Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:08-cv-01261_de73> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-01261_de73 RegisterActionDate "2009-01-21" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-01261_de73 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey Cole:For the reasons discussed during the extensive hearing on the defendant's motion to quash subpoena 68 , the motion is denied. In summary, the motion to quash consists of nothing beyond generalizations about the attorney/client privilege, without regard to the specifics of the situation that gave rise to the current controversy, namely the allegations in the defendant's motion to quash which contended that he had been mistaken in admitting on three separate occasions (i.e., in the Answer, the Amended Answer, and in his summary judgment filings) that he was a resident and citizen of Florida and that he had no memory of conversations with his lawyers on that issue. In at least one of the hearings on the question of subject matter jurisdiction, counsel for the plaintiff had made quite clear that these allegations constituted a waiver of any attorney/client privilege justifying his deposing the defendant's two prior lawyers. Nonetheless, the motion to quash does not even remotely touch on that issue, and "general propositions do not decide concrete cases." Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905)(Holmes, J., dissenting). See also Daubert v. Merrell Dow, 509 U.S. 579, 598 (1993)(Rehnquist, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Wisehart v. Davis, 408 F.3d 321, 326 (7th Cir. 2005)(Posner, J.). In view of the allegations made in the filings in support of defendant's objections to subject matter jurisdiction, it is proper for the plaintiff's counsel to inquire at the upcoming depositions whether defendant's prior counsel had conversations with the defendant regarding his citizenship and residence in Illinois and/or Florida. Questions asked by prior counsel on that score are not within the attorney/client privilege, see Steele v. Lincoln Financial Group, 2007 WL 1052495 (N.D.Ill. 2007), and, in view of the claims of mistake and lack of memory, there has been at least an implied waiver of the attorney/client privilege as to the defendant's answers, thereby permitting inquiry by the plaintiff about those answers. See Lorenz v. Valley Forge Insurance Co., 815 F.2d 1095, 1097 (7th Cir. 1987); In re Estate of Agnes H. Wright, 337 Ill.App.3d 800, 805, 881 N.E.2d 362, 366 (2nd Dist. 2007); Lama v. Preskill, 353 Ill.App.3d 300, 305, 818 N.E.2d 443, 448 (2nd Dist. 2004). Of course, no questions may be asked dealing with the allegations in the complaint regarding the contract between the parties and its alleged breach. The parties are invited to call chambers at any time during the course of the depositions to discuss specific questions and objections. Mailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 01/21/2009)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-01261_de73 AdministrativeID "70" @default.
- ilnd;;1:08-cv-01261_de73 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:08-cv-01261_de71 @default.