- 27 -
VI. “Invasion of privileged attorney-client communications
through unlawful monitoring of meetings and telephone
conversations.”
We dispose of this complaint first because, for the most
part, it deals with a matter already disposed of by the Court.
In the motion, petitioner states: “Respondent engaged in
illegal monitoring of attorney-client communications, which
conversations were protected by the joint defense privilege.” In
petitioner’s memorandum, petitioner states:
On several occasions in this case, the Respondent
utilized Wendell Davies -- an attorney representing
certain farmers who had contracted with AMCOR
partnerships -- as a confidential informant (ultimately
paid) to engage in monitored telephone conversations or
meetings with Ted Frame, an attorney representing
AMCOR, its principals and employees, and AMCOR
partnerships.
Although petitioner is not specific about the “several occasions”
he has in mind, the focus of petitioner’s complaint with respect
to conversations participated in by Mr. Frame appears to be the
conversations monitored and recorded by Mr. Goolkasian on
November 14, December 8, and December 9, 1988 (the three
conversations). With respect to the three conversations,
petitioner has failed to establish any attorney-client privilege
including joint defense privileges, or the application of the so-
called “work product” doctrine. See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S.
495 (1947).
Indeed, petitioner has failed to prove that Mr. Frame was
the recipient of any privileged communications with respect to
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011