Filed D.C.

Superior Court 11 Apr 14 A09:47 Clerk of Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Division Estate of ROBERT E. WONE, by KATHERINE E. WONE, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH R. PRICE, VICTOR ZABORSKY, and DYLAN WARD, Defendants * * * * * * * * * * * * * DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT’S MOTION TO QUASH FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ASSERTING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE DURING FORMER DETECTIVE BRYAN WAID’S DEPOSITION AS TO SUBJECT MATTER NOT PREVIOUSLY DIVULGED BY DETECTIVE WAID AND LAW ENFORCEMENT Defendant Joseph Price, joined by Defendants Victor Zaborsky and Dylan Ward, by their respective undersigned counsel, respectfully file this Opposition to the Metropolitan Police Department’s (“MPD”) Motion to Quash Deposition of Former Detective Bryan Waid, and in support of said Opposition, state: 1. Initially, the MPD has failed to properly assert the law enforcement privilege as expressly required by governing precedent. Jurisprudence is plain that the MPD’s assertion of the privilege is procedurally insufficient, and its Motion should be denied for that reason alone. 2. Rather, at a minimum, the MPD is required top set forth a verified statement that an official with appropriate authority has reviewed the information sought and confirmed that the privilege properly applies to specified information for specified reasons. This information is Civil Action No. 0008315-08 The Honorable Michael L. Rankin Next Event: September 7, 2011 Pre-Trial Conference

lacking from the motion and is essential to a proper weighing of the interests involved in the privilege. Indeed, a large volume of evidence regarding the MPD’s investigation was disclosed to Defendant Price, as well as to Defendants Zaborsky and Ward, during the prior criminal prosecution, and it is unclear as to whether and how the MPD could retain privilege over certain information where such disclosure has already occurred. 3. Defendant does not question the existence of a law enforcement privilege, but the facts and circumstances of this particular case, including that there has already been a criminal proceeding against the same Defendants, seemingly negates the need for any wide-ranging exercise or application of that privilege. Although the privilege may apply to some areas of inquiry in the present matter, the MPD’s Motion lacks the clarity and specificity to enable Defendant Price to ascertain whether the MPD is attempting to protect a legitimate public interest or to merely stymie Defendant’s attempts to conduct discovery of its officers. On its face, however, the Motion appears to request that this Court to provide the MPD relief that is far beyond what is needed to protect the public interests intended to be protected by the law enforcement privilege. 4. The allegations contained in the Plaintiff’s Complaint generally mirror those

allegations contained in the MPD Affidavit in support of an arrest warrant for Dylan Ward signed by Detective Waid on October 27, 2008. Given the symmetry of the allegations between the prior criminal case and the present civil case and the vagueness of the MPD’s identification of the information and/or areas of testimony for which the privilege is being asserted, Defendant is unable to fathom that there is any significant information relating to the MPD investigation that has not already been disclosed, or was required to have been disclosed, during the criminal proceedings.

2

5. Ultimately, the Defendants face civil claims levied by Plaintiff, including a claim for wrongful death, and damages in the amount of $20 million dollars. MPD detectives are expected to be called as witnesses by both the Plaintiff and Defendants. Defendants have a strong interest in conducting discovery into what information these witnesses will present when called at trial, and if discovery cannot be had into information known to these witnesses, the best course of action would be to exclude them from testifying at all. 6. The depositions of other MPD officers have been or will be noted. The substance of the MPD’s Motion, as well as the substance of this Opposition, is applicable not only to the deposition of former Detective Waid, but to all MPD personnel who may be called as witness or deposed by any of the Parties to this case. 7. In support of this Opposition, Defendant Price is contemporaneously filing a

Memorandum of Points and Authorities, which is adopted and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 8. The issues presented by the MPD’s Motion impacts not just Mr. Price, but all Parties in the civil case. In light of their own respective interests in the issues presented by this Motion, Defendants Zaborsky and Ward, through their undersigned respective counsel, join in Defendant Price’s Opposition. WHEREFORE, Defendant Joseph Price, joined by Defendants Victor Zaborsky and Dylan Ward, respectfully request that this Honorable Court deny the MPD’s Motion to Quash with respect to former Detective Bryan Waid and to other MPD officers who have been or may be noted for deposition, and for such further and additional relief as is deemed appropriate.

3

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Craig D. Roswell CRAIG D. ROSWELL (DC Bar # 433406) /s/ Brett A. Buckwalter BRETT A. BUCKWALTER (DC Bar # 478382) Niles Barton & Wilmer LLP 111 South Calvert Street, Suite 1400 Baltimore, Maryland 21202-6185 Telephone: (410) 783-6300 cdroswell@nilesbarton.com babuckwalter@nilesbarton.com Counsel for Defendant Joseph R. Price

/s/ Robert Spagnoletti ROBERT SPAGNOLETTI (DC Bar # 446462) SCHERTLER & ONORATO LLP 601 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. North Building, 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 628-4199 rspagnoletti@schertlerlaw.com Counsel for Defendant Dylan M. Ward

/s/ Ralph C. Spooner RALPH C. SPOONER 1 SPOONER & MUCH, P.C. 530 Center St. NE. Suite 722 Salem, OR 97301 Telephone: (503) 378-7777 rspooner@smapc.com Counsel for Defendant Dylan M. Ward

1

Admitted pro hac vice pursuant to Court’s 10/18/10 Order.

4

/s/ Larissa N. Byers LARISSA N. BYERS (DC Bar # 472431) /s/ Frank F. Daily FRANK F. DAILY 2 /s/ Sean Edwards SEAN EDWARDS 3 The Law Offices of Frank F. Daily, P.A. 11350 McCormick Road Executive Plaza III, Suite 704 Hunt Valley, MD 21031 Telephone: (410) 584-9443 lbyers@frankdailylaw.com info@frankdailylaw.com sedwards@frankdailylaw.com Counsel for Defendant Victor Zaborsky

2 3

Admitted pro hac vice pursuant to Court’s 2/26/10 Order. Admitted pro hac vice pursuant to Court’s 8/2/10 Order.

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14th day of April, 2011, copies of the foregoing Opposition, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, and proposed Order were served via e-filing to: Benjamin J. Razi (brazi@cov.com) Stephen W. Rodger (srodger@cov.com) Brett C. Reynolds (breynolds@cov.com) Charles Kitcher (Ckitcher@cov.com) Jason Levine (jlevine@cov.com) Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 Counsel for Plaintiff

Patrick M. Regan, Esquire (pregan@reganfirm.com) 1919 M Street, N.W., Suite 350 Washington, D.C. 20036 Counsel for Plaintiff

William B. Jaffee D.C. Bar No. 502399 Chief, General Litigation Section III Patricia B. Donkor (patricia.donkor@dc.gov), admitted pro hac vice Assistant Attorney General 441 Fourth Street, N.W., 6th Floor Washington, D.C. 20001 Counsel for Non-Party Metropolitan Police Department

___/s/ Brett A. Buckwalter________________ BRETT A. BUCKWALTER

6

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful