In
the case of Newsuan v. Republic Services,
No. 00528 (C.P. Phila. Co. April 11, 2018 Rau, J.), the court granted a
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the defense to produce certain information about
potential witnesses who worked at a facility at the time of the Plaintiff’s
accident.
According
to the Opinion, the Plaintiff filed the motion because of the alleged conduct
of the defense lawyers in purportedly refusing to provide contact information for
the potential fact witnesses in order that the defense lawyers could
allegedly contact the witnesses first and interview them, and offer to represent them for
free. The trial court found that such
alleged conduct compromised the fairness in the litigation process by
obstructing the Plaintiff’s access to evidence.
As
such, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel was granted.
In
her Opinion, Judge Rau noted that, because the Defendants’ lawyers admitted in
court that the interviews with the witnesses were conducted prior to the
Defendants’ lawyer offering to represent these witnesses, the court found that
the interviews did not constitute attorney-client privilege communications.
The
court also noted that the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct require
that the defense lawyers advised the witnesses of the potential conflict of
interest in representing both the witnesses and the company being sued, nor did
the lawyers obtain the informed consent from the fact witnesses in order to
waive any potential conflicts.
In
her Order, the judge required that the defense provide the Plaintiff with the
information regarding the current and former employees of the witnesses along
with the notes of the interviews and all written communications.
The court additionally ruled that the Defendants’ lawyers were disqualified from representing the former and current employee fact witnesses at a deposition or trial unless the attorneys secure a written waiver from the witnesses explaining the conflict of interest.
The Defendants’ lawyers were also ordered to inform Plaintiff’s counsel as to which witnesses have or have not signed the written waivers of conflicts of interest.
The defense lawyers were additionally ordered not to contact any witnesses that they had not succeeded in interviewing to date.
The court additionally ruled that the Defendants’ lawyers were disqualified from representing the former and current employee fact witnesses at a deposition or trial unless the attorneys secure a written waiver from the witnesses explaining the conflict of interest.
The Defendants’ lawyers were also ordered to inform Plaintiff’s counsel as to which witnesses have or have not signed the written waivers of conflicts of interest.
The defense lawyers were additionally ordered not to contact any witnesses that they had not succeeded in interviewing to date.
Anyone
wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I
send thanks to Attorney William P. Corcoran, Esquire of the legal division of
Septa for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.