielynn Birkhead as the sole heir) might use to prove the claims.
The following categories of documents in the Executor’s possession, custody, or control may be used to support his claims:
(1) All documents referred to in the Complaint.
(2) Documents relating to the investigation into Defendants’ unlawful conduct in the Bahamas. (3) Media interviews of Defendants.
(4) Communications between Defendants and third parties regarding the factual circumstances that form the basis for the allegations in the Complaint. (5) Deposition transcripts of third parties in other litigation regarding the factual circumstances that form the basis for the allegations in the Complaint. (6) Forensic analyses of Ms. Smith’s computers. (7) Communications from counsel for Defendants which support the factual basis for the allegations in the Complaint.
So folks why did Ben Thompson miss the date of November 3 and has not notified the court or ask for an extension due to one of his lawyers being ill? Who edited the Clown Video and who has the original now? Why is Tom Pirtle listed, but the rest of Virgie Arthur’s legal team in Florida are not? Then we have Don Clark on both disclosures but Wilma Vicedomine as the lone separate person missing in one of the filings.
Could the Clark/Vicedomine investigation lead us from California, to Florida, to New York to South Carolina in the alleged attempts to have Howard K. Stern arrested and tried for something, anything it appears if the filings are to be believed.
Remember you can pick up all of the documents related to the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith suing Ben Thompson and Ford Shelley, opened to ALL, not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
In other news on November 4, 2008 Court Order from Florida that Postpones the Requirement of John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm financials until November 10, 2008 the deadline for the two sides to file a Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice.
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.
Most of us expect that Wilma Vicedomine or her alias of Wilma Vice is present in a deposition today. However, I have some questions and would like to have your input.
Who is there today, we know Lin Wood is there and any lawyer that Mr. Wood picks to be there to represent Howard K. Stern. We know that Rita Cosby’s lawyer is there, Elizabeth McNamara, and Hachette Books lawyer Douglas Maynard is probably there as well. Wilma Vice is being represented by Neil McCabe now as an “agent” [employee and therefore a party in the Florida lawsuit], of the O’Quinn Law Firm and Neil McCabe can invite any other lawyer that is listed to be there for the deposition from The O’Quinn Law Firm.
However is Robert Klein there, since he is not representing anyone in the New York case? His September 29 letter to Lin Wood said he would be in Houston this past weekend to prep for Don Clark’s deposition on October 14, but if that deposition is ONLY about Cosby’s book will Mr. Klein be allowed to sit in on these depositions.
The main parties have a right to be present also, that would be Rita Cosby and Howard K. Stern, would they show up? We know that Howard K. Stern loves Texas, NOT, so my bet is he is not there and would not step foot in Texas not even to look the woman in the eye that spent over a year trying to destroy him. My bet is that he will watch the video of this deposition to “meet” Wilma and not be there today. However, will Rita Cosby be there to support Wilma Vicedomine and Don Clark? Why did Cosby who fought so hard to keep everything she said and all of her documents in the New York suit to be held as confidential and never shared with anyone else or in any of the other lawsuits, suddenly changed her mind about handing all of that over to The O’Quinn Law Firm? The fact that her lawyer was willing to do that, addresses the Amended Complaint that Stern filed in Florida in which he alleged in part that people in The O’Quinn Law Firm “conspired” with Cosby on her book. Did Cosby and her lawyer prep for this deposition over the weekend with Wilma Vice? Was Wilma shown the video deposition of Cosby and all of Cosby’s confidential documents to prep for today? I am still amazed that Cosby would take a chance of handing over everything to the O’Quinn Law Firm in regards to her suit in New York, could this end up biting Cosby.
What are your thoughts on is Cosby there today to encourage her source for her book? Did Cosby hand over everything to help her sources? Who do you think are in that room today during the deposition?
Give us your thoughts we want to hear what you think is going on today behind those close doors in Houston Texas?
