Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 1 of 30
FILED FILED 03-23-2018 01-16-2019 Clerk Circuit Court Clerk of of Circuit Court Racine County Racine County
2017CV001644 STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT RACINE COUNTY 2017CV001644 ______________________________________________________________________________
SANDRA J. WEIDNER, Petitioner, v.
Case No. 17-CV-1644
CITY OF RACINE, a Wisconsin municipal corporation,
Case Code: 30952
Respondent. ______________________________________________________________________________ ________
D E
L A
RESPONDENT CITY OF RACINE’S PRIVILEGE LOG/BRIEF F REGARDING THE PRIVILEGED NATURE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS SUBMITTED THE BMITTED MITTED TO T BOARD OF ETHICS ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ _____________
Y IL
E S
Respondent City of Racine (the “City”), by and counsel, submits nd through its undersigned unde this Privilege Log/Brief Regarding the Privileg vileged ed Nature oof the Communications Submitted to the Board of Ethics.1
P M
R O
R A
INTRODUCTION
The City ity ty files this pleading plead pleadin following the Court’s March 13, 2018 hearing and subsequent
E T
Order, that (1) “[t]he City’s Motion to Quash is granted as it relates to der, er, in which it ordered or request for a writ requiring that the City provide her with any and all Petitioner etitioner Weidner’s W documentation (information) it alleges or submits to the Ethics Board in support of its request of the Board for an advisory opinion”; (2) “[t]he City’s Motion to Quash is granted as it relates to Petitioner Weidner’s request for a writ allowing her an appropriate opportunity to submit to the Board [of Ethics] her position before it on such documentation and her actions relative thereto;” and (3) “Petition Weidner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Other Relief (filed on February 5, 2018) is not accepted.” (Order of Mar. 14, 2018.) As the Court is aware, it further 1
This pleading is being filed under seal pursuant to the Court’s Order of February 13, 2018, ordering any pleadings thereafter filed in the lawsuit to be filed under seal.
2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 2 of 30
ordered that the City file a pleading regarding the privileged nature of the
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.1
communications that underlie the City’s Board of Ethics submission. (Id. ¶ 4.) At the hearing, the Court explained
and counsel for Petitioner Weidner agreed in prior pleadings
that the
attorney-client privilege is a valid exception to Wisconsin public records law. (See Pet. Br. in Opp. to Res. Mo. to Quash at 7.) Accordingly, the City files the present pleading, whereby it first provides the legal
D E
standards pertaining to attorney-client privilege, specifically as it relates to municipality y counsel, and then it details each of the submission. All
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.1
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.1
L A
communications underlying the City ityy Board of Ethics Ethic
E S
of the communications are between the City ity Attorney’s Office Off and the
Common Council (or specific Alderpersons operating as City representatives), representative in which the City representative
Y IL
Attorney’s Office provides legal advice.2 Forr that reason, reaso the City requests that this Court
R A
unications cations are in ffact privileged and exempt from public determine that the underlying communications
R O P M
records disclosure.
BACKGROUND: LEGAL STANDARDS BACKGR ACKG
A.
E T
Attorney-Client Attorney-Cl Attorn Privilege under Wisconsin Law
As the Court C recognized and the parties agreed, Wisconsin law clearly establishes that
communications protected by the attorney-client privilege are exempt from public records ommu mm disclosure. See Wisconsin Newspress, Inc. v. Sch. Dist. of Sheboygan Falls, 199 Wis. 2d 768, 783, 546 N.W.2d 143, 149 (1996).3 Wis. Stat. § 905.03 codifies the attorney-client privilege by stating that a client “has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from 2
To be clear (and as detailed herein), one of the communications pertains to confidential health information of a City employee, see Correspondence 16, detailed on pages 24 to 25. 3 See also Armada Broad., Inc. v. Stirn, 177 Wis. 2d 272, 279 n.3, 501 N.W.2d 889, 893 (Ct. App. 1993), rev’d on other grounds,183 Wis. 2d 463, 516 N.W.2d 357 (1994) (explaining that the attorneyclient privilege provides sufficient grounds to deny access to records because the privilege “is no mere evidentiary rule” as “[i]t restricts professional conduct” under Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 20:1.6(a), which explains that “a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client”).
2 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 3 of 30
disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services.” Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2) (2017). Under the attorney-client privilege, it is “well settled that once the professional relationship is established, all communications, oral and written, between attorney and client are privileged from production.” State ex rel. Dudek v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee Cty., 34 Wis. 2d 559, 580, 150 N.W.2d 387, 399 (1967). The privilege protects communications that would directly or indirectly reveal the substance of
D E
confidential communications between the client and lawyer. See Lane v. Sharp Packaging ging Sys.,
L A
Inc., 2002 WI 28, ¶ 40, 251 Wis. 2d 68, 640 N.W.2d 788. If the document wouldd threaten tto
E S
reveal the substance of a lawyer-client communication, it is privileged. 140 leged. eged. Dyson v. Hempe, H
Wis. 2d 792, 815, 413 N.W.2d 379, 389 (Ct. App. 1987) (“Such inquiries threaten to reveal the t
Y IL
substance of lawyer-client communications. When Wh n that he case, an answer may not be Whe hatt iis the
R A
compelled.”).
R O
A communication is privileged if it takes place between the client or a client’s representative and d the client’s att attorney. Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2). Applied here, even when an
P M
individual (i.e., a client representative) has a communication with the City ual al Alderperson Alderpers (i
E T
Attorney’s Office Offic regarding something that would “facilitat[e] the rendition” of legal advice, that communication is privileged. ommu mm As Dudek makes clear the “administration of justice is thought to be best promoted by
a[n] attorney-client privilege] rule which encourages clients to reveal the facts fully to their attorneys.” Dudek, 34 Wis. 2d at 578.4 As a result, unless “one of the few exceptions can be utilized, the protection afforded by the privilege is absolute.” Id. at 581 (emphasis added).
4
Lane, 2002 WI 28, ¶ 21 (“The policy underlying this privilege is to ensure full disclosure by clients who feel safe confiding in their attorney.”).
3 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 4 of 30
Toward the end of achieving an “absolute” privilege, the Dudek court concluded: “[n]o showing of necessity, hardship, or injustice can require an attorney to reveal the protected information if his client does not waive the privilege, no matter how necessary the information is to a resolution of the particular issue on its merits.” Id. In this regard, the privilege belongs to the client (here, the City as embodied through the Common Council) and only the client has the authority to waive the privilege. Wis. Stat. §
D E
905.03(2). An individual representative or officer of the client cannot waive the privilege. lege. See
L A
Lane, 2002 WI 28, ¶ 33 (holding that only the corporation client, and nott one of its forme former
E S
officers, can waive the privilege). Both the client and its legal counsel ounsel have the aauthority to assert the privilege. Id. ¶ 21; see also Wis. Stat. § 905.03(3) (3) 3) (“The person person who w was the lawyer at
Y IL
the time of the communication may claim the pr vi ge bu y on behalf of the client. The privilege ivilege but only
R A
lawyer’s authority to do so is presumed med in the absence of evidence to the contrary.”); see also
R O
Sandra T.E. v. S. Berwyn Sch. ch. Dist. 100, 600 6 F.3d 612, 618 (7th Cir. 2010) (“The privilege 60 belongs to the client, attorney may assert the privilege on the client’s behalf.”). nt, although an aatto B.
E T
P M
The City Office Role and Obligations and Attorney-Client Privilege C Attorney’s At in the Municipal Setting. M
The City Attorney’s Office is responsible for “conduct[ing] all the law business in which
the city is interested.” Wis. Stat. § 62.09(12) (2017). As the Court can imagine, the “law business” of the City is expansive and includes an exhaustive list of legal matters
for example
(and without limitation), City ordinance drafting and enforcement, employment, licensing, labor, real estate, public records, elections, condemnation, personal injury, worker’s compensation, and contract drafting. As such, when the City Attorney’s Office communicates with Alderpersons and/or the Mayor regarding these issues it is rendering legal services (or at a minimum, “facilitating the rendition of professional legal services” under Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2)). And, 4 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 5 of 30
obviously, the Common Council and Mayor look to the City Attorney’s Office to be proactive and provide them with advice on these matters when presented in due course to the City. The City Attorney’s Office should and must be on the lookout for possible legal issues affecting the City and provide advice on these issues to the Common Council and Mayor
often times prior to
the Common Council and Mayor expressly seeking legal insights on a particular issue. This of course makes the City Attorney’s Office’s role dissimilar to that of an outside law firm retained
D E
by a multitude of different clients for specific well-defined legal issues.
L A
The City Attorney’s Office’s client is the City as embodied by thee Mayor and th the
E S
Common Council. Letteney Aff. ¶ 2; see also Wis. S.C.R. 20:1.13(a) a (“a or (“a lawyer employed em
retained by an organization represents the organization on n acting through through its duly authorized
Y IL
constituents”). Wis. Stat. § 62.09(7)(a) provides authority of the city shall es that th t “[t]he corporate corpo
R A
be vested in the mayor and common council.” only the Common Council has uncil.” Id. Accordingly, Acc
R O
the authority to waive or ignore attorney-client privilege between it and the City Attorney’s nore ore the attorney-c attorneyOffice. (Letteney Aff. ¶ 2.) No single elected officer the Mayor or an Alderperson has the sin
P M
authority privilege between it and the City Attorney’s Office. Id.; y to waive the th attorney-client atto
E T
see also Lane, 2002 20 WI 28, ¶ 33 (explaining that the privilege belongs to the entity and thus can only be waived by the entity). The City Attorney’s Office has to power to claim the privilege on behalf of the City in response to requests for privileged documents. Wis. Stat. § 905.03(3) (“The person who was the lawyer at the time of the communication may claim the privilege but only on behalf of the client.”). More specifically, this means that if any individual Alderperson (such as Alderperson Weidner) has communications with the City Attorney’s Office regarding something that could “facilitat[e] the rendition” of legal advice, those communications are protected because the
5 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 6 of 30
See Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2).
Alderperson is a representative of the client.
However, that
individual Alderperson does not have the authority to determine whether those communications were made in confidence and the authority to waive the privilege over those communications because the confidence determination and the privilege still belong to the Common Council as a whole. As noted above, the City Attorney’s Office has an ethical obligation to not reveal
D E
information related to its representation of the City without the consent of the Cityy save for certain narrow exceptions. See Wis. S.C.R. 20:1.6.
L A E S
THE PRIVILIGED NATURE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS NICATIONS The Board of Ethics submission, which includes tthe
Y IL
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.1
underlying u privileged
communications, is attached as Exhibit G to thee Affidavit of Scott Sc Letteney in Support of the
R A
City’s Motion to Quash Petitioner Sandra andra dra Wei We Weidner’s dner’s P Petition for a Writ of Mandamus under
R O
Wis. Stat. §§ 783.01, 802.06, or the Court’s convenience and reference, the City 6,, and 802.0 802.08. F Fo has refiled that Exhibit filing of this pleading. Below the City details the xhibit with the th fil
P M
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.1
communications, nications, in tu turn, eexplaining why each is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The
E T
communications begin Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision .
