Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Benjamin Crump Response in Opposition to Defendant Motion for Deposition Reconsideration

Benjamin Crump Response in Opposition to Defendant Motion for Deposition Reconsideration

Ratings: (0)|Views: 217|Likes:
Trayvon Martin family attorney, Benjamin Crump, through his attorney, Bruce Blackwell, files a response to avoid deposition.

Essentially Ben Crump knows there is a risk to his being deposed - and now the defense has specific evidence of his lies and malfeasance - his attorney is trying to get the court to not consider the new information and protect Crump from being deposed.
Trayvon Martin family attorney, Benjamin Crump, through his attorney, Bruce Blackwell, files a response to avoid deposition.

Essentially Ben Crump knows there is a risk to his being deposed - and now the defense has specific evidence of his lies and malfeasance - his attorney is trying to get the court to not consider the new information and protect Crump from being deposed.

More info:

Published by: The Conservative Treehouse on Mar 26, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/18/2015

pdf

text

original

 
vs.
IN
THE CIRCUITCOURT
OF
THE
EIGHTEENTH
JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT
IN AND
FOR
SEMINOLECOUNTY,
FLORIDA
SrRrB
FloRroR
Case
No. :
2012-CF
-001
083-A
NoN-P¡.nrv
BnN¡nivrrN
L.
Cnuup,
EsQ.'sRuspoxsp
rn
OpposrrroN
ro
Dnruxo.mr'sMorroNron
Rocoxsrupn¡.rroN
Geoncr
ZwrueRu¡.N
Non-partyBenjamin
L.
Crump,Esq.
("Attorney
Crump"),
by
and
through
undersignedcounsel,herebyresponds
to
the
March
15,2013
Motionfor
Reconsiderationand
Clairifcation
of
the
Court's
Order dated
March
4,2013
(the
"Motion
for
Reconsideration"or
"Motion")
filed
by
Defendant
GeorgeZimmerman
("Defendant"),
and
respectfully
requests
thattheCourt
enter
an
orderdenying
Defendant's
Motion.
Defendantburdensthe
Court
with
a
motionfor
reconsideration
without
assertingany
of
the
acceptedbases
for
seeking
relief.
The
properpulpose
for
a
motion
for
reconsiderationis
to
givethe
"trial
court
an
opportunityto
consider
matters
which
it
failedto
consideror
overlooked,"not
matters
that
the Court
has
alreadyconsidered
and
decided.
See,
e.g.,
Pingreev.
Quaintance,394
So.
2d16l,162
(FIa.lstDCA
193l).
Indeed,
a
motion
for
reconsiderationis not
the
proper
procedure
for
re-arguing
thewhole
case
merely
because
the
losing
party
disagrees
with
the
Court's
decision.
DiamondCab Co.
ofMiami v.
King,
146 So.
2d
889,
891
(Fla.
1962);
cf.
Ayala
v.
Gonzalez,
984
So.
2d
523,
526
(FIa.5th
DCA
2008)
(noting,
in
the
appellatecontext,that
the
privilege
to
seek
a
rehearingis
not"an
open
invitationfor
an
unhappy
litigant
or attorney
to
reargue
the
same
points
previously
presented,
or
to
discuss
the
bottomlessdepth
of
thedispleasure
that
one
mightfeel"
towardthe
court).
Accordingly,
it
is
improper
to
usea
motion
 