Then there is the question all of us would love to see the answer to, will Wilma throw any of her alleged email, chat buddies, or blogging buddies under the bus today? Will she hand over those that Wood alleges she gave instructions to post certain things on TMZ.com? Will we know their names as the Florida Suit and New York suit goes forward? How did those excerpts of Cosby book find its way to TMZ.com before the book was even released?
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.
On Monday, October 13 and Tuesday, October 14, in Houston Texas all of the big gun lawyers in the Rita Cosby suit will meet and deposed Wilma Vicedomine and Don Clark. Those that will have the right to be present during the depositions is Elizabeth McNamara for Rita Cosby, Douglas Maynard for Hachette Books, Lin Wood, and any of the lawyers he decides that can be present that are on record in the Cosby suit for Howard K. Stern. Neil McCabe for Wilma Vicedomine and Don Clark and for some reason when you review the letters filed and dated September 29, Robert Klein will be present, unless Wood excludes him because the depositions are ONLY about the Cosby suit. I did notice that in Robert Klein’s letter he stated that he would be in Houston this whole weekend to “prep” Don Clark for his deposition. I am not sure why Robert Klein would have access to this deposition unless as I state below after the 7 hours allowed for the Cosby suit, Clark agrees to extend the deposition into late that night for the O’Quinn suit. However, my prediction is since the Court will not Compel the deposition in the Florida suit, the Clark/Vicedomine will be only 7 hours each and only address the Cosby suit.
Below is an outline of what Lin Wood has access to in documents from Wilma Vicedomine in regards to her conversations with Rita Cosby, her postings on the internet and in a chat channel, and any “orders” she directed other posters to go out to sites like TMZ.com to allegedly promote Wilma Vicedomine’s agenda to destroy Howard K. Stern.
Per the Civil Rules, Lin Wood has one day of 7 hours with Wilma Vicedomine. Let us “assume” that Lin Wood has prepared for this deposition for several months, based on the fact he has “thousands of messages in an online chat room dedicated to discussion of Ms. Smith’s death. In these alleged postings, Vicedomine allegedly discussed aspects of Defendants’ investigation, including strategy, efforts to have Plaintiff prosecuted, and conversations that she had with Arthur. Id. Further, Plaintiff alleges that Vicedomine directed chat room members to post specific statements regarding Plaintiff on the website TMZ.com.” If that allegation were true, I would bet that Lin Wood has a top forensic computer expert, which has tracked IP’s in the records subpoenaed from the chat room owner. If those IP’s track back and can be proved it came from Vicedomine via Moody International computers, home computers that Vicedomine owns, and any IP’s that track back to the O’Quinn law firm.
Below are excerpts from the Omnibus Order issued about Vicedomine and Don Clark’s deposition, which now can ONLY relate to the Rita Cosby suit and not the Florida suit. This is unless because Robert Klein is “prepping” Don Clark all weekend for the deposition on October 14, they can do the seven-hour deposition of the Rita Cosby suit, and then go into the night on the O’Quinn suit if Klein and Clark “volunteer” since they cannot be made to compel now.
So based on this, pull the subpoena for Wilma Vicedomine and decide if you were Lin Wood and had seven hours to depose Wilma about her information she gave Rita and put on the internet, what would you ask Wilma Vicedomine (Vice) during that seven hours?
Omnibus Order page 5
Thus, on October 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed a libel lawsuit against Cosby and Hachette, which is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Howark K. Stern v. Rita Cosby, et al., Case No. 07-Civ-8536 (“Blonde Ambition Litigation”). D.E. 64 at 74; D.E. 121 at 6. Through the Blonde Ambition Litigation, Plaintiff discovered that Defendants’ investigator Clark, as well as another investigator assisting Clark, Wilma Vicedomine (“Vicedomine”), served as the source for many of the statements contained in Blonde Ambition.D.E. 121 at 6.