6 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 7 of 30
Correspondence One Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
May 22, 2017
Ald. A6
Scott Letteney Ald. A requesting the City (City Attorney’s advice on the Attorney) status of pending claim against the City Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19
May 24, 2017
Ald. A
Stacey Salvo (Paralegal)
Ald. A forwards the above correspondence to a paralegal. egal g
Basis for Attorney-Client Privilege: this is a correspondence from an Alderperson person rson (a City representative) to the City Attorney’s Office requesting information (i.e., e., legal advice) as to the status and internal processing of a pending claim of a constituent City. See Wis. Stat. ent nt against the City C § 905.03(2) (2017); see also Lane, 2002 WI 28, ¶ 33 (explaining that the privilege “readily t protects statements from the client to the lawyer”). awyer”).
5
This refers to the page number stamped on the bottom of the page. Ald. A is a text overlay for Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision whose name is redacted in the Board of Ethics submission. 6
7 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 8 of 30
Correspondence Two Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
August 2, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
Common Council,7 Other City Employees8
The City Attorney is providing advice to the Common Council and City employees regarding the process the City should take with respect to a Petition for Direct Legislation filed with the City Clerk’s Office Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision
Ald. B9
August 2, 2017
S Y
Unknown (email address ress e of ssimonsen@f ssimonsen@ ocusracine.or ocusracine.o g)
L I R A R
Ald. B forwards forward the above forw correspondence to someone correspon correspond outside outs of City government. outsid
Basis for Attorney-Client Privilege: Privile rivilege: ge: this is a correspondence from the City Attorney to the
O P
Common Councill (and City empl employees) providing confidential legal advice and how to handle a employ
M E
Petitionn filed with the th City Ci seeking changes in City ordinances. See Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2)
T
(2017) (protecting (protecti confidential communications between the client’s lawyer and client for the (protec purpose urpos po of facilitating the rendition of legal advice).
7
CH ALD is the address for the entire Common Council. The other city employees are Dennis Wiser (Interim Mayor), James Palenick (City Administrator), Janice Johnson-Martin (City Clerk), Tara McMenamin (Assistant City Clerk), Marisa Kasriel (Assistant City Attorney), Nicole Larsen (Deputy City Attorney), Stacey Salvo (Paralegal), Nhu Tran (Assistant City Attorney). 9 Ald. B is a text overlay for Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision whose name is redacted in the Board of Ethics submission. 8
8 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 9 of 30
Correspondence Three Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
January 6, 2015
Robert Weber (Then City Attorney)
Ald. C10
The City Attorney is providing insights to Ald. C, in response to her inquiry, regarding why the City retained outside counsel for a development project.
Redacted Pursuant to 1
D
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
January 6, 2015
Ald. C
E S Y
Robert Weber (Then City Attorney) y)) and a Thomas mas Friedel (Then (Th City Administrator Admin Admini ) Ald. C and Thomas Friedel (Then City Administrator ) George Meyers11
L I R A R O P M E
T
January 6, 20155
Robert obert Weber Web Webe (Then ( City Attorney)
January 31, 2017
Ald. C
Ald. ld. C responds to the t above, questioning whether wh the outside counsel has a conflict co of interest in representing the int in City.
The City Attorney responds to Ald. C’s inquiry providing legal insights as to why outside counsel does not have a conflict of interest. Ald. C. forwards the above email chain to someone outside of City government.
Basis for Attorney-Client Privilege: this is an e-mail chain in response to an inquiry from Ald. C regarding the City Attorney’s confidential thought process and action regarding its retention of outside counsel to perform legal work for the City. See Lane, 2002 WI 28, ¶ 33 (explaining that the privilege “readily protects statements from the client to the lawyer” and those that would 10
Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision
Ald. C is a text overlay for whose name is redacted in the Board of Ethics submission. 11 George Meyers, amongst other things, is a co-host of Talking Racine, an internet political talk show whose focus is to criticize local Racine government and its officials. See https://talkingracine.com/.
9 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 10 of 30
indirectly reveal the substance of the communications); see also Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2) (2017) (protecting confidential communications between the client’s lawyer and client for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice).
R A
R O
P M
E T
Y IL
10 2010596.1
E S
L A
D E
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 11 of 30
Correspondence Four Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
January 17, 2017
Ald. C
Scott Letteney Ald. C requests legal advice (City and legal authority from the Attorney) City Attorney
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
January 17, 2017
January 18, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
Ald. C
regarding when the City Council or a City board may go into closed session. The City Attorney responds by providing the legal authority requested, ed, d, including
E S Y L I R
Ald. C
D LE
Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision
George Meyers
Aldd C. forwards the above et someone so mail chain to outside gov of City government.
Basis for Attorney-Client Privilege: this is an e-mail -mail chain in i resp response to an inquiry from Ald. C abil ty to go g into closed session and related legal to the City Attorney regarding the City’s ability
A R
authority and it reflects that City Attorney’s cco confidential legal insights including citation to and
O P
discussion of legal gal authority
M E
in response to that inquiry. r
See Lane, 2002 WI 28, ¶ 33
(explaining “readily protects statements from the client to the lawyer” and ning ing that the privilege pprivil
T
those that wou would indirectly reveal the substance of the communications); see also Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2) (2017) (protecting confidential communications between the client’s lawyer and client 05.03 0 for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice).
11 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 12 of 30
Correspondence Five Ex. G PDF Range
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
26 of 68 (Page 7 of 48)
February 20, 2017
Nhu Tran (Assistant City Attorney)
Ald. C
February 20, 2017
Ald. C
George Meyers
The Assistant City Attorney responds to Ald. C’s inquiry regarding the Redevelopment Authority (a specific issue of state law) and the resolution that created the authority. Ald. C. forwards the above email to someone outside of City government.
Basis for Attorney-Client Privilege: this is an e-mail in response to an inquiry y from Ald. C to the th City Attorney’s Office regarding the City’s Redevelopment Authority hority (as controlled controlle by state law) and it reflects the City Attorney’s Office’s confidential and thoughts in dential ential legal processes proces proce response to that inquiry. See Lane, 2002 WI 28, ¶ 33 (explaining that the privilege “readily (explain (e protects statements from the client to the he llaw lawyeer” aand those that would indirectly reveal the substance of the communications); Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2) (2017) (protecting nications); cations); see also aal confidential communications between the client’s lawyer and client for the purpose of facilitating unications betw betwee the rendition advice). ition of legal advic
12 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 13 of 30
Correspondence Six Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
December 5, 2016
Ald. C
Scott Letteney Ald. C requests information (City from the City Attorney Attorney) regarding the authority of the Redevelopment Authority Redact
December 5, 2016
February 20, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney) Ald. C
Ald. C
George Meyers
The City Attorney responses to Ald. C’s inquiry with legal gal authority and statute citations itations
D E L A E S Ald. C. forwards ards the above eainn to someon ou mail chain outside off City government.
Basis for Attorney-Client Privilege: this is an e-mail chain n in response to an inquiry from Ald. C
Y IL
to the City Attorney regarding the authority of the he C Redevelopment Authority City’s R
R A
Redacted
and it reflects City Attorney’s confidential legal processes and ects cts that Ci C ty Atto
R O
thoughts in response to thatt inquiry. inquiry See Lane, Lan 2002 WI 28, ¶ 33 (explaining that the privilege
P M
“readily protects statements from th the client to the lawyer” and those that would indirectly reveal the substance communications); see also Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2) (2017) (protecting stance of the com
E T
communications between the client’s lawyer and client for the purpose of facilitating confidential co com the of legal advice). he rendition ren re
13 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 14 of 30
Correspondence Seven Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
January 23, 2017
Ald. C
Scott Letteney (City Attorney), Thomas Friedel (Then City Administrator ), Amy Connolly (Director of City Development Department) Same as above. Ald. C, Friedel, and Connolly
Ald. C requests information from the City Attorney regarding the status of a City Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision contract
D LE
A E S Y L I R A R O P M E January 24, 2017 January 24, 2017
January 24, 2017
T
Ald. C
Scott Letteney (City Attorney) ttorney) ney) Ad C
January 24 2017
Scott S Letteney (City Attorney)
March 2, 2017
Ald. C
Ald C requests requ confirmation of receipt of o the above e-mail. The C City Attorney confirms receipt and indicates that information will be forthcoming. Scott Sc Letteney Ald. C thanks the City S (City Attorney. Attorney) Ald. C, The City Attorney provides Friedel, and legal insights regarding the Connolly terms of the contract in response to Ald. C’s initial inquiry. George Ald. C. forwards the above eMeyers mail chain to someone outside of City government.
Basis for Attorney-Client Privilege: this is an e-mail chain in response to an inquiry from Ald. C to the City Attorney regarding a contract (Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision that the City entered into in which the City Attorney provided confidential legal insights regarding that contract. See Lane, 2002 WI 28, ¶ 33 (explaining that the privilege “readily protects statements from the client to the lawyer” and those that would indirectly reveal the substance of the communications); see also Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2) (2017) (protecting confidential 14 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 15 of 30
communications between the client’s lawyer and client for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice).
R A
R O
P M
E T
Y IL
15 2010596.1
E S
L A
D E
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 16 of 30
Correspondence Eight Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
March 2, 2017
Nhu Tran (Assistant City Attorney) Ald. C
Ald. C
The Assistant City Attorney responds to Ald. C’s inquiry regarding a Racine ordinance and a prospective ordinance. Ald. C. forwards the above email chain to someone outside of City government.
March 7, 2017
Jan (last name unknown)
D E
Basis for Attorney-Client Privilege: this is an e-mail from the City Attorney’s Office to Ald. C in
L A
response to an inquiry from Ald. C regarding City ordinances and it reflects the he City Attorney’s Attorney’
E S
confidential legal processes in response to that inquiry. See Lane, 2002 WI 28, ¶ 33 (explaining (
that the privilege “readily protects statements from the client ent to the lawyer” and those that would
Y IL
indirectly reveal the substance of the communications); ications); see se also Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2) (2017)
R A
(protecting confidential communications ons between the cl cclient’s lawyer and client for the purpose
R O
of facilitating the rendition off legal advice).
P M
E T
16 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 17 of 30
Correspondence Nine Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
March 27, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
Common Council, Other City Employees12
The City Attorney provides initial legal advice
March 27, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9
for filling a vacancy in the Office of Mayor. The City Attorney attaches a detailed five page memorandum ding ing legal advice providing
Common Council, Same Other City Employees As Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision Above Redacted Pursuant to 1.9 19 Oral Decision for filling a vacancy in i the Office of Mayor. May Mayo George Ald. A C. forwards the above eMeyers mail chain, including the memorandum, to someone outside of City government.
D
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
S Y L I R A R O
March 28, 2017
Ald. C
Basis for Attorney-Client ent nt Privilege: this thi is a series of e-mails and a detailed memorandum from
P M
the City Attorney orney ney to the Common Comm Council (and City employees) providing legal advice
E T
Redacted Pursuant t
for filling a vacancy in
of Mayor. See Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2) (2017) (protecting confidential communications thee Office o between the client’s lawyer and client for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice).
12
The other city employees are John Dickert (then City Mayor), Thomas Friedel (then City Administrator), Nicole Larsen (Deputy City Attorney), and Janice Johnson-Martin (City Clerk).
