- 172 -
motion attaching thereto any documents alleged to be privileged
for in camera inspection. However, on May 6, 1996, Mr. Sticht
filed an objection to Mr. Izen's motion, arguing that it would be
inappropriate and potentially harmful to petitioners' cases for
the Court to review respondent's documents before the evidentiary
hearing, and that Mr. Izen's motion violated a private agreement
between Messrs. Izen and Sticht concerning discovery matters.
Mr. Sticht further stated that he could not support Mr. Izen's
motion insofar as it pertained to Messrs. Thompson, DeCastro, and
Huestis, without a privilege log describing the documents in
dispute.
On May 6, 1996, the Court issued an order amending its prior
order directing respondent, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. DeCastro to
submit documents to the Court for in camera inspection. On
May 9, 1996, the Court issued an order directing Messrs. DeCastro
and Huestis to appear at the call of the calendar at the
commencement of the evidentiary hearing and file with the Court
written responses to Mr. Izen's motion to compel and privilege
logs describing any disputed documents. Messrs. DeCastro
and Huestis complied with the Court's order. In addition,
Mr. Huestis filed motions to quash trial subpoenas duces tecum
that Mr. Sticht had served on Messrs. Thompson and Huestis.
On May 15, 1996, pursuant to the Court's directive and in
response to trial subpoenas duces tecum that Mr. Sticht had
served on Mr. Huestis and Mr. Thompson, Mr. Huestis filed a
response, attaching thereto a privilege log. On May 17, 1996,
Page: Previous 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011