Indeed, in the Blonde Ambition Litigation, Cosby and Hachette list Vicedomine in their Initial Disclosures as an individual likely to have discoverable information. Specifically, the Initial Disclosures state that Vicedomine has information regarding the “truth of statements in Blonde Ambition, facts refuting Mr. Stern’s allegations of fault, [and] Mr. Stern’s conduct and reputation.” See Exhibits G & H to D.E. 121. Likewise, the Initial Disclosures identify Clark as having similar information. Id. Plaintiff asserts that while the investigation was ongoing, Clark and Vicedomine revealed information from their investigation to third parties such as Cosby. D.E. 133 at 3. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Clark attempted to persuade the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and Florida Attorney General to re-open the investigation into Ms. Smith’s death. See D.E. 133.
Omnibus Order page 5 and 6
Also during this same time frame, according to Plaintiff, Vicedomine posted her investigative progress on the Internet. Id. In this respect, Plaintiff asserts that Vicedomine, under various pseudonyms, shared intimate details of the Clark/Vicedomine investigation in Internet chat rooms. D.E. 121 at 10. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that Vicedomine posted thousands of messages in an online chat room dedicated to discussion of Ms. Smith’s death. In these alleged postings, Vicedomine allegedly discussed aspects of Defendants’ investigation, including strategy, efforts to have Plaintiff prosecuted, and conversations that she had with Arthur. Id. Further, Plaintiff alleges that Vicedomine directed chat room members to post specific statements regarding Plaintiff on the website TMZ.com. Id. at 11.
Omnibus Order Page 31
Next, the Court considers Plaintiff’s additional assertion that Defendants committed disclosure waiver. Under the theory of disclosure waiver, a party waives work-product protection by disclosing to third parties information otherwise protected by the work-product doctrine. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that even if work-product protection existed for the details surrounding the investigation conducted by Vicedomine and Clark, any such protection was waived when Clark and Vicedomine disclosed details of the investigation to Rita Cosby, the author of Blonde Ambition. Further, Plaintiff argues that Vicedomine also divulged information gathered by the investigation to “countless people” via the Internet and in Internet chat rooms. D.E. 121 at 17; 133 at 14.
Omnibus Order Page 32 Instead, with respect to the argument that Vicedomine’s alleged disclosure of investigatory details to Cosby and over the Internet effectuated a waiver, Defendants argue that any waiver must be limited to the information actually disclosed, and not to the entire subject matter allegedly discussed. D.E. 142 at 13. Put simply, Defendants contend that Vicedomine’s actions at most waived protection for actual facts that Vicedomine revealed to Cosby which were also published in Blonde Ambition, or statements actually posted by Vicedomine on the Internet. Since that information is available to Plaintiff, however, Defendants contend that Plaintiff should not be permitted to depose Vicedomine in order to discover all of what Vicedomine told Cosby or all of the Firm’s or Vicedomine’s work product. Additionally, Defendants argue that any waiver of the work-product protection by Vicedomine and Clark with regard to their investigation on behalf of the Firm would not constitute a waiver on the part of Arthur, its client in the related Texas Lawsuit.
Omnibus Order Page 34
While situations exist where a disclosure is essentially compelled or made through excusable inadvertence, and courts are sometimes willing to maintain the work-product protection under such circumstances, see id., this is not one of those cases. Instead, Defendants point to nothing to suggest that Vicedomine and Clark did not purposefully and voluntarily make their statements to Cosby and on the Internet. Moreover, the types of disclosures made (i.e., to the author of a book and on the Internet) are entirely inconsistent with a desire to maintain the privacy of the information disclosed. Rather, books are published and statements are posted on the Internet precisely for the purpose of making them accessible to anyone and everyone. Certainly, at a minimum, the disclosures substantially increased the opportunity for a potential adversary to obtain the protected information.
10Although Defendants have suggested Vicedomine could not have waived the work product protection by engaging in her personal capacity (as opposed to her role as an agent of Defendants) in disclosures of information from the investigation, Defendants have not asserted that Clark and Vicedomine were not acting as agents of Defendants when they spoke to Cosby or made postings of information on the Internet.
