Attorney roster and discovery objection dispute in Edwards & Cassell v. Dershowitz (Case 9:08‑cv‑80736‑KAM)

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM WM west PALM REACH OFFICE: 2139 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402 @SH | DL EY.. P.O. BOX 3626 (561) 686-6300 1-800-780-8607 1-800-220-7006 Spanish ATTORNEYS AT LAW: ROSALYN SIA BAKER-BARNES *F. GREGORY BARNHART T. HARDEE BASS, It LAURIE J. BRIGGS "BRIAN R. DEHNEY BRENDA S. FULMER ‘MARIANO GARCIA JAMES W. GUSTAFSON, JR. MARA R. P. HATFIELD ADAM S, HECHT JACK P. HILL KELLY HYMAN DAVID K. KELLEY, UR. CAMERON M. KENNEDY WILLIAM B. KING? DARRYLL. LEWIS! “WILLIAM A. NORTON PATRICK E. QUINLANS EDWARD V. RICCI ‘JOHN SCAROLA MATTHEW K. SCHWENCKE “CHRISTIAN D. SEARCY “JOHN A, SHIPLEY iif CHRISTOPHER K. SPEED & BRIAN P. SULLIVAN 248 KAREN E. TERRY DONALD J. WARD 11? *C. CALVIN WARRINER Ht OE COUNSEL *BARLL. DENNEY, JR? SHAREHOLDERS “BOARD CERTIFIED ALSO ADMITTED "KENTUCKY ? MAINE 3 MARYLAND 4 MASSACHUSETTS 5 MISSISSIPPI ® NEW HAMPSHIRE "NEW JERSEY § VIRGINIA ® WASHINGTON 0G PARALEGALS: VIMIAN AYAN-TEJEDA RANDY M, DUFRESNE DAVID W. GILMORE JOHN GC, HOPKINS DEBORAH M. KNAPP VINCENT L. LEONARD, JR, JAMES PETER LOVE ROBERT W. PITCHER PABLO PERHACS KATHLEEN SIMON STEVE M. SMITH BONNIE §. STARK WALTER A. STEIN C4 ot “if ae <L) VIA EMAIL [email protected] February 25, 2015 Thomas Emerson Scott, Jr., Esquire Cole Scott & Kissane P.A. 9150 S Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400 Miami, FL 33156 Re: Edwards and Cassell vs. Dershowitz Our File No.: 20150013 Dear Tom: Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 29 of CU ra aHASSeE oFrine: THE TOWLE HOUSE 517 NORTH CALHOUN STREET TALLAHASSEE, FL. 32301-1231 {850) 224-7600 1-888-549-7011 I write in the hope of amicably resolving a number of issues that arise in connection with the discovery responses you have provided in the referenced matter. Responding "Subject to and Without Waiving" Objections and Claims of Privilege It is a common and improper tactic to state "general objections" (or even specific ones) and then to respond to every request "subject to" those objections or claims of privilege. We cannot accept such responses, When this occurs, even if responsive information is forthcoming, we have no guarantee that you have not unilaterally withheld information subject to the stated objections or claims of privilege; in other words, it shields the very existence of responsive matters from discovery without any ability to assess the merits of the objection or claim of privilege as applied to the ostensibly protected matters. A federal court described the problem: This Court has on several occasions "disapproved [of] the practice of asserting a general objection ‘to the extent’ it may apply to particular requests for discovery." This Court has characterized these types of objections as “worthless for anything beyond delay of the discovery." Such objections are considered mere “hypothetical or contingent possibilities," where the objecting party makes 'no meaningful effort to show the application of any such theoretical objection’ to any request for discovery." HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014112