Hearing Jan 22 Miscavige still to be deposed

[TG1]

Looking forward to a report by Tony tomorrow or day after.

TG1

 

[TG1]

And Tony O. has delivered:

http://tonyortega.org/2014/01/30/je...series-on-scientology-ethics-with-a-reprieve/

Excerpt:

Ray Jeffrey: “The Church of Scientology produced materials to us digitally, but has designated those materials as ‘attorney’s-eyes only,’ so we can’t even let our own client and her husband view those materials and help us prepare for the hearing,” he says. “We have challenged this designation, and we will bring it up to the court on Monday before the continuation of the Anti-SLAPP hearing. And we will most likely be asking for a continuance to ask for the designation to be removed.”

 

[MissWog]

I am anxiously awaiting dchoice & JB's comments on this.. As well as the rest of you heck it would be great if we could get Tikk in here too!

Is this a normal thing to label for atty eyes only? How can they justify this as anything but a stall tactic? How will the judge view this? Blah blah blah... All the questions y'all are thinking already and don't really need me spelling out for you

 

[koki]

yeah.... especially tikk s comment....

 

[TG1]

And here's t1kk's comment at Tony O's blog:

Designating a document as "attorneys eyes only" prevents the receiving attorney from doin

​

g much with the document if an expert or your client is the only person who can make sense of or bring context to the document. It's usually reserved for instances to protect trade secrets or the like when the litigants are competing entities; which makes some sense because otherwise discovery would be abused as an anti-competitive business tactic. I'm guessing the rationale, if they even bothered expressing one, is some variant on We're A Religion, but I don't see how it'll hold up in this instance (at least as a blanket for *all* the produced docs) because the sorts of documents I expect were produced are the sort that will either bolster or refute arguments that have already been made. It's necessary that these documents be put on the table. Let Scientology make confidentiality arguments on a doc-by-doc basis.
​

Comment and following discussion there at http://tonyortega.org/2014/01/30/je...gy-ethics-with-a-reprieve/#comment-1223533840

 

[Lermanet_com]

Attorney-eyes-only was used extensively in RTC vs Lerma not just for the xenu rubbish but for statements regarding how much various $cientology attorneys were paid during their unsuccessful effort to get a judgement against me for attorney fees, for which Judge Brinkema awarded -zero-.

 

[MissWog]

And here's t1kk's comment at Tony O's blog:

Designating a document as "attorneys eyes only" prevents the receiving attorney from doing much with the document if an expert or your client is the only person who can make sense of or bring context to the document. It's usually reserved for instances to protect trade secrets or the like when the litigants are competing entities; which makes some sense because otherwise discovery would be abused as an anti-competitive business tactic. I'm guessing the rationale, if they even bothered expressing one, is some variant on We're A Religion, but I don't see how it'll hold up in this instance (at least as a blanket for *all* the produced docs) because the sorts of documents I expect were produced are the sort that will either bolster or refute arguments that have already been made. It's necessary that these documents be put on the table. Let Scientology make confidentiality arguments on a doc-by-doc basis.
​

Comment and following discussion there at http://tonyortega.org/2014/01/30/je...gy-ethics-with-a-reprieve/#comment-1223533840

thank you TG1!!! It's hard for me to wade through Discus..very much appreciate the copy & link!

 

[JBWriter]

Re: Hearing Jan 22 Miscavige still to be deposed - Attorneys' Eyes Only Issue

And here's t1kk's comment at Tony O's blog:

Designating a document as "attorneys eyes only" prevents the receiving attorney from doing much with the document if an expert or your client is the only person who can make sense of or bring context to the document. It's usually reserved for instances to protect trade secrets or the like when the litigants are competing entities; which makes some sense because otherwise discovery would be abused as an anti-competitive business tactic. I'm guessing the rationale, if they even bothered expressing one, is some variant on We're A Religion, but I don't see how it'll hold up in this instance (at least as a blanket for *all* the produced docs) because the sorts of documents I expect were produced are the sort that will either bolster or refute arguments that have already been made. It's necessary that these documents be put on the table. Let Scientology make confidentiality arguments on a doc-by-doc basis.
​

Comment and following discussion there at http://tonyortega.org/2014/01/30/je...gy-ethics-with-a-reprieve/#comment-1223533840

Thanks to TG1 for posting this -- and to T1kk for once again educating us all.