Omnibus Order Page 35
Particularly under these circumstances, it is difficult to conceive of how Vicedomine could not have intended that her Internet statements be made available to anyone who wished to view them. Such behavior plainly increased the risk that Plaintiff would learn of Vicedomine’s disclosed work product materials. In fact, Plaintiff did find such materials.
Similar reasoning applies to the disclosures made with respect to Rita Cosby, the author of Blonde Ambition. Cosby interviewed Vicedomine for the purpose of writing a book, in significant part, about the very subject matter of Vicedomine’s interview, and nothing suggests that Vicedomine did not know this. In fact, Blonde Ambition published much of what Vicedomine told Cosby. There is nothing about divulging facts to an author writing a book about the information being disclosed that is consistent with guarding the privacy of information that is otherwise protected by the work product doctrine. Obviously, such conduct increased the possibility that Plaintiff would obtain and use the material. Under the circumstances where Vicedomine voluntarily spoke to a journalist seeking to write a book on the very subject for which information was provided, there could be no expectation that Cosby would maintain the secrecy of any of the information. And, significantly, much of the information conveyed was apparently used and published in the book.
Omnibus Order Page 35 and 36
The Court therefore finds that Vicedomine’s and Clark’s actions, as agents of Defendants, are inconsistent with the maintenance of secrecy of otherwise-work-product protected materials from their adversary. The disclosures were neither involuntary nor compelled, and they were not made to sources that were assisting Defendants in advancing their case. Instead, Vicedomine and Clark made the disclosures at issue to third parties and did so in such a way as to create a substantial risk that information would be received by Defendants’ adversary. Vicedomine and Clark’s actions waived the work product protection since they could not reasonably expect that future use of the information could be limited. Finally, it is significant that Plaintiff did, in fact, learn much of the information disclosed. See Continental Casualty Co., 537 F.Supp.2d at 761 (once an adversary has become aware of information disclosed, it cannot purge that information from its mind). For all of these reasons, Defendants have waived work-product protection in these instances.
Omnibus Order Page 36 and 37
The Court agrees with Defendants to the extent that the disclosures by Vicedomine (and Clark) do not extend so far as to effectuate a waiver of the entire subject matter of the investigation. Due to the sensitive nature of work-product materials and the policy behind maintaining their secrecy, generally speaking, when work-product protection has been waived, it is “limited to the information actually disclosed, not subject matter waiver.”
Omnibus Order Page 37 and 38
Applying this principle of law to these facts, the Court finds that although several disclosures have occurred, any waiver of the work-product protection does not extend beyond those discrete disclosures. Put more simply, the Court finds that Vicedomine (and Clark) waived any work-product protection for anything they said or gave to Cosby in her accumulation of information for Blonde Ambition, and Vicedomine waived the protection for any statements she actually posted or caused to be posted on her behalf on the Internet.
Omnibus Order Page 38 (THIS IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE BECAUSE THE COURT WILL NOT COMPEL VICEDOMINE FOR A DEPOSITION IN THE FLORIDA SUIT EXCEPT AS IT APPLIES TO RITA COSBY’S SUIT. HOWEVER THE ORDER ABOUT SUPPLYING ALL PSEUDNYMS HAS BEEN ORDER BY THE COURT AND SO CAN BE ASKED IN MY OPINION DURING THE SEVEN HOUR DEPOSITION) With respect to the allegation that Vicedomine disclosed otherwise-work-product protected information in Internet chat rooms, the particular statements that can be attributed to Vicedomine in this respect are not entirely clear, as the poster or posters of many of the statements at issue used pseudonyms. Therefore, Vicedomine shall verify all screen names and pseudonyms that she used on the Internet while discussing in public fora matters pertaining to the deaths of the Smiths, the paternity of Dannielynn, or Plaintiff. Defendants shall also be entitled to obtain copies of all postings that Vicedomine made in these public fora that relate to the underlying investigation conducted in furtherance of the Broward County proceedings. Furthermore, Defendants will be permitted to ask Vicedomine about these Internet postings during her deposition.