17 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 18 of 30
Correspondence Ten This correspondence is a continuation of correspondence seven above. Only the additional portions of the e-mail chain will be logged/indexed below. Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
January 25, 2017
Ald. C
April 4, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
Scott Letteney Ald. C requests information (City from the City Attorney Attorney) regarding whether a contract for a specific amount would need Common Council approval. Ald. C The City Attorneyy responds to Ald. C’s inquiry quiry iry providing a legal analysis nalysis ysis of
April 7, 2017
Ald. C
Subject Matter/Description
E
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
L
George Meyers
S
for a specific fo amount needs nee Common ne Council approval. Cou Counc Ald. A C. forwards the above email chain to someone outside of City government.
Basis for Attorney-Client Privilege: rivilege: vilege: this is an e-mail chain in response to an inquiry from Ald. C regarding a contract act that the City entered en
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
and what hat was permissible permissib under City ordinances in which the City Attorney provided perm confidential legal lega insights regarding the contract, Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision leg Lane, 2002 WI 28, ¶ 33 (explaining that the privilege “readily protects statements from the See La L client to the lawyer” and those that would indirectly reveal the substance of the communications); see also Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2) (2017) (protecting confidential communications between the client’s lawyer and client for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice).
18 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 19 of 30
Correspondence Eleven Ex. G PDF Range
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
42 to 44 of 68 (Pages 23 to 25 of 48)
April 7, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
Ald. C
April 7, 2017
Ald. C
George Meyers
The City Attorney responds to Ald. C’s inquiry regarding City ordinances with respect to the procurement of professional services, including providing a specific ordinance. Ald. C. forwards the above email to someone outside dee of City government..
D E L A
Basis for Attorney-Client Privilege: this is an e-mail from the City Attorney ttorney to Ald. C in
E S
response to an inquiry from Ald. C to the City Attorney regarding for the rega egarding rding City ordinances ord
Y IL
procurement of professional services, including the Ci ttorney providing a specific ordinance. City ity Attorney pr provi ov See Lane, 2002 WI 28, ¶ 33 (explaining that hatt the privilege ““readily protects statements from the
R A
client to the lawyer” and those hosee that would would indirectly reveal the substance of the
R O
communications); see also Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2) (2017) (protecting confidential St
P M
communications ons ns between the client’s lawyer and client for the purpose of facilitating the
E T
rendition ndition dition of legal advice). advi adv
19 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 20 of 30
Correspondence Twelve Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
June 2, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
Common Council, Other City Employees13
The City Attorney detailed a confidential prospective settlement
June 5, 2017
Ald. C
Unknown (email: susan.nofear @gmail.com)
Y IL
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
which included the thought processes and activities of the City Attorney’s Officee and City-retained outside side ide counsel. Ald. C. forwards ards the above email to someone omeone outside of o City ity ty government
D E L A E S
Basis for Attorney-Client Privilege: this is a correspondence espondence spondence from m the City Attorney to the
Common Council (and City employees) providing roviding confidential confident legal advice regarding an active confiden Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
R A
due process hearing potential settlement thereof. ring and the pote
R O
See Wis. Stat. §
905.03(2) (2017) (protecting ecting cting confidential confidenti communications between the client’s lawyer and client
P M
for the purpose see of facilitating the tth rendition of legal advice).
E T
13
The other city employees are John Dickert (then City Mayor), James Palenick (City Administrator), Nicole Larsen (Deputy City Attorney), and Nhu Tran (Assistant City Attorney).
20 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 21 of 30
Correspondence Thirteen Ex. G PDF Range
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
48 to 49 of 68 (Pages 29 to 30 of 48)
February 20, 2017
Nhu Tran (Assistant City Attorney)
Ald. C
February 20, 2017
Ald. C
George Meyers
June 18, 2017
Ald. C
Unknown (email: dennismontey 55@gmail.co m)
The Assistant City Attorney responds to Ald. C’s inquiry regarding the Redevelopment Authority (a specific point of state law) and the resolution that created the authority. Ald. C. forwards the above email chain to someone outside d of City government. Ald. C. forwards the he above email chain too someone outside overnme of City government
Y IL
D E L A E S
Basis for Attorney-Client Privilege: this is an e-mail from the City Attorney’s At Atto Office in response to an inquiry from Ald. C regarding the City’s ity y’ss Redevelopment Redevelopm Redevelopme Authority (as controlled by state
R A
law) and it reflects the City Attorney tttorney y Office’s confidential legal processes and thoughts in
R O
response to that inquiry. WI 28, ¶ 33 (explaining that the privilege “readily ry. y. See Lane, 2002 2 200
P M
protects statements to the lawyer” and those that would indirectly reveal the ements ments from the client c
E T
substance communications); see also Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2) (2017) (protecting bstance of the cco confidential onfidentia communications between the client’s lawyer and client for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice).
21 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 22 of 30
Correspondence Fourteen Ex. G PDF Range
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
50 to 58 of 68 (Pages 31 to 39 of 48)
July 18, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
Common Council, Other City Employees14
July 18, 2017
Ald. C
George Meyers
The City Attorney provides legal advice to the Common Council on possible Mayoral election dates as permitted by state statutes and City ordinances, including twelve different possible scenarios. Ald. C. forwards the above email chain to someone outside of City government ent nt
Basis for Attorney-Client Privilege: this is a correspondence from the he City Attorney to the Common Council (including City employees) providing confidential fidential legal aadvice on possible Mayoral election dates as permitted by state statutes including twelve utes tes and City ordinances, ordi ord different possible scenarios.
See Wis. Stat. § 905.03( 905.03(2) (2017) (protecting confidential 905.03(2
communications between the client’s t’s lawyer aand n client for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice). ce). e).
14
The other city employees are Dennis Wiser (Then Interim City Mayor), James Palenick (City Administrator), Nicole Larsen (Deputy City Attorney), Janice Johnson-Martin (City Clerk), and Tara McMenamin (Assistant City Clerk).
22 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 23 of 30
Correspondence Fifteen Ex. G PDF Range
Date
59 of 68 June 29, 2017 (Pages 40 of 48)
July 19, 2017
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
Scott Letteney
Common Council, John Dickert (Then City Major), and James Palenick (City Administrator ) George Meyers
The City Attorney provided the Common Council and other City employees with PowerPoint presentations made by the City Attorney’s Office to the Committee of the Whole on June 29, 2017.
Ald. C
D E L A E
Ald. C. forwards the above bove ove email and its attachments hments ments to tside ide of City someone outside government. ment. ent.
S Y
Basis for Protection: the e-mail contains confidential information formation prepare prep prepared by the City Attorney’s Office to the Common Council. See Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2) 905 90 (2017) (protecting
L I R
confidential communications between the client’s lient’s lawyer lawyer and client for the purpose of facilitating
A R
the rendition of legal advice).
M E
O P
T
23 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 24 of 30
Correspondence Sixteen Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
October 26, 2015
Rebecca Mason
Scott Letteney (City Attorney) and Ald. C
Attorney Rebecca Mason sent City Attorney Letteney and Ald. C an e-mail, which attached a letter The letter implored the City of Racine and Ald. C to stop making alleged defamatory statements about ut Attorney Mason’s client nt a City of Racine employee. mployee. ployee. IIn part, such statements atements tements included referencee to confidential medical dical information concerning the City C employee. Ald. C C. forwards the above email and the attached letter to someone outside of City government. Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Dec
D LE
A E S Y L I R A R O
July 20, 2017
Ald. C
Unknown known nown (email: jspodick121 jspodick1212 @gmaill.com) 15
Basis for Protection: thee e-mail and its aattached letter sent by Attorney Rebecca Mason to City
P M
Attorney Letteney tteney eney and Ald. C contained confidential health information regarding a city
E T
employee ployee (Attorney Mason’s client), and thus, is protected under the Health Insurance Portability ortability aand Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPPA”), see Pub. L. 104-191, and Wis. Stat. §
15
This e-mail is believed to belong to James (Jim) Spodick, another co-host of Talking Racine, an internet political talk show whose focus is to criticize local Racine government and its officials. See https://talkingracine.com/. Mr. Spodick’s positions/interests have frequently been in opposition to the interests of the City as determined by the City Council, including his company filing suit against the City, see Northeastern Development, LLC v. City of Racine, Racine County Case No. 10-CV-1923, and entering into a retainer agreement with the plaintiffs’ counsel that filed suit against the City in Holmes v. City of Racine, Eastern District of Wisconsin Case Number 14-CV-208-JPS, and alleging that he considered participating in that case as a plaintiff, see Holmes, E.D. Wis. Case No. 14-CV-208-JPS, Dkt. 130-1, Declaration of James Spodick, ¶ 5 “I retained the law firm of Kohler & Hart to represent my interests in a civil action against the City of Racine and others on July 1, 2013.”). Given this background, it presents a tremendous danger and risk to the City for Mr. Spodick to have access to confidential and/or privileged communications between the City and its counsel.
24 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 25 of 30
103.13(5); see also Wis. Stat. ยง 19.36 (recognizing exemptions for disclosure to comply with federal and state law).
R A
R O
P M
E T
Y IL
25 2010596.1
E S
L A
D E
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 26 of 30
Correspondence Seventeen Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
July 24, 2017
Karen Wirtz (Executive Legal Assistant)
Legistar__Ag enda__Final; Scott Letteney (City Attorney), James Palenick (City Administrator )
Subject Matter/Description
The City Attorney’s Office provides notice regarding an agenda for the Committee of the Whole, which is posted to Legistar, the City’s publically available online hosting database for meeting agendas as and minutes. The City does not contend that this is correspondence nce ce in isolationn is privileged. The T below ow chain that follows, follo which is what the th public records request requ pertained to, is however in fact privileged. howe how Scott Letteney Lette Ald. A C. inquires of the City (City (Cit Attorney as to why certain Attorney Attorney), items are being addressed by Common the Committee of the Whole Com Council, in the order that they are. James Palenick (City Administrator ), Janice JohnsonMartin (City Clerk), and Mark Yehlen (City Commissioner of Public Works) Ald. C The City Attorney responds to Common Ald. C explaining the Council, scheduling and timing of James several matters to be dealt Palenick (City with by the City Committee Administrator of the Whole. ), Janice JohnsonMartin (City Clerk), and
A E S Y L I R A R O P M E
D LE
July 24, 2017
Ald. C
July 24, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
T
26 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
July 24, 2017
Ald. C
Filed 01-16-2019
Mark Yehlen (City Commissioner of Public Works) Scott Letteney (City Attorney), Common Council, James Palenick (City Administrator ), Janice JohnsonMartin (City Clerk), Mark Yehlen (City Commissioner ioner of Public ubl ublic Works), John Joh Rooney (City (Cit Assistant Assista Assistan Commissioner C Co of Public Works), Thomas Eeg (City Assistant Commissioner of Public Works), Bill Folstrom (City Superintenden t of Public Word), and Patrick Leary of the Racine Journal Times Ald. C, Common Council, and James Palenick (City Administrator
Page 27 of 30
Ald. C responds explaining that in her view certain agenda items should take precedence over others. She also included in the correspondence a Racine Journal Times correspondentent- someone outside of City government.