for
reconsideration
as
a
vehicle
to
present
almostidentical
arguments
that theCourtpreviously
considered
and rejected.
I
Now,
with
the
benefit
of
Attorney
Crump's
Response,
the February
22,2013
hearing,
the
Court's
ore
tenus
ruling
and
subsequent
March
4,2013
Order,
Defendant
attemptsto
justiff
his
Motion
for
Reconsideration onthe allegation thatthe
affidavit
filed
byAttorney
Crump,which
was
filed
on
his own
initiative,
"is
not only
incomplete,
but
it
is
also
inaccurate."(Mot.
at
5).
Defendant
seems
to
also
suggest
thatthe
discovery
of
somecontradictory
statements
by
Witness
8
somehowgivesrise
to
the
right
to
depose
opposing
counsel.
Perhaps
the
guidance
provided
by
this
Court'sMarch
4,
2013 Orderwaslargely ignored
or
neglected
by
the
Defendant.
This
Court
has
already
determined
that,
to
depose
opposing
counsel,
"'the
party
seeking
to
take the
deposition[mustshow]that(1)
no other
means
exist
to
obtainthe
information
than todepose
opposingcounsel,
see e,g.,
Fireman'sFund
InsuranceCo.
v. Superior
Court,
140
Cal.
Rptr.
677,679,72
Cal.
App.
3d
786(1977);
(2)
theinformation
sought
is
relevant
and
nonprivileged;
and
(3)the
information
is crucialto
preparation
of
thecase.' Shelton
v.
American
Motors
Corp.,805
F.2d
1323,
1327
(ïth
Cir.
1986).
Discovery
or
depositions
from
an
opponent'scounsel
are improper
where
these
three
criteria
are
not
met.
Boughton
v.
Cotter
Corp.,65
F.3d 823,830
(lOth
Cir.1995)."
(Mar.
4,2013
Orderat
2).
Nothing
contained
within
theeighteen-page
Motion
filed by
Defendantprovidesthe
Court
with
a
sufficient
basis
on
which
tThis
is especially
truewhere,
as
here,
Defendant
was
required
as
a
matter
of
law
-
in his
initial
motionto
compel
-
to
make a
substantialshowingthat,notwithstanding theformidablepresumption
and
public policy
concernsagainstdeposing opposingcounsel
or
discovering attorney
work
product,
he was
entitled tothe sought-afterdiscovery.
See,
e.g.,
Horning-Keatingv.
State,
777
So.
2d
438,
444
(Fla.5thDCA
2001)(citationsomitted);stateFarmMutual
Automobile
Ins.
Co. v.
LaForet,5gl
So.2d
ll43,ll44
(Fla.4th
DCA
1992);
NorthBrowqrd Hosp.
Dist. v.Button,
592
So.2d 367
(Fla.
4th
DCA
1992).
He failed
to
do
so, choosing
instead
to
rely
ononly
non-specific
and
conclusory
allegations
that
fell
woefully
short
ofjusti$ing
any
depositionof
Attorney
Crump.
-2-
 
to
grant
reconsideration. The Court
was
previously
apprised
of
Defendant's
arguments;
itjust
did
not
find
them
to
be
persuasive.
Defendant cannot
demonstrate
that
no
other
means
exist
to
obtain the discovery
sought
from
deposing
Attorney
Crump
because
Defendanthas
just
recently
conducted
a
partial
deposition
of
Witness
8.
Defendant
has
instead sought
to begin discovery
with
the deposition
of
Attorney Crump, andhas
not
demonstrated
any additional
effort
to
identi$
andobtain
the
information
sought.
For
a
second
time,
Defendant
falls
exceedingly
short
of
bearing the burden
of
establishing
the
needand
propriety
of
deposing
Attorney Crump,
and establishing that
the
underlying
facts
he
seeks
to
discover
are
bothrelevant
and
non-privileged.
Indeed,
it
would
be
difficult
to
conceive
of
any
non-privileged
information Attorney Crump
has
regarding
his
interviewof Witness
8.
Lastly,
Defendantargues
that
Attorney Crumpmust
be
deposed
for
impeachment
purposes.
Since
the
deposition
of
Witness
8 has
been
recent
and
partial
in
nature,
there
can be
no
showing
of
any
possibleinconsistency
in
her
testimonythat
is
relevant
or
otherwise
material
toany
deposition
ofAttorney
Crump.
As
the
Court
noted:
"it
is
thepreserved
statement
itselt
and
not
thepersonal
recollection
of
the
attorneypresent
at
the
time,that
should
be used
for
purposes
of
impeachment.
olson
v.
state,705
so.2d
687,691
(Fla.5th
DCA
1998)."
(Id.at
5).
Defendant
nevertheless
seeks
to
impose
himself into the work-productprivilege
to
investigate
"contradictory
and
possibly
perjurioustestimony
.
.
.
for
further
determination
of
additional
misrepresentation
or
lies,
to
document
further
bases
for
impeachment
of
Witness
8,
and
other
necessary
matters."(Mot.
at
3-4)(emphasis
added).
In
short,Defendant
improperly
seeks
judicial
reconsideration
of
this
Court's
Ordersupported
by nothing more than
an apparent displeasure
with
theCourt's
previous
ruling
andthe
a-J-

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
liveclive304393 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->