Omnibus Order Page 38 and 39 Additionally, with respect to Vicedomine’s (and Clark’s) statements made to Cosby, the Court finds that any actual statements made by Vicedomine or Clark to Cosby regarding the investigation have been waived and, thus, are discoverable. As for Defendants’ contention that discovery of this information is limited to statements that were actually published by Cosby in Blonde Ambition, the Court concludes to the contrary. Instead, Defendants are entitled to discovery of all statements Vicedomine and Clark made to Cosby relating to the investigation. Although some of the information provided by Vicedomine and Clark may not have been incorporated into Blonde Ambition, such a fact has no bearing on the scope of the waiver in this case. As noted above, Vicedomine voluntarily spoke to a journalist seeking to write a book on the very subject for which information was provided, and Defendants have not suggested that she had any expectation that Cosby would maintain the secrecy of any of the information conveyed. Consequently, Vicedomine made disclosures to Cosby in such a way as to create a substantial risk that information would be received by Defendants’ adversary.
Omnibus Order Page 39
The fact that all of the information provided by Vicedomine and Clark was not included in Blonde Ambition also refutes Defendants’ contention that the information is readily available to Plaintiff and, therefore, should not be compelled to be disclosed. See D.E. 142 at 13-14. In making this argument, Defendants contend that Plaintiff should not be allowed to depose Vicedomine in order to discover the “full gamut of her work product.” Id. Although the Court agrees that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery of all of Vicedomine’s work product, he is entitled to information disclosed to Cosby, whether included in Blonde Ambition or not. In this regard, the Court will permit Plaintiff to ask questions during Vicedomine’s deposition about what she told Cosby relating to her investigation.
Omnibus Order Page 45 Attorney-Client Privilege
With respect to the issue of attorney-client privileged information, Defendants conceded that no such privileged materials responsive to the subpoena duces tecum directed to Vicedomine exist. See D.E. 150 at n. 2. Defendants clarified that they inadvertently discussed attorney-client privilege in their objections to discovery. After further review of the documents at issue, however, Defendants realized that only the work-product doctrine protects the information listed on the Vicedomine privilege log. Id. Defendants stated, “At this time, there do not appear to be any documents protected by the attorney-client privilege.” D.E. 152 at n. 9.
Omnibus Order Page 51 and 52 Vicedomine Deposition Duces Tecum
Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order [D.E. 111] seeks for the Court to issue a protective order precluding Plaintiff from deposing Wilma Vicedomine. According to Defendants, the investigation conducted by Vicedomine, as the Firm’s agent, and at the direction of the Firm, is subject to work-product protection. Hence, Defendants argue that Plaintiff should not be permitted to invade that privilege by deposing Vicedomine about the fruits of her investigation.
Omnibus Order Page 52
Plaintiff, in response, asserts that he should be permitted to take Vicedomine’s deposition for various reasons. First, Plaintiff argues that Defendants failed to satisfy their burden under Rule 26, Fed. R. Civ. P., to demonstrate good cause precluding the requested discovery. Second, Plaintiff contends that Defendants waived any applicable work- product protection by placing the investigation at issue. Third, Plaintiff urges that Vicedomine waived any applicable work-product protection by disclosing details of the investigation to third-parties, and finally, Plaintiff claims entitlement to discovery of the underlying facts supporting or contradicting O’Quinn’s statements.