D LE
A E S Y
L I R A
R O P M E
T
July 24, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
27 2010596.1
The City Attorney responds to Ald. C. providing insights on why the agenda items had to be set in that order. He also provided legal insights on why it is improper for her to
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
)
July 24, 2017
Ald. C
Unknown (email: dennismontey 55@gmail.co m)
Page 28 of 30
include an outsider of City government on communications between the City Attorney’s Office and the Common Council. Even after being admonished by the City Attorney to not share privileged information, Ald. C. forwards the above email and its attachments to someone outside of City government.
D LE
Basis for Protection: the e-mail chain involves communications between an Alderperson rperson erson (a City
A E
representative) and the City Attorney (and includes the Common Council nd City employees) ncil and empl
S Y
sched regarding the City Attorney’s legal processes in determiningg when to schedule certain agenda he City Attorney’s Attorne Attorney thought processes and items based on City ordinances. It also involves the
L I R
Cit Attorney’s Office and Common Ci advice regarding keeping correspondencee between the City
A R
Council confidential. See Lane, 2002 WI 28, ¶ 33 (explaining that the privilege “readily protects
O P
ient ent to the lawyer” lawye and those that would indirectly reveal the substance of statements from the client nications); cations); see also a the communications); Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2) (2017) (protecting confidential
M E
mmunications between betw bet communications the client’s lawyer and client for the purpose of facilitating the
T
ndition of legal advice). rendition
28 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 29 of 30
Correspondence Eighteen Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
August 4, 2017
Ald. C
Scott Letteney (City Attorney) and several (at least nine) people outside of City government
Ald. C contacts the City Attorney, while copying several people outside of City government, about revisions to the nuisance ordinance
Redacted Pu
thereby reby eby revealing information tion on that she previously via eviously learned vi communications. privileged comm
A E
Basis for Protection: Ald. C’s e-mail to the City Attorney torney orney (copying in i several people outside of informa inform City government) is privileged because it pertains to information that she previously learned via privileged communications, namely to City ordinances mely those about revisions re and about
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Ora
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
aaction towards an establishment’s liquor license. See
Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2) (2017) (2017 (protecting confidential communications between the client’s lawyer wyer and client for the t purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice). CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the City requests that this Court find that the above eighteen communications are attorney-client privileged and thus exempt from public records law.
29 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 201
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 30 of 30
Dated this 23rd day of March, 2017. MEISSNER TIERNEY FISHER & NICHOLS S.C.
By: Electronically signed by Michael J. Cohen Michael J. Cohen State Bar No. 1017787 Email: mjc@mtfn.com Dieter J. Juedes State Bar No. 1088880 Email: djj@mtfn.com 111 East Kilbourn Avenue, 19th Floor Milwaukee, WI 53202 Tel: 414-273-1300 Fax: 414-273-5840
E S
L A
D E
Attorneys forr Respondent, Cit City of Racine
R A
R O
P M
E T
Y IL
30 2010596.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 1 of 28
FILED FILED 04-02-2018 01-16-2019 Clerk Circuit Court Clerk of of Circuit Court Racine County Racine County
2017CV001644 STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT RACINE COUNTY 2017CV001644 ______________________________________________________________________________
SANDRA J. WEIDNER, Petitioner, v.
Case No. 17-CV-1644
CITY OF RACINE, a Wisconsin municipal corporation,
Case Code: 30952
Respondent. __ ______________________________________________________________________________
D E L A
PETITIONER’S BRIEF IN REPLY TO MING PR PRIV ILEGE CITY OF RACINE’S LOG/BRIEF CLAIMING PRIVILEGE _ ____________________ __________________ _____________________________________________ _______________________________ DUCTION INTRODUCTION
The Court is tasked with reviewing iewi wing 18 documents to jjudge whether they are “attorney-
E S
client privileged” and thus exempt from Wisconsin Open Records Law release. In view of the sacrosanctity of both rivilegee and publ oth privileg privilege public acccess, iit is undoubtedly not an effort the Court will treat lightly.
ants the C Co The City wants Court to dispatch its task by agreeing with the blanket proposition that the documents are privileged because “[a]ll eighteen of the communications are between the City Attorney’s Office and the Common Council (or specific Alderpersons operating as City representatives), in which the City Attorney’s Office provides legal advice.” (City Log/Br., p. 2). While Petitioner indeed disagrees, she does not express her position by rotely taking the opposite tack and - without explanation or support - merely labeling the documents as “not legal advice” or “not privileged.” The following reflects that upon thorough review of the nature and substance of the documents, and the context in which they were presented, the Court can conclude that the documents are not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 2 of 28
BACKGROUND This case arises out of Petitioner’s attempt to obtain the records
Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
. When Petitioner, via counsel, requested the documents, the City
Attorney summarily asserted a blanket claim of attorney-client privilege. “[T]he general presumption of our law is that public records shall be open to the public unless there is a clear statutory exception, unless there exists a limitation under the common law,
D E
hee public reco or unless there is an overriding public interest in keeping the record confidential.” y, 116 Wis.2d 388, 388, 3422 N.W.2d 38 N.W N Hathaway v. Joint School Dist. No. 1, City of Green Bay, 682, 687
L A
neyy-client privilege is an excepti exce on contemplated by (1984).1 Petitioner recognizes that the attorney-client the open records law.
E S
Petitioner also does ess not deny that the privilege may ma in appropriate circumstances apply to communications bbetween tween officials in the municipal governance context. officials and lawyers offici law
(But, as
w, she contends that no described below, none of the documents so qualify). A.
Thee City Mi Misconstrues the Attorney-Client Privilege in the Municipal Context.
The City in essence wants the Court to recognize and carve out a “City Attorney Privilege” that would encapsulate any and all City Attorney communications with City officials, regardless of confidentiality, because they either constitute legal services or facilitate the rendition of those Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision
services. (As the City Attorney admonished Petitioner on July 24, 2017: “
1
The Open Records Law “must be broadly construed to favor disclosure. Exceptions should be recognized for what they are, instances in derogation of the general legislative intent, and should, therefore, be narrowly construed; and unless the exception is explicit and unequivocal, it will not be held to be an exception. It would be contrary to general well established principles of freedom-of-information statutes to hold that, by implication only, any type of record can be held from public inspection.” Id.
2
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 3 of 28
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
That of
course is a gross overstatement of the privilege parameters in the municipal governance context. Some caveats are in order to supplement the background supplied by the City. First, not all communications between a lawyer and client are privileged; only communications made in confidence to an attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice are protected. As the Court noted in United States v. Weger, 709 F.2d 1151 (7th Cir. 1983), “the privilege is designed to protect only such information a client communicates to his attorney so that the attorney may properly,
D E
attorney competently and ethically carry out his representation. Indeed, thee attorney-clie t y clieent privilege does ween een a [client not prohibit the disclosure of all communications betwee e and attorney t ney]: the privilege
L A
gs which, at the time, are not intended in int protects only the client's confidences, not things to be held in gh the attorneyattorney -client relation pprovided the occasion for the the breast of the lawyer, even though attorney-client
E S
em.” lawyer's observation of them. m.”” 709 F.2d at 1154 (citation (citations and quotations omitted).
merely beca because a co comm In other words, merely ommunication is between an attorney and client does rivileged. ivileged. See Jax v. Ja not mean it is privileged. Jax, 73 Wis.2d 572, 243 N.W.2d 831 (1976)(“A mere showing ation was from a client to his [or her] attorney is insufficient to warrant a finding that the communication that the communication is privileged”).
Many of the subject communications consist solely of communications to one alderperson or the Common Council collectively. “The privilege applies only to confidential communications from the client to the lawyer; it does not protect communications from the lawyer to the client unless disclosure of the lawyer-to-client communications would directly or indirectly reveal the substance of the client's confidential communications to the lawyer.” Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Shorewood School Board, 186 Wis. 2d 443, 521 N.W.2d 165 (Ct. App. 1994).
3
Case 2017CV001644
B.
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 4 of 28
The Natures of the Relationship and Information Do Not Support Privilege.
“If it is asserted that information is privileged, the party asserting the privilege bears the burden to establish that the privilege exists. Privileges created by statute are strictly and narrowly interpreted. When determining whether a privilege exists, the trial court must inquire into the existence of the relationship upon which the privilege is based and the nature of the information sought.” Franzen v. Children's Hosp. of Wisconsin, Inc., 485 N.W.2d 603, 610-11, 169 Wis.2d 366 (Wis. App., 1992) 1. Nature of the Relationship. xact parameters arameters of the attorney It is widely-recognized that divining the exact attorney-client privilege ask. See SCR R 20 2 :1.13 (“ (“O in the municipal context is not always an easy task. Organization as Client”), [d]efining precisely the identity identi of the client and prescribing the ABA Comment (noting that “[d]efining uch lawyers may be more ddifficult in the government context . . . .” ).2 resulting obligations of such nclarity is no dou do bt due to the multiple “hats” (roles) donned by both the City The inherent unclarity doubt mbers of the Common Com Co Attorney and members Council. a. The City Attorney. Petitioner does not disagree that the City Attorney is a busy lawyer charged with handling many issues under the “expansive” rubric of the City’s “law business.” Toward this end, the City Attorney (or his deputy and assistants) attends many meetings with City officials and whether in
2
See also Patricia E. Salkin, Beware: What You Say to Your [Government] Lawyer May Be Held Against You – The Erosion of Government Attorney-Client Confidentiality, THE URBAN LAWYER, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Spring 2003), p. 283 (“The privilege extended to attorney-client relationships in the government setting is confusing and not as clear-cut as the privilege in other attorney-client settings”); Goodman and Zabokrtskya, The Attorney-Client Privilege and The Municipal Lawyer, 48 Drake L. Rev. 655, 676 (2000)(“The circumstances under which the attorney-client privilege applies in a municipal setting is far from clear”).
4
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 5 of 28
person, on-line (email), or in writing is perpetually availed upon to answer questions about the innumerable issues and tasks facing City officials and employees. Thus, it is not uncommon, and indeed a matter of public record, that the City Attorney will be asked questions about procedure or substance at a Common Council meeting or meeting of many of the City’s ubiquitous committees and boards. Sometimes (for example, in the case of Executive Committee meetings), but far less frequently, the City Attorney will answer questions or provide information in closed session contexts.
D E
a the City implies If the “attorney-client privilege” in the municipal context were as broad oad as ons)), then onee would assume ons assu assum that the City (applying to all City Attorney-Alderperson communications
L A
ings ngs or encoun encounters ters,, or not atten attend meetings at all, or Attorney would invoke it seriatim at all meetings encounters, ny open pen meeting, implo re the bo upon any question of any sort in any implore body to go into closed session.
E S
orney rarely if ever invokes the privilege in the open meeting context The fact that the City Attorney practice ractice fact Attorn A reflects that, in pract ce and fact, act,, the City Attorney recognizes that not all of his interactions with ficials icials and fellow City officials nd employees entail the dispensation of “legal advice” via confidential communications.3
b.
Common Council (Alderpersons).
