You are on page 1of 3

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