Omnibus Order Page 52 and 53 After careful consideration of these issues, including the briefs presented and the arguments made during the August 13, 2008, hearing, the Court has made a determination with respect to the scope of Vicedomine’s deposition duces tecum. As discussed previously, the Court finds that Defendants put at issue the investigation conducted by Vicedomine and Clark and, thus, waived any work-product protection associated with those materials through the date of O’Quinn’s last alleged statement on March 27, 2008. Likewise, the Court finds that Vicedomine (and Clark) waived any applicable work product protection when they disclosed certain details of her investigation to Rita Cosby and third-parties on Internet web-sites. This waiver applies to all materials actually disclosed by Vicedomine or Clark, including information disclosed after the date of O’Quinn’s last alleged statement on March 27, 2008. Finally, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to discover the underlying facts that pertain to the truth or falsity of any of the alleged statements set forth in the First Amended Complaint. If, however, these underlying facts are set forth in work-product protected documents that were created after O’Quinn’s last alleged statement on March 27, 2007, Plaintiff must obtain the information through means other than document production. Consequently, Plaintiff may inquire into these materials during Vicedomine’s deposition, but Vicedomine is not required to provide any work-product protected documents created after March 27, 2007, that contain underlying facts.
Omnibus Order Page 53
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order [D.E. 111] is denied, at least to the extent that it seeks a wholesale ban on Vicedomine’s deposition. With respect to the duces Tecum attachment to the Vicedomine subpoena, the Court acknowledges that some of the document requests are extremely over broad. Indeed, at the August 13, 2008, hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel conceded that the requests were overly broad. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that certain documents that fall within a narrower subset of the requests are discoverable. To summarize, Plaintiff may proceed with the deposition of Vicedomine and may pursue the following areas of inquiry:
(1) All underlying facts regarding the truth or falsity of the eight statements allegedly made by O’Quinn (i.e., the causes of the Smiths’ deaths and other allegations pertaining to Stern made in the statements at issue);
(2) All information (including work-product materials) regarding the Firm’s investigation up through March 27, 2008 (the date of O’Quinn’s alleged last challenged statement); and (3) With respect to investigative materials or information gathered after March 27, 2008, Plaintiff may inquire about any otherwise-work-product-protected information where, as determined by the Court, a waiver of the protection has occurred through disclosure to third-parties. These categories include (a) anything disclosed by Vicedomine to Rita Cosby (whether or not such information was ultimately published in Blonde Ambition) and (b) any statements regarding the investigation, Stern, or the Smiths, as disclosed by Vicedomine on publicly accessible Internet websites.
Omnibus Order Page 54
With respect to the duces tecum demand attached to the Vicedomine subpoena, Plaintiff can obtain documents that fall within the categories announced above, except for facts which may be set forth in work-product protected documents that were created after O’Quinn’s last alleged statement on March 27, 2007, and which were not otherwise disclosed by Vicedomine to Cosby. Plaintiff must obtain this category of information through means other than document production (i.e., interrogatories or depositions).
Omnibus Order Page 55 Defendants must produce responsive documents that would otherwise be protected as work product if such documents were created after March 27, 2007, if the documents were disclosed to Rita Cosby or on the Internet.
Omnibus Order Page 56
Although the Court recognizes Defendants’ objection on the basis of work product, as noted above, the Court finds that Defendants waived any such protection by placing the investigation at issue in this case. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to discover all Investigation Materials and O’Quinn Materials through the time of O’Quinn’s last statement (i.e., March 27, 2007). Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to discover any Investigation Materials and O’Quinn Materials created after March 27, 2007, if such documents have been disclosed to Rita Cosby or on the Internet.
Omnibus Order Page 56 and 57
With respect to Firm Requests for Production 15 and 16 (O’Quinn Requests 20 and 21), Plaintiff seeks documents concerning communications with Rita Cosby or her representatives, as well as all documents concerning Blonde Ambition. Defendants object to the requests as overly broad with respect to the time frame involved and assert that the request is not limited in scope to this litigation. Defendants also object to the requests on the grounds that the requests seek to breach the work-product protection. The Court agrees that the request is overly broad in scope since it is not limited to issues presented in this case. However, the Court finds that Defendants have waived some of the work-product protection when Vicedomine disclosed facts of the Firm’s investigation to Rita Cosby, the author of Blonde Ambition.
Omnibus Order Page 57 Based on this waiver by disclosure, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to discover any communications made to Rita Cosby regarding the investigation conducted by the Firm, whether or not those communications or materials were included in the Blonde Ambition book.