An alderperson’s tasks are also wide-ranging, especially since they must wear two hats: to preserve and promote the best interests of the City and its residents as a whole and to represent the constituents who elect them to heed and tend to their individual interests and concerns. One would like to think that most of the time, the City and individual alderpersons are rowing in the same direction. But it is inevitable
and one could argue somewhat beneficial in a democracy
3
that a
Also, per statute, the City Attorney “shall when requested by city officers give written legal opinions, which shall be filed with the clerk.” § 62.09(12)(c), Wis. Stats. Had the legislature believed that any and all City Attorney-City communications were confidential, it likely would not have included this mandate.
5
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 6 of 28
municipal legislator will not and cannot always exactly toe the municipal line on a particular issue. In this regard, an alderperson must often adopt an ombudsman role and question the City’s action (or anticipated action) or stance on a matter or go to bat for constituents, who may desire an outcome different from that desired by the City’s highest elected official, the Mayor. Like the City Attorney, alderpersons are bombarded with inquiries. Oftentimes, an alderperson is asked for information that he or she does not know or have at the ready and thus must reach out to the City Attorney to get an answer. It is unreasonable to assume that in each
D E
and responses) to automatically and every such instance, all involved would intend such inquiries (and be cloaked by confidentiality or privilege. 2. Nature of the Information tion..
on, the City Attorney Attor ed that Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision In his Ethics Board submission, noted
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision Petition Of course, Petitione Petitioner does not agree Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision Something cannot be considered, for example, “mildly privileged,” “moderately privileged,” or “highly privileged.” A more sensible interpretation of the City Attorney’s words is that regardless of the City’s current position
not all municipal attorney-client communications
(Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision ) are, or can be considered, “confidential.” The subject documents constitute emails that transmit or append information. The fact that the subject communications were sent or received via email does not change the fact that they are not privileged. In other words, the fact of their email transmission does not in and of itself cloak them with confidentiality.
6
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 7 of 28
Inspection revels that most of the emails are merely transmittals of public or other alreadyexisting non-confidential information requested by an alderperson or sent to the alderperson as notice.
For example, the City Attorney (or Assistant)
specific request
either unilaterally or in response to a
provided:
x Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision [Corr. 2]; x
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
x
The resolution creating the RDA [Corr. 5, 13];
[Corr. 4];
x
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decisio
x
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
x
Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision
D E
[Corr. 6];
Corr. rr. 7]; [C
L A
rr. 8]; [Corr.
x
arding pro professional fessional services agre Ordinance regarding agreements [Corr. 11];
x
ative ive settlement agreement term Tentative terms [Corr. 12];
x
Mayoral election schedul lection schedu scheduling scenarios (later also publicly revealed to the
E S
Common Council)[Corr. Counc 14]; x
Power PowerPoint materials publicly revealed at a Committee of the Whole Meeting on the same day. [Corr. 15].
In these cases, the information is not privileged because the City Attorney (or Assistant) was acting as a mere conduit for non-confidential information and was not providing “legal advice.” See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 616 F.3d 1172, 1182 83 (10th Cir.2010) (“[W]here the attorney was acting as a ‘conduit’ for non-confidential information, the client may not invoke the attorney-client privilege”). Despite his reminder that “
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
7
Case 2017CV001644
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 8 of 28
”4 the City Attorney saw fit in a few cases to mark an email or appendage
“Attorney-Client Privileged.” This is inconsequential where the information transmitted does not in fact independently qualify as attorney-client privileged. See Kobluk v. University of Minnesota, 574 N.W.2d 436 (Minn. 1998)(stating “a document is not cloaked with the privilege merely because it bears the label ‘privileged’ or ‘confidential’”). The following reflects that none of the 18 subject communications constitute “confidential” g of legal advice. communications constituting legal advice or made to facilitate the rendering
D E
L A
E S Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
8
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 9 of 28
Correspondence One Email from alderperson regarding a constituent’s claim Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Alleged Privilege Basis:1 The correspondence requests “information (i.e., legal advice) as to the status and internal ) processing of a pending claim of a constituent against the City.” (Log, p. 7).
D E
Why Not Privileged: A request for information
especially in the he context ontext of an adversarial adversari l cla claim - is not a
L A
request for legal advice. The alderperson is in essence stand shoes of his constituent and standing ng in the shoe sh asking that the City Attorney act as a mere conduit for information. See In re Grand Jury info infor
E S
Proceedings, 616 F.3dd 1172, (“[W]here the attorney was acting as a 172, 1182 83 (10th Cir.2010) Cir.201 Cir.20 non-confidential nfidential information, informatio information the client may not invoke the attorney-client ‘conduit’ for non confidential privilege”).
unica i The communication provides no “legal advice” and contains no confidential communications or information from the client (alderperson).
1
It bears noting that despite the fact that the email was forwarded to City Attorney’s office paralegal Stacey Salvo – not a third party outside the City – Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision 9
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 10 of 28
Correspondence Two Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Email giving Common Council and City officials “ Legislation Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision .
” of a Petition for Direct
Alleged Privilege Basis: The City Attorney is “providing confidential legal advice and how to handle” the Petition. (Log, p. 8).
D
Why Not Privileged:
The email is merely a preliminary notice, and basic icc summary ummary of, the th t Petition and explanation of the process, not advice as to the substance ce or viability viab l of the Pet P titi nce iability ition. In it, the
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
City Attorney states that: “
E S
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision he communi communication providess no “legal advice” and neither contains confidential Thus, the t clien nor indirectly reveals the substance of any confidential communications from the client om th h client. communications from he The
fact
that
it
is
marked
“ATTORNEY-CLIENT
CONFIDENTIAL
COMMUNICATION” is inconsequential. See Kobluk v. University of Minnesota, 574 N.W.2d 436 (Minn. 1998)(stating “a document is not cloaked with the privilege merely because it bears the label ‘privileged’ or ‘confidential’”).
10
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 11 of 28
Correspondence Three Email chain regarding retention of outside counsel on a development project.
Alleged Basis for Privilege: It reveals “the City Attorney’s confidential thought process and action” regarding hiring outside counsel. (Log, p. 9). Why Not Privileged:
D E
The communications were in response to Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
As evinced by the fact that directed to then hat at the initial inqu inquiry was as di
L A
Administrator Friedel and not the City Attorney, ey, y, it was not a request for legal advice. She is in essence acting as an subject hiring. Responses from n ombudsman mbudsman challenging the su
E S
the then City Attorney provide ide no “legal advice”
no recommendation or directive -- and neither rec
contain confidential reveal the substance of any confidential ential ntial communications nor no indirectly indi s2 s. communications.
2
The City sees fit to emphasize the recipient George Meyer’s political pedigree. (Log/Brief, p. 9, n. 11). This is irrelevant and inconsequential to these proceedings. 11
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 12 of 28
Correspondence Four
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision in response to request for statutes and ordinances regarding when Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Alleged Basis for Privilege: Email reflects “confidential legal insights.” (Log, p. 11). Why Not Privileged: In his Ethics Board submission,
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision t is now
A E
described as a “request for legal advicee and legal aauthority uthority”” [Log, g, p. 11], tacit admission that a request for “legal advice” and d request for “legal authority” are ar not one and the same.
S
A request for information is not a request for legal advice. The City Attorney merely
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision Despite the contention that this was “confidential legal insights,” it was not “legal advice” and neither contains the provision of “confidenti confidential communications from the client nor indirectly reveals the substance of any confidential communications from the client. When a lawyer acts merely as a conduit for information readily available from other sources (and not implicating any confidential information from the client), the communication is not attorney-client privileged. See Ohio-Sealy Mattress Manufacturing Co. v. Kaplan, 90 F.R.D. 21, 29 (N.D. Ill. 1980)(“Many of the documents reveal matters of public record that could have been discovered by other means. None of the documents reveal any information that even approaches a breach of the confiden-tiality necessary for the proper functioning of the attorneyclient relationship”). 12
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 13 of 28
Correspondence Five Email attaching the resolution creating the Redevelopment Authority.
Alleged Basis for Privilege: Email reflects the City Attorney’s Office’s “confidential legal processes and thoughts.” (Log, p. 12). Why Not Privileged: The City describes the request as an inquiry regarding a “specific pecific ecific point of state law.” (Log, p. 12). A request for information is not a request for legal egal advice. The Assistant Assistan City Attorney merely provided the resolution, which is obvious y aan open record an and neither contains obviously confidential communications norr indirectly substance of any confidential ndirectly reveals the sub communications. When a lawyer y r acts t merely as a condu o duit for information readily available from condui other sources (and not implicating any cconfidential information from the client), the attorney attorne -client client pprivileged. (See previously cited authority). communication is not attorney-client
13
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 14 of 28
Correspondence Six
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Email attaching a
Alleged Basis for Privilege: Email reflects the City Attorney’s Office’s “confidential legal processes and thoughts.” (Log, p. 13).
D E
Why Not Privileged: The alderperson asked
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
L A
Even if interpreted as an inquiry quiry Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision a request for information is not a request for legall advice. The City Attorne Attorneyy m merely provided
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
E S
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Ora
The transmitting email
neither contains confidential fidential tial communications from tthe client nor indirectly reveals the substance ential tial communications communica of any confiden c uni tions ns from tthe client. When a lawyer acts merely as a conduit for dily availab information readil va a le ffrom or created by other sources (and not implicating any tio from the client), the communication is not attorney-client privileged. confidential information
14
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 15 of 28
Correspondence Seven Email chain responding to alderperson’s inquiry Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Alleged Basis for Privilege: The “City Attorney provided confidential legal insights regarding that contract.” (Log, p. 14). Why Not Privileged: The City Attorney merely transmits Redacted
Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision This is all “open
A E
record” information. See § 19.36(3), ), Wis. Stats. (requiring access to “any record produced or collected under a contract entered ntered into by the authority with a person other than an authority”).
S
A request for public information is not for legal advice. The City Attorney merely not a request re
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
The City Attorney’s
oid id of any comment co c reply email is devoid which can be construed as a “legal insight,” much less “legal advice.”
The transmitting email neither contains confidential communications from the client nor indirectly reveals the substance of any confidential communications from the client. When a lawyer acts merely as a conduit for information readily available from or created by other sources (and not implicating any confidential information from the client), the communication is not attorney-client privileged.
15
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 16 of 28
Correspondence Eight Email from Assistant City Attorney transmitting
Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision
.
Alleged Basis for Privilege: The email “reflects the City Attorney’s confidential legal processes in response” to the request for the ordinances. (Log, p. 16). Why Not Privileged:
D E
A request for information is not a request for legal advice. The Th Assist s ant City Attorney merel
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision No “legal
L A
advice” was provided. The transmitting email neither contains confidential com communications from the client nor indirectly reveals the substance communications from the client. ubstance stance of any confidential com
E S
When a lawyer acts merely as a conduit uit for information readily available from or created by other rea sources (and not implicating any confidential from the client), the communication is confidenti information info ient ent privileged. not attorney-client
16
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 17 of 28
Correspondence Nine Email and memorandum describing procedures for filling mayoral vacancy.
Alleged Basis for Privilege: Via the email and memorandum, the City is “providing legal advice Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
” under law for filling mayoral vacancy. (Log, p. 17).
