SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION ____________________________________ ) ESTATE OF ROBERT E. WONE, ) By Katherine E.

Wone ) ) Plaintiff, ) 2008 CA 008315 B ) Judge Michael L. Rankin ) Calendar 7 v. ) ) JOSEPH R. PRICE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) ORDER This matter comes before the court on two motions by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), seeking to quash certain deposition testimony of several witnesses. The basis for these motions is the Department’s assertion of a privilege that protects disclosure of investigative files relating to law enforcement. The parties to this action have worked together to narrow the scope of the subject matters that are likely to be affected by this assertion of privilege. This privilege is a qualified one that requires the court to weigh the Department’s legitimate interests in protecting confidential information that could compromise an on-going investigation, against the other parties’ legitimate need for evidence to prove their claim or defense. Therefore it would be premature at this time for the court to make a ruling on the Department’s assertion of a blanket privilege. For the reasons stated above, upon consideration of the MPD’s (1) 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

1

Law Enforcement and (2) Motion to Quash the Depositions of Detective Xanten, Detective Whalen, Detective Norris, and Sergeant Wagner for the Limited Purpose of Asserting the Law Enforcement Privilege as to Subject Matter Not Previously Divulged by Law Enforcement; the Defendants’ opposition thereto, and the entire record herein, it is this 5th day of May, 2011, by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, hereby ORDERED, that both of the MPD’s Motions to Quash are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as to MPD’s reassertion of the privilege in a timely fashion during the depositions in question. The court will rule at a future hearing, to be scheduled, on all questions that are not answered due to the assertion of the privilege during those depositions. SO ORDERED.

Copies to: Patricia B. Donkor Assistant Attorney General 441 Fourth Street, N.W. Sixth Floor South Washington, DC 20001 Counsel for Defendant Craig D. Roswell Brett A. Buckwalter Niles, Barton & Wilmer, L.L.P. 111 S. Calvert Street Ste. 1400 Baltimore, MD 21202 Counsel for Joseph R. Price Benjamin J. Razi, Esquire Stephen W. Rodger, Esquire Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
2

Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 662-6000 Counsel for Plaintiff David Schertler, Esquire Robert Spagnoletti, Esquire SCHERTLER & ONORATO LLP 601 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. North Building, 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20004 Counsel for Defendant Dylan M. Ward Frank F. Daily, Esquire Sean Edwards, Esquire Larissa N. Byers, Esquire The Law Offices of Frank F. Daily, P.A. 11350 McCormick Road Executive Plaza III, Suite 704 Hunt Valley, MD 21031 Counsel for Defendant Victor Zaborsky Ralph C. Spooner Spooner & Much, P.C. 530 Center Street NE, Suite 722 Salem, OR 97301 Counsel for Defendant Dylan M. Ward

3

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful