Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon, et al. - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          the Court of Appeals did not find that this Court’s evidentiary             
          hearing or findings of fact on the misconduct of  respondent’s              
          attorneys were inadequate or did not otherwise comply with its              
          mandate in DuFresne.  Nor did the Court of Appeals address much             
          less find error in this Court’s denial of Izen’s discovery                  
          requests or order us to conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding            
          the continued misconduct alleged by Izen.                                   
               During the proceedings on remand from the Court of Appeals             
          opinion in Dixon V, this Court, in an order issued October 12,              
          2004, allowed petitioners’ renewed discovery requests (that the             
          Court had originally denied in the proceedings on remand from               
          DuFresne) for the limited purpose of ascertaining respondent’s              
          understanding of the origins and nature of the Thompson                     
          settlement.  With one exception,9 the Court ordered the                     

               9This Court sustained respondent’s invocation of the                   
          deliberative process privilege to deny petitioners access to the            
          material described in item 123 of respondent’s privilege log,               
          because the material was not probative of respondent’s                      
          understanding of the origins and nature of the Thompson                     
          settlement.  Item 123 consisted of a chronological file of 16               
          volumes comprising more than 1,200 items and 5,000 pages created            
          and maintained by respondent’s counsel Henry E. O’Neill                     
          (O’Neill).  However, in note 2 of the Oct. 12, 2004, order, the             
          Court anticipated and cautioned that the documents and materials            
          in item 123 might be required to be produced at some later time             
          in connection with pending and proposed motions for leave to file           
          motions to vacate decisions in cases in which stipulated                    
          decisions have been entered that may raise questions regarding              
          the adequacy of respondent’s disclosure of the misconduct of                
          McWade and Sims and the procedural status of the test cases.                
          That subject will be addressed in pending proceedings on the                
          motions for leave to file motions to vacate stipulated decisions            
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011