Why Not Privileged:
D E
These are communications from the City Attorney to City officials fficials and employees e merely summarizing procedures set forth in state law and city ordinance dinance to fill the mayoral mayora vacancy. The
L A
City Attorney provides no legal insight or legal advice and renders no opinions.
The
E S
communications ons
communications to the lawyer.
neither
directly
nor
indirectly i
reveal
any
Redacted Purs
confidential
ct that the document is eexpressly ex The fact marked as “Attorney-Client Privileged” does not Kobluk v. University of Minnesota, 574 N.W.2d 436 (Minn. 1998)(stating alone make it so. See Koblu “a document is not cloaked with the privilege merely because it bears the label ‘privileged’ or ‘confidential’”).
17
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 18 of 28
Correspondence Ten Alderperson’s request whether a specified contract would need Council approval. (Continuation of correspondence seven).
Alleged Basis for Privilege: City Attorney provided “confidential legal insights regarding the contract.” (Log, p. 18). Why Not Privileged: Ald. C had two inquiries:
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
L A
The type of question asked by Ald. C is routinely asked of th the City Attorney in many other open contexts (i.e., Common moon Council meetings). Considering Consider the nature and context of the request, it cannot be said confidential request for “legal advice” (and this is d that she sh wa wass making a con confirmed by her er subsequent sharing of the information).
“The privilege applies only to confidential communications from the client to the lawyer; ege appli it does not protect communications from the lawyer to the client unless disclosure of the lawyerto-client communications would directly or indirectly reveal the substance of the client's confidential communications to the lawyer.” Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Shorewood School Board, 186 Wis. 2d 443, 521 N.W.2d 165 (Ct. App. 1994). The City Attorney’s replies neither disclosed confidential information nor directly or indirectly reveled and confidential communications.
18
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 19 of 28
Correspondence Eleven Email from City Attorney transmitting ordinances regarding procurement of professional services.
Alleged Basis for Privilege: The City does not assert “legal process” or “legal insight” but rather states a general description: “this is an email from the City Attorney to Ald. C in response to an inquiry from Ald. pr C to the City Attorney regarding City ordinances for the procurement off professional services, og, p. 19). 19 including the City Attorney providing a specific ordinance.” (Log, Why Not Privileged: “The privilege applies only to confidential dential tial communications from th the client to the lawyer; it does not protect communications disclosure of the lawyerns from m the lawyer to the client unless u to-client communications ctly reveal the substance of the client's nss would directly or indir indirect mmunications lawyer.” Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Shorewood School Board, confidential communications ations to the lawyer. 3,, 521 N.W.2d 165 (Ct. ( App. 1994). 186 Wis. 2d 443, or infor A request for information is not a request for legal advice. The Assistant City Attorney merely provided the requested ordinances, without elaboration or insight or discussion. No “legal advice” was provided. The transmitting email neither contains confidential communications from the client nor indirectly reveals the substance of any confidential communications from the client. When a lawyer acts merely as a conduit for information readily available from or created by other sources (and not implicating any confidential information from the client), the communication is not attorney-client privileged.
19
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 20 of 28
Correspondence Twelve Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision
Email to Common Council and other City officials providing settlement agreement Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
of a tentative
Alleged Basis for Privilege: The email provided “confidential legal advice regarding an active
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
due
process hearing and the potential settlement thereof.” (Log, p. 20).
D E
Why Not Privileged:
In Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Shorewood School Board, 186 Wis. 2d 443, 521 5 N.W.2d 165 (Ct. App. 1994), outside counsel was hired by the school of chool ol board and prepared a memorandum m me
L A
understanding reciting the terms of a settlement ement nt with the school district's distric former superintendent. The school board refused to produce Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling ucee thee memorandum. memorandum The Cou
E S
that the document was an “open record.” The he Court als aalso rejected the school board’s argument that attorney-clie privilege: attorneythe document was protected by attorney-client
ooll board appellan The school appellants also claim that disclosure of the "Memorandum of ding" wou would breach the attorney-client privilege between the district and Understanding" sen ffirm. This argument is without merit. The privilege applies only to the von Briesen confidential communications from the client to the lawyer; it does not protect communications from the lawyer to the client unless disclosure of the lawyer-toclient communications would directly or indirectly reveal the substance of the client's confidential communications to the lawyer. There has been no showing that the "Memorandum of Understanding" falls within this rule. 186 Wis. 2d at 460 (citations omitted). The email sets forth terms of the prospective agreement, without advice or comment. The email does not as the City portrays include the attorneys’ “thought processes.”
As in the
Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Shorewood School Board case, the privilege would only apply to the extent that disclosure would directly or indirectly reveal client confidential communications to the lawyer. An email containing proposed settlement terms is not such a revelation. 20
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 21 of 28
The settlement terms are not “confidential communications” in that that were wrought from interaction between attorneys on behalf of the two settling parties the City and the
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
The fact that the document is expressly marked as “Attorney-Client Privileged” does not alone make it so.
D E
L A
E S
21
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 22 of 28
Correspondence Thirteen [Same as Correspondence Five] Email attaching the resolution creating the Redevelopment Authority.
Alleged Basis for Privilege: Email reflects the City Attorney’s Office’s “confidential legal processes and thoughts.” (Log, p. 21). Why Not Privileged:
D E
The City describes the request as an inquiry regarding a “specific ific poi poin point of state law.” A request for information is not a request for legal advice. The Assistant City A Attorney merely
L A
provided the resolution, which is obviously an open record and neither contain contains confidential conta communications from the client nor indirectly substance of any confidential ctly reveals the substan substa communications from the client. nt. t. When a lawyer acts merely as a conduit for information readily
E S
available from other sources rces (and not implicating any an confidential information from the client), cation tion is not attorney attorne -client client ppr the communication attorney-client privileged.
22
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 23 of 28
Correspondence Fourteen Email where the City Attorney “address[es] several possible scenarios for the scheduling of a Special Mayoral Election.”
Alleged Basis for Privilege: The City Attorney is “providing confidential legal advice” on possible mayoral election dates, including twelve different possible scenarios. (Log, p. 22).
D E
Why Not Privileged:
As referenced in the email, the Committee of the Whole lee convened on the evening of July 18, 2017 to consider the matter. The meeting was open proceedings were n to the public and the pr proc
L A
videotaped, with the video available for viewing ewing g on the City’s website.3 During D the meeting, City Attorney Letteney references his email and in fact reiterates its contents in open session during a
E S
presentation of almost 25 minutes.4 He disclosed the eexact information set forth in the email and the Committeee members mbers asked specific que questions about the various specified scenarios. During ty. y. Letteney reiterated reite the meeting, Atty. that several scenarios were unfeasible because of the Ci Clerk and Deputy City Clerk. unavailability of thee City The email merely sets forth twelve potential scenarios for scheduling, provides no legal advice, and contains no confidential information. Regardless, the City Attorney reiterated its contents via an extensive open public presentation and discussion at the Committee of the Whole meeting later that day.
3
http://cityofracine.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=1&clip id=247 9:20 to 33:22 on video stream.
4
23
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 24 of 28
Correspondence Fifteen Email attaching PowerPoint presentations made to the Committee of the Whole on June 29, 2017.
Alleged Basis for Privilege: The email “contains confidential information prepared by the City Attorney’s office to the Common Council.” (Log, p. 23).
D E
Why Not Privileged:
As with the Committee of the Whole Meeting regarding ng mayoral election scheduling, the PowerPoint information was presented by the Cityy Attorney to the open and public 6/29/17 p
L A
Committee meeting. The PowerPoint can be viewed ewed as presented on the City Cit website.5 Regardless of its content, it was thus neverr intended to be “confidential” and a contains neither confidential
E S
communications from m the he client nor indirectly rreveals re the substance of any confidential onss from the client. client clie t. communications
5
http://cityofracine.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=1&clip id=242 24
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 25 of 28
Correspondence Sixteen An email and attached letter from a non-City attorney to City Attorney Letteney and Ald. C
Alleged Basis for Protection: The email and attached letter “contained confidential health information regarding a city employee.” (Log, p. 24). Why Not Protected:
D E
The City’s assertion that the email and letter contain confidential nti tial al hhe health information is ormation.” specious. The letter does not contain “confidential health informatio .” It referen references a document
L A
ormation on and an allegation iis made that the that the attorney alleges contains protected information document was unlawfully obtained.6
Unwilling to recognize the baselessness a e ssness of its conten contention that the subject letter contains content
E S
confidential information, tion, the City takes a jab at the recipient of Ald. C’s transmittal and states ckground, it presents a trem “[g]iven this background, tremendous danger and risk to the City for Mr. Spodick to fidential and/o have access to confidential ntial an and/or privileged communications between the City and its counsel.” City hyperbole aside, the Mason letter is obviously not privileged. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 616 F.3d 1172, 1183 (10th Cir. 2010)(“A communication by an attorney to a third party or a communication by a third party to an attorney cannot be invoked as privileged”). The transmittal to Mr. Spodick of the letter was not a transmittal of “confidential and/or privileged communications between the City and its counsel.”
6
The City Attorney notes in his Ethics Board submission: Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
25
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 26 of 28
Correspondence Seventeen Email chain between City Attorney and Ald. C regarding scheduling of matters before the Committee of the Whole
Alleged Basis for Privilege: The emails regard “the City Attorney’s legal processes in determining when to schedule certain agenda items based on City ordinances” and “involves the City Attorney’s thought
D E
he City Atto processes and advice regarding keeping correspondence between the Attorney’s Office and Common Council confidential.” (Log, p. 28).
L A
Why Not Privileged:
The emails relate to Ald. C’s concerns oncerns ncerns about scheduling. Ald. C’s 7/24/17 email expressed
E S
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
She was not seeking legal advice. It
contains no confidential Attorney’s reply of that same date merely contains dential information. The C City A
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision lied, reiterating reiter reitera Ald. C replied, her concerns. The City Attorney responded by merely reciting
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision Because her initial inquiry and the reply were not confidential or
privileged, Ald. C did not improperly copy Journal Times reporter Leary. Nonetheless, the City Attorney’s perception otherwise and admonishment that Ald. C should
Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision
is not legal advice and contains neither confidential communications from the client nor indirectly reveals the substance of any confidential communications from the client.
26
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 27 of 28
Correspondence Eighteen Email from Ald. C regarding an establishment and its liquor license (copied to several constituents outside City government).
Alleged Basis for Protection: Email is privileged because “it pertains to information that she previously learned via privileged communications, namely those about revisions to City ordinances and about
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 O
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
nt’s t’s liquor liquor license.” (Log, p. action toward an establishment’s
29). Why Not Privileged: This was an email from Ald. C impelled by, and intendi intending to address, her constituents’ concerns, not a requestt for legal advice. IInn it, she ddiscloses no confidential or privileged or tect ctedd information. Having ving co cop otherwise protected copied several constituents (third parties to the attorneyip), p), the document ca c client relationship), cannot be considered to be confidential. See Jenkins v. Bartlett, ir 200 487 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2007)(noting that “ordinarily, statements made by a client to his attorney in the presence of a third person do not fall within the privilege, even when the client wishes the communication to remain confidential, because the presence of the third person is normally unnecessary for the communication between the client and his attorney”).
27
Case 2017CV001644
Document 182
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 28 of 28
CONCLUSION The Supreme Court of Wisconsin has declared that “the attorney-client privilege is an obstacle to the investigation of the truth [and] it should be strictly confined within the narrowest possible limits consistent with the logic of the principle.” Jax v. Jax, 73 Wis.2d 572, 243 N.W.2d 831, 836 (1976). When assessed in that light the City
and not through the absolute prism suggested by
the Court can conclude that none of the 18 subject communications comprise
tate the th rendering of legal “confidential” communications constituting legal advice or made to facilitate
D E
advice. As such, they are not attorney-client privileged.
L A
re not pprivileged privileged, wo w Should the Court find that the documents are ivileged,, Petitioner would request that yment of att attorney’’s fees, s per § 19.37(2), 1 19 the Court order that she be entitled to payment Stats. of the Open
E S
ney’’s provision to the Common Council ney C Records Law. The City Attorney’s (including Petitioner) of the nder this action moot in i that the h City Attorney (and later City) contended that documents did not render he lient ent privilege applied The proceedings were necessary to have the Court, as we Thes the attorney-client applied.. These termine rmine that the City’s blanket privilege claim asserted (without explanation) in ask that it do, determine ds request has no basis. To the extent that the Court makes that determination, response to the records Petitioner has prevailed “in whole or in part” and is thus entitled to fees per the statute. Dated this 30th day of March, 2018. KNUTESON, HINKSTON & QUINN, S.C. Attorneys for Petitioner, Sandra J. Weidner By: Electronically signed by Mark R. Hinkston Mark R. Hinkston State Bar No. 1022427 Email: mhinkston@sbcglobal.net 500 College Avenue Racine, WI 53403 Telephone: (262) 633-2000 Fax: (262) 989-8150 28
Chambers of
Judge EUGENE A. GASIORKIEWICZ Presiding Judge Racine County Circuit Court Branch II 730 Wisconsin Ave Racine, Wisconsin 53403 Eugene.Gasiorkiewicz@wicourts.aov Chambers: (262) 636-3134
Case Manager Amy Vanderhoef (262) 636-3311
Court Reporter Leslie M. Johnson (262) 636-3135
April 4,2018
Knuteson, Hinkston & Quinn, S.C. Mark Hinkston 500 College Avenue Racine, WI 53403 Meissner, Tierney, Fisher & Nichols, S.C. Michael Cohen & Dieter Juedes 111 East Kilboum Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53202 RE: Case No. 17-CV-1644 Gentlemen: I have finished my preliminary review of the “privilege log” provided and the objections filed. Thank you for your timely submission of those documents. In my review, I have found that I require additional information to render a decision in this matter. Therefore, I am requesting that the Defendant’s counsel provide me with the following additional information (which continues to be under this Court’s gag or seal order). 1. Correspondence 5 (Page 7 of 48). The document references the resolution which created the Development [sic] Authority, including details of its composition. It is clear that this references the Redevelopment Authority resolution, but this Court has no idea what “details of its composition” is referencing. I am requesting that this additional material be provided to the Court for review. 2. Correspondence 16 (Pages 41-41 of 48). It is claimed that the document contained protected HIPPA information. This Court is looking for input as to what HIPPA information exists in the correspondence and, if previously redacted, orders that an unredacted version be provided so that this Court can gamer the entire original correspondence.
3. Correspondence 14 & 15. I would like input from counsel (citing authority) that presentation of the content of the referenced items at a public common council meeting and availability of viewing the presentation and content on the city’s website affects the theory of confidentiality and privilege. Please provide the requested information (by both parties) within seven (7) days of this letter. Sincerely,
Hon. Eugene A. (Basiorkiewicz EAG/lj
FILED 04-10-2018
Knuteson, Hinkston & Quinn, S.C.
Clerk of Circuit Court
- a limited liability organization -
Attorneys at Law John W. Knuteson, J.D., C.P.A. Mark R. Hinkston, J.D. Andrew J. Rosenberg
Racine County 2017CV001644 Of Counsel: Mark Lukoff, S.C. Circuit Court Commissioner
500 College Avenue Racine, WI 53403-1058 Telephone: 262-633-2000 Facsimile: 262-633-9900
Matthew H. Quinn, Retired Leander R. Valent, Retired
April 10, 2018 Hon. Eugene A. Gasiorkiewicz Racine County Circuit Court 730 Wisconsin Avenue Racine, WI 53403
D E
L A
Re: Case No. 17-CV-1644
Dear Judge Gasiorkiewicz:
E S
On behalf of Petitioner Sandra Weidner, I respond to your letter of 4/04/18 wherein you request additional information. I interpret the letter as seeking input from Petitioner on item no. 3 regarding Correspondence Nos. 14 and 15. As to that item, you seek “input from counsel (citing authority) that presentation of the content of the referenced items at a public common council meeting and availability of viewing the presentation and content on the city's website affects the theory of confidentiality and privilege.” Correspondence No. 14
Correspondence No. 14 is a July 18, 2017 email from the City Attorney to Common Council members (who also constitute members of the Committee of the Whole) and other City representatives “to address several possible scenarios for the scheduling of a Special Mayoral Election.” The email provides that the scheduling matter was on the agendas for that evening’s Committee of the Whole and Common Council meetings. At the Committee of the Whole meeting that evening, the Common Council members publicly convened (as the Committee) to consider “a recommendation for the implementation of the Carlson Dettman [sic] Compensation Study” and to “discuss dates for the setting of a Special Mayoral Election.” (See public Meeting Minutes accompanying as Ex. A). The proceedings were videotaped and the video stream is available to the public on the City of Racine website.1
1
http://cityofracine.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=247
April 10, 2018 Page 2
About half the meeting addressed mayoral election scheduling. During his almost 25-minute presentation, City Attorney Letteney provided a 4-slide PowerPoint presentation that contains the 12 scenarios included in Correspondence No. 14 and fielded questions from Committee members. In Correspondence No. 14, in addition to specifying the 12 scenarios, the City Attorney had also: (1) stated the possibility that the special election could be held in April 2018 along with the regular spring election; (2) specified assumptions that the election would be held before December 2017, on a Tuesday, and the date would be approved at a regular council meeting; (3) recommended that six of the scheduling scenarios be rejected because of the unavailability of the clerk and deputy clerk; and (4) stated that due to a quirk in state law, the election could not be held on November 7, unless there would be no more than two candidates.
D E
The following transcribed excerpt of the City Attorney’s introductory comments reflects that he publicly made these same points at the open 7/18/17 Committee of the Whole meeting (before spending several minutes answering questions):
L A
I did send you an email on this issue and I gave you copies of the PowerPoint -- I sent you an email and gave you copies of the PowerPoint. I can briefly go through it. You’ll recall that the Common Council sets the election date and there’s some timing issues between 62 and 77 days after the date of the order. So there’s 4 slides that are based upon what day the Common Council sets the election as to what days the election can be set. That may be working backwards but were you to set the election tonight at the Common Council meeting there are three days that would fit -- that would be September 19th, September 26th, and October 3rd. And then all the other dates work backwards from that. I noted on the slide and on my email that for each of those three scenarios either the City Clerk or the Deputy City Clerk or both are not available for either the election or the primary in each of these scenarios. So that’s one set of scenarios. Were you to defer action until October 2nd -- and let me as an aside say obviously the Common Council can set a special meeting if it wants to to set an election date but – and all these by the way all these scenarios assume a Tuesday election which isn’t required by statute but that’s obviously what we’re all used to. So were the Common Council to wait until August 2nd to set the election date then the election would either be held based upon the timing October 10th or October 17th and those other dates are there. Were the Common Council to wait until October 15th to set an election date, it would either be October 17th, October 24th, or October 31st. But on the 24th and 31st scenarios there are problems with City Clerk and Deputy City Clerk availability. Were the council to wait till September 5th to set the election then it could be held on November 14th or November 21st. November 17th-- excuse me November 7th -is not available as an election date due to what I consider a very odd quirk in the statutes. Unless you knew for sure there were only going to be two candidates and therefore no primary. But if there’s going to be three candidates or more and there has to be a primary it just doesn’t work for the calendar and by state statute to hold it November 7th. And the final slide I have -- I think that’s the last one – yeah – If the council waits until September 17th or September 19th to set the election then the election could either be held November 21st or November 28th and again the November 28th scenario has problems with City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk availability. Now I didn’t include any slides or anything in my email to you if the council wanted to wait until Spring to hold an election and if the council
E S
April 10, 2018 Page 3
decides to do that there are some timing issues that we can discuss some time later. You wouldn’t have to actually call the election till later in the year. That’s all I had to present right now.2
Because it is the policy that “the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information regarding the affairs of government as is compatible with the conduct of governmental business, …all meetings of all state and local governmental bodies shall be publicly held in places reasonably accessible to members of the public and shall be open to all citizens at all times unless otherwise expressly provided by law.” §19.81(1), (2), Wis. Stats. At such meetings, all discussion and action “shall be initiated, deliberated upon and acted upon only in open session except as provided in s. 19.85.” §19.83(1), Wis. Stats.
D E
The Committee of the Whole met on July 18, 2017 to discuss the scheduling issue in open session, as it is required to do because none of the closed meeting exceptions applied. A municipality may meet in closed session to consider compensation data “of any public employee over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility” [§ 19.85(1)(c), Wis. Stats.], but not when considering such data for a group of employees in general. 3 Also, the City can go into closed session to confer with its legal counsel “who is rendering oral or written advice concerning strategy to be adopted by the body with respect to litigation in which it is or is likely to become involved.” § 19.85(1)(g), Wis. Stats. Neither subject matter slated for the 7/18/17 Committee of the Whole meeting – election scheduling or employee compensation -- involved litigation.
L A
E S
Correspondence No. 14 does not contain attorney-client privileged information. The Aldermen, as Committee of the Whole and Common Council members tasked with facilitating the filling of the mayoral vacancy, were not looking to the City Attorney to advise them as to what specific date they should choose. As such, Attorney Letteney was not proffering legal advice in merely setting forth the twelve basic scheduling scenarios in the email and later at the meeting. It is true that Attorney Letteney apologized that he might be “overstepping” in recommending rejection of a few dates based on clerk unavailability. Yet scheduling advice is not “legal advice” justifying a cloak of protection.4 In Loudon House LLC v. Town of Colonie, 123 A.D.3d 1409, 999 N.Y.S.2d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)[copy attached as Ex. B], the Court addressed whether a report prepared by a town’s outside counsel setting forth its legal options with respect to a planned development was protected by attorney-client privilege (and thus not to be disclosed in response to an information request). The Court noted that: “Counsel prepared a written report and, at a June 2012 public meeting, gave an 2
Video stream from minute 9:22 to 13:04 [http://cityofracine.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=247] See 80 Wis. Atty. Gen. Opinion 176 (1992)(stating that sub. (1)(c) does not permit closed sessions to consider employment, compensation, promotion, or performance evaluation policies to be applied to a position of employment in general). 4 See Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 638 (2nd Cir. 1962)(noting that “[a]ttorneys frequently give to their clients business or other advice which, at least insofar as it can be separated from their essentially professional legal services, gives rise to no privilege whatever”). 3
April 10, 2018 Page 4
oral presentation to the Town Board and other interested community members detailing those options.” 999 N.Y.S.2d at 608. In responding to the petitioner’s argument that in making the public meeting presentation the privilege was waived, the Court wrote: Petitioners seem to overstate the degree to which the report was relied upon at several public meetings. Nevertheless, ‘[a] client who voluntarily testifies to a privileged matter, who publicly discloses such matter or who permits his [or her] attorney to testify regarding the matter is deemed to have impliedly waived the attorney-client privilege.’ In that regard, outside counsel appeared at a June 2012 public meeting and made an extensive oral presentation—apparently at the Town Board's behest—in which counsel set forth his legal analysis of the zoning issues involved. To the extent that the oral presentation parrots the analysis set forth in the report, it may well constitute a waiver of the privilege protecting the contents of the report.
