You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014114.jpg
2.35 MB
Extraction Summary
6
People
7
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence / court filing exhibit
File Size:
2.35 MB
Summary
This document is page 3 of a legal letter dated February 25, 2015, addressed to Thomas E. Scott, Jr. regarding the case *Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz*. The text outlines legal arguments concerning discovery abuses, specifically arguing that one cannot claim privilege or undue burden for documents that do not exist, and providing a broad legal definition of 'control' over documents to include those held by third parties like attorneys or accountants. The document was entered on the FLSD Docket on March 24, 2015, and bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas E. Scott, Jr. | Recipient / Attorney |
Addressee of the letter regarding the Dershowitz case.
|
| Edwards | Plaintiff |
Named in the case title 'Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz'.
|
| Cassell | Plaintiff |
Named in the case title 'Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz'.
|
| Dershowitz | Defendant |
Named in the case title 'Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz'.
|
| Lawrence M. Watson, Jr. | Author/Citation |
Cited as author of 'Fla. Civil Practice Before Trial'.
|
| Michael S. Orfinger | Author/Citation |
Cited as author of 'Fla. Civil Practice Before Trial'.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| FLSD |
Florida Southern District Court (mentioned in header).
|
|
| Amerada Hess Corp. |
Cited in case law (Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp.).
|
|
| First Healthcare Corp. |
Cited in case law (First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton).
|
|
| MGP Ingredients, Inc. |
Cited in case law.
|
|
| Mars, Inc. |
Cited in case law.
|
|
| SDBS |
Logo at bottom of page, likely the law firm sending the letter.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Inferred from Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in case citation regarding a ski train fire.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction for cited cases (Fla. 4th DCA).
|
Relationships (2)
Case title: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
Case title: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
Key Quotes (3)
"It is inappropriate to assert a claim of privilege or immunity for non-existent materials."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014114.jpg
Quote #1
"The term 'control' comprehends not only possession but also the right, authority, or ability to obtain the documents."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014114.jpg
Quote #2
"[A] party is deemed to have control over documents held on its behalf by its attorneys."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014114.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,604 characters)
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 319-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/24/2015 Page 31 of
34
34
Thomas E. Scott, Jr., Esq.
Re: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
February 25, 2015
Page 3
Re: Edwards and Cassell v. Dershowitz
February 25, 2015
Page 3
Asserting Privilege for Non-Existent Documents
It is inappropriate to assert a claim of privilege or immunity for non-existent materials.
Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp., 626 So.2d 263, 264 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We
must assume that the privilege is asserted for a reason, i.e., that responsive and
ostensibly privileged information in fact exists, else the privilege would not have been
asserted. It follows that a privilege log must accompany all such responses.
Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp., 626 So.2d 263, 264 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We
must assume that the privilege is asserted for a reason, i.e., that responsive and
ostensibly privileged information in fact exists, else the privilege would not have been
asserted. It follows that a privilege log must accompany all such responses.
Claiming Undue Burden for Non-Existent Materials
Likewise, objecting on basis of burdensomeness and later conceding an opponent's right
to materials or later claiming materials do not exist constitute abusive discovery
practices. First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton, 740 So.2d 1189, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA
1999).
to materials or later claiming materials do not exist constitute abusive discovery
practices. First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton, 740 So.2d 1189, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA
1999).
Custody, Possession & Control
Fla. R. Civ. P. reaches all documents (broadly defined and specifically including
electronic data) in your client's "custody, possession, or control." Custody and
possession are self-explanatory. "Control" is broader; it "means the legal right to obtain,
even from nonparties. The concept of 'control' generally has been held to mean the legal
right to obtain the requested documents. Parties thus can be requested to produce
documents in the hands of their attorney, insurer, subsidiary, or another person outside
the jurisdiction of the court." Lawrence M. Watson, Jr. & Michael S. Orfinger, Fla.
Civil Practice Before Trial § 16.60 (1993 ed.) (citing 8 Wright & Miller, Fed. Practice
& Procedure £16-10 (1998 ed.). A recent federal court case construing Fed. R. Civ. P.
41 (on which Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350 is patterned), explained:
electronic data) in your client's "custody, possession, or control." Custody and
possession are self-explanatory. "Control" is broader; it "means the legal right to obtain,
even from nonparties. The concept of 'control' generally has been held to mean the legal
right to obtain the requested documents. Parties thus can be requested to produce
documents in the hands of their attorney, insurer, subsidiary, or another person outside
the jurisdiction of the court." Lawrence M. Watson, Jr. & Michael S. Orfinger, Fla.
Civil Practice Before Trial § 16.60 (1993 ed.) (citing 8 Wright & Miller, Fed. Practice
& Procedure £16-10 (1998 ed.). A recent federal court case construing Fed. R. Civ. P.
41 (on which Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350 is patterned), explained:
The term "control" comprehends not only possession but also the right,
authority, or ability to obtain the documents. Accordingly, Rule 34(a)
allows a party seeking discovery to require production of documents
beyond the actual possession of the opposing party if such party has
retained "any right or ability to influence the person in whose possession
the documents lie." [A] party is deemed to have control over documents
held on its behalf by its attorneys. A party is also deemed to have control
over financial records of the party that are in the possession of the party's
accountant.
authority, or ability to obtain the documents. Accordingly, Rule 34(a)
allows a party seeking discovery to require production of documents
beyond the actual possession of the opposing party if such party has
retained "any right or ability to influence the person in whose possession
the documents lie." [A] party is deemed to have control over documents
held on its behalf by its attorneys. A party is also deemed to have control
over financial records of the party that are in the possession of the party's
accountant.
MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. Mars, Inc., 2007 WL 3353401 (D. Kan. 2007) (citation
omitted); see also In Re Ski Train Fire of November 11, 2000 Kaprun Austria, 2006
omitted); see also In Re Ski Train Fire of November 11, 2000 Kaprun Austria, 2006
SDBS
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014114
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document