Omnibus Order Page 58
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to discover all of the Investigation Materials and O’Quinn Materials through the time of O’Quinn’s last statement. Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to discover any of the Investigation Materials and O’Quinn Materials created after O’Quinn’s last statement if they have been disclosed to Rita Cosby or on the Internet.
Omnibus Order Page 59
Although the Court recognizes Defendants’ objection on the basis of work product, as noted above, the Court finds that Defendants waived any such protection through March 27, 2007, by placing the investigation at issue in this case. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to discover all of the Investigation Materials and O’Quinn Materials through the time of O’Quinn’s last statement. Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to discover any Investigation Materials and O’Quinn Materials created after O’Quinn’s last statement if they have been disclosed to Rita Cosby or on the Internet.
So with the highlights here of the August 29, Omnibus Order outlining the context of the depositions, what would you ask Wilma Vicedomine in those seven hours? In addition, state in priority what those should be and why. Remember 7 hours with Wilma Vicedomine, make the questions count and tell us what you would ask her. If you cannot download the documents that you need email me and I will email these documents to you so you can participate this weekend in this “game”.
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.
Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Strike John O’Quinn’s Multiple Motions for Summary Judgment based on not done corrected under local rules and also filed late and noted this is an ongoing problem with O’Quinn’s legal team and filing.
We will be putting the other paperwork that John O’Quinn filed on the night of October 3 and 4, after the Court closed and kept it coming until after midnight. There are a lot of double filings of documents with the three Motions for Summary Judgment.
As I said earlier, I will be putting something up later today about my thoughts of what WAS NOT filed with the multiple Motions for Summary Judgment. Stay tuned, we hope you read, research and share with us what you find as we go through all of this.
It appears that the Florida Federal Court for the Southern District does care. The Court has issued today, October 6, an Order for John O’Quinn to Show Cause why Howard K. Stern’s Motion to Strike O’Quinn’s filings for Summary Judgment should not be granted, O’Quinn’s Reply is due no later than October 8.
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.
In filings that began to appear on PACER at about 11:45 PM on October 3, and going well into the morning of October 4, John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm has filed numerous Motions to Dismiss with a Summary Judgment against Howard K. Stern in the Southern District Court of Florida. There is also the Motions for “Leave” to file late by O’Quinn’s Florida legal team; although Don Clark’s Affidavit shows, it was not even faxed until after 7 PM [CDT - 8 EDT] on October 3. There is an update today that Robert Klein contacted Lin Wood about filing some of this “late”, [Again], and of course Lin Wood is not agreeing to the late filing. It is not as if this deadline just “appeared” it has been set since August 23, 2007 by the Court to have it filed ON or BEFORE October 3, 2008 at the latest. What gives with these after 8 PM Friday night filings with O’Quinn’s legal team?
What I find striking is the lack of Affidavits (only three filed), Admissions, Deposition Transcripts, Answers to Interrogatories, Document Productions during discovery, etc. to set out the “factual” basis for a Motion for Summary Judgment. What I have seen is many tabloid media writings filed to support that O’Quinn did not defame Stern, because just look at the “blog postings”. Then we have tabloid media filed to say, “You can’t find that someone defamed another based on Tabloid Media”. Are you confused yet on this double standard, is it going to become what the definition of “is” is, as in the Clinton years? Wasn’t Clinton impeached over that “meaning”? Being impeached and convicted are VERY separate issues by the way in the U. S. Congress. Do not get me wrong I am, and have always been a HUGE Clinton supporter, and think it silly we even had to spend that money on the investigation of what “is” is.
We still have a LOT of papers to download in the massive amount of documents filed last night and this morning. You are not going to believe all of the exhibits, little substance it appears so far and a lot to tabloid media and blog postings.
Pick up the latest documents as we get them loaded for you in the Howard K. Stern vs. John O’Quinn and the O’Quinn Law Firm, defamation suit in our download section, open to All not just members of Rose Speaks.com.
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.