D E
L A
Id. (citations and quotation omitted). The Court remanded the matter to the trial court to ascertain the extent to which the oral presentation parroted the report. Unlike the petitioner in the Town of Colonie matter, Petitioner here does not concede that the subject document (Corr. 14) is privileged. Were it so, one assumes that the City Attorney might have marked it “Attorney-Client Privileged” as he had done on other occasions and certainly would not have referenced it or reiterated the same information during his Committee of the Whole presentation.
E S
Nonetheless, even if the Court were to find that privilege somehow attaches, it was waived when Atty. Letteney appeared at the public (open) July 18, 2017 Committee of the Whole meeting and “made an extensive oral presentation” that “parrots the analysis” sets forth in his email of earlier in the day. Section 905.11, Wis. Stats. provides: “Waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure. A person upon whom this chapter confers a privilege against disclosure of the confidential matter or communication waives the privilege if the person or his or her predecessor, while holder of the privilege, voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the matter or communication. This section does not apply if the disclosure is itself a privileged communication.” Attorney Letteney emailed Council members the same information he knew he would be presenting via public meeting (in open session) later that day – and presumably knew that the topic did not warrant closed session status via one of the few exceptions to the open meetings law. He then proceeded to extensively present and discuss the matter at the meeting, including PowerPoint slides containing the scenarios specified in Correspondence No. 14.
April 10, 2018 Page 5 In permitting the City Attorney to publicly communicate regarding the matter – an act of “voluntary disclosure” - the City has waived any attorney-client privilege that otherwise might have attached. Correspondence No. 15 Correspondence 15 is an email dated June 29, 2017 (7:57 PM) from City Attorney Letteney to the Common Council members (with a “cc” to then Mayor John Dickert and City Administrator James Palenick). It attaches the “two PowerPoint presentations given to the Committee of the Whole” earlier that day at the Committee meeting: a “Carlson-Dettman Racine Compensation Study project Update – 6-29-17.pdf” and “Letteney – Committee of the Whole Introduction.pdf.” (See two pdfs accompanying as Exhibits C and D).
D E
As reflected on the accompanying public Minutes [Ex. E], the meeting convened at 6:00 PM on that date, with the subject being: “(Direct Referral) Communication from the City Attorney and the Human Resources Manager presenting Patrick Glynn and Carlson Dettmann Consulting’s City of Racine compensation study report and seeking further direction from the Committee of the Whole.” The meeting was open to the public and at no time did the participants convene in closed session.5
L A
E S
At the June 29, 2017 meeting, Atty. Letteney had in fact presented the PowerPoint material (“Committee of the Whole Introduction”) that he later appended to Correspondence No. 15 [and which accompanies as Ex D]. Following Atty. Letteney’s presentation, the Carlson Dettmann representative (Patrick Glynn) makes the PowerPoint presentation appended to Correspondence No. 15 [Ex. C]. Again, the presentation was made publicly in open session, videotaped, and fully viewable by the public via the City’s website.6 Shortly after the Committee of the Whole adjourned, the City Attorney transmitted the PowerPoint presentations to the Committee members (Common Council) via Correspondence No. 15. The presentations [Exs. C & D] contain no “legal advice” and do not reveal any “confidential” client information. Correspondence 15 is merely a transmittal email of non-confidential information that had already been publicly presented (and memorialized on public video) less than two hours before. Atty. Letteney’s salvo that he “will answer, or obtain answers to, questions” as he is able, does not herd the animals back into the barn as it in and of itself does not constitute “legal advice.” See Sampson Children's Trust v. Sampson 1979 Trust, 2003 WI App 141, 265 Wis. 2d 803, 667 N.W.2d 831,¶11 ("[O]nce confidentiality is destroyed through voluntary disclosure, no subsequent
5
As with the 7/18/17 Committee of the Whole meeting (regarding Corr. 14), none of the closed meeting exceptions applied to the 6/29/17 meeting. A municipality may not meet in closed session to consider employment data for a group of employees in general, as it was doing that evening, and the matter did not involve litigation. See §§ 19.85(1)(c), 19.85(1)(g), Wis. Stats. 6 http://cityofracine.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=242
April 10, 2018 Page 6
claim of privilege can restore it, and knowledge or lack of knowledge of the existence of the privilege appears to be irrelevant”). Per section 905.03(1)(d), Wis. Stats., “[a] communication is “confidential" if not intended to be disclosed to 3rd persons other than those to whom disclosure is in furtherance of the rendition of professional legal services to the client or those reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication.” As to the PowerPoint presentations of the City Attorney and consultant Patrick Glynn, neither contains the hallmarks of something “not intended to be disclosed 3rd persons.” The fact that the materials were in fact fully disclosed to third persons at a public meeting confirms that the materials were not privileged (as there was no intent to maintain confidentiality). See U.S. v. Evans, 113 F.3d 1457, 1462 (7th Cir. 1997)(“The attorney-client privilege shields only those communications by a client to an attorney that were intended to be confidential. Thus as a general matter, the attorney-client privilege will not shield from disclosure statements made by a client to his or her attorney in the presence of a third party who is not an agent of either the client or attorney”). See also In re Burroughs, 203 S.W.3d 858 (Tex. App. 2006)(stating that documents that have been disclosed to third parties are generally not confidential communications within the meaning of the attorney-client privilege); Yates v. Keane, 457 N.W.2d 693, 695, 184 Mich.App. 80 (Mich. App. 1990)(“A communication is not confidential if it is made for the purpose of disclosure to third parties”).
D E
L A
E S
When Atty. Letteney prepared his PowerPoint presentation for the 6/29/17 Committee meeting, and then presented it publicly (knowing that the meeting was open and being taped for public consumption), it is reasonable to assume that he knew it would be disclosed to third persons not within the ambit of the “City as client.” It would be unreasonable to contend that he intended to create a PowerPoint presentation containing confidential information only to publicly disseminate it at an open Committee of the Whole meeting. It is more reasonable to assume that he intended the communication to be public and not subject to privilege – thus freeing him to publicly disclose it – because if he truly did consider it to be confidential (and thus privileged) his dissemination at the meeting is exactly the type of unlawful dissemination that he subsequently accused Ald. Weidner of via his Ethics Board submission. Even if the materials somehow constituted “confidential legal advice,” the City impliedly waived the privilege by allowing its attorney to present, and extensively comment on, the subject information. The full voluntary disclosure of the materials at the meeting and thereafter via public video stream access constitutes a waiver. See § 905.11, Wis. Stats. (“Waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure”). See also State ex rel. Dawson v. Bloom-Carroll Local Sch. Dist., 131 Ohio
April 10, 2018 Page 7 St.3d 10, ¶31, 959 N.E.2d 524 (Ohio 2011)(noting that “[v]oluntarily disclosing the requested record can waive any right to claim an exemption from disclosure”).7 The fact that the information involved with the two emails was shared with the public shortly after transmittal in one case (Corr. 14)8 and shortly before in the other (Corr. 15) reflects that there was never an intention to keep the information “confidential.” Had Attorney Letteney considered the information transmitted via Correspondence Nos. 14 and 15 to truly be “confidential” (and thus privileged), he would not have publicly disclosed it at the respective Committee of the Whole Meetings. Regardless, even if the information was privileged, the voluntary disclosures constitute waiver.
D E
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Sandra Weidner reiterates her request that the Court find that Correspondence Nos. 14 and 15 are not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
L A
Respectfully submitted,
E S
Atty. Mark R. Hinkston
cc: Attys. Michael Cohen and Dieter Juedes
In the Dawson case, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that there was no waiver because “although the board of education referred to the insurance letter at a meeting, it never disclosed the contents of the letter at a public meeting.” Id., ¶31. 8 Petitioner concedes that Correspondence No. 14 itself was not disseminated or shared but contends that the City Attorney’s presentation at the 7/18/17 Committee of the Whole meeting mirrored the contents, thus evincing an intent that substance of Correspondence No. 14 not be considered “confidential.” 7
City Hall 730 Washington Ave. Racine, WI 53403 www.cityofracine.org
City of Racine Meeting Minutes - Final Committee of the Whole President Dennis Wiser Alderman Jeff Coe Alderman Mollie Jones Alderman John Tate II Alderman Tracey Larrin Alderman Steve Smetana Alderman Sandy Weidner Alderman Raymond DeHahn Alderman Q.A. Shakoor II Alderman Terry McCarthy Alderman Mary Land Alderman Henry Perez Alderman James Morgenroth Alderman Jason Meekma Alderman Melissa Lemke Tuesday, July 18, 2017
6:00 PM
L A
D E
Call To Order
City Hall, Room 205
E S
City Attorney Scott Letteney called the meeting to order at 6:03pm
Motion made by Ald. McCarthy seconded by Ald. Coe to allow Ald. Shakoor to Chair the meeting. There were no objections and this item was considered first with the following votes: AYES: DeHahn, Shakoor, McCarthy, Land, Morgenroth, Meekma, Lemke, Coe, Jones, Tate II, Smetana and Weidner NOES: NONE
NON VOTING: Wiser EXCUSED: Perez and Larrin
Approval of Minutes for the July 6, 2017 Meeting. A motion was made by Alderman DeHahn, seconded by Alderman Coe, to Approve the Minutes
679-17
Subject: (Direct Referral) Communication from the City Administrator, Finance Director, City Attorney, and Human Resources Manager presenting a recommendation for the implementation of the Carlson Dettman Compensation Study. Recommendation of the Committee of the Whole on 7-18-2017: To approve the Compensation Structure proposal as presented, except
City of Racine
Page 1
Exhibit A
Committee of the Whole
Meeting Minutes - Final
July 18, 2017
for automatic annual cost of living increases, to the grade and step matrix, specifically: The compensation structure presented, including the grade and step structure, is adopted for all non-union City of Racine full-time employees. Any unassigned General Fund Balance in excess of 25% of subsequent years expenditures shall be assigned to the Wage and Benefit Provision account on an annual basis subsequent to Audit Review. All employees who are currently paid at a level below Step 1 of the approved compensation structure shall be placed at Step 1 effective September 3, 2017. All employees shall be placed at the Step commensurate with the employee’s complete years of service, with no employee placed higher than Step 6, except any employee currently paid at a rate higher than Step