Just wanted to add this...

October 19, 2013 - The Underground Bunker reported about the original (and ridiculous, imho) Anti-SLAPP Motion that was filed by CSI. (The other defendants joined in this motion later.) This was and continues to be an enormous development in this case -- especially since so many mini-issues have sprung up as a result.

October 16, 2013 - The Underground Bunker reported that CSI filed Motions In Limine & for a Protective Order. I think the Anti-SLAPP Motions overshadowed the significance of this smaller pre-trial maneuver.

Here's a link to the blog post: http://tonyortega.org/2013/10/16/sc...finalisty-for-national-book-award/#more-10992

Excerpt:

In the meantime, the two sides were supposed to agree on a protective order, and Ray Jeffrey expected that they would settle on standard language used in Western Texas courts.


Under that form of protective order, when Scientology turns over a document, it could label it “confidential,” and then if Monique’s team objected to that, then the burden would be on Scientology to convince the court to put the document under seal. That’s the standard way it’s handled there, Jeffrey says.


Instead, Scientology filed a “motion in limine and for protective order” that Jeffrey says is much more restrictive. Specifically, they want only Monique and her attorneys to see any information turned over by the church — which would exclude her husband, Marty Rathbun. The church claims that Marty’s former employment with the church made him privy to confidential information, and so he should not be included in the handling of church documents, and they’re citing a Texas rule about attorneys and their obligations.


But Judge Dib Waldrip just got done rejecting that argument about Marty’s relationship to supposed confidential information when he struck down Scientology’s attempt to disqualify Jeffrey and Monique’s other attorneys, Marc Wiegand and Elliott Cappuccio. And also, Marty Rathbun is not an attorney.


This Friday, attorneys will be back in Waldrip’s court to argue over this mess, and they should be able to hash out some sort of protective order that works for both sides.

If I'm reading the excerpt correctly, what happened in October 2013 was that...

#1. TeamCSI demanded the right to mark certain material as viewable only by Mrs. Rathbun + her attorneys.
#2. Ray Jeffrey, obviously, disagreed.
#3. This issue was expected to be ironed-out in Court.

Months later, on/before January 27, 2014, CSI reportedly marked discovery materials "attorneys' eyes only".

Does this mean that "attorneys' eyes only" actually means Mrs. Rathbun + her attorneys?
If so, does that mean the issue was ironed-out in Court? (Anyone see this anywhere?)
If so, did the judge issue an Order? (Anyone see this anywhere?)
But - if so, then why would Mr. Jeffrey find this objectionable now, after this issue's been ironed-out?

Or...

Does "attorneys' eyes only" mean that CSI marked the discovery material as such* because the issue was NOT ironed-out in Court?
This makes sense as to why Mr. Jeffrey intends to ask Judge Waldrip for help on this issue on February 3, 2014 @ the next hearing.

We can all guess at what "attorneys' eyes only" means -- but the only correct interpretation is the one offered by Judge Waldrip.
If he's provided it already, I haven't seen it and would sure appreciate a copy/link.
If he hasn't provided it, then it had better come soon. Deadlines loom.

*Part of Co$/scientology mgmt's standard we-do-whatever-we-want-because-we-can longstanding pre-trial litigation tek.

"All rights reserved; your rights trampled." - Co$ legal playbook, page 1.

JB

 

[uncover]

The answer is very simple: "delay tactics"

The court order from Jan 14, 2014 clearly states:

"It is further ORDERED that the Anti-SLAPP Movants shall produce to Plaintiff the following materials....."

Plaintiff is Monique Rathbun and not their lawyers. If the church limits it to the lawyers it doesn´t fulfill the court order (".... produce to Plaintiff...") risking (only) ineffective sanctions (financial penalty - who cares about that in the Co$ ? The 22 lawyers cost more per hour).

Otherwise its a trap for Ray Jeffrey. If he says: "Who cares about this limitation ?" and shows it to his client (neglecting the limitation), the Co$-law-benders can try to get Ray Jeffrey removed from the case because of violation of professional standards (another delay). It takes strong nerves to deal with such ******

Obviously the Co$-law-benders are very much aware that they don´t have any chance to win this case - therefore they risk the misemotion of Waldrip (hoping that he will make a mistake which can be fought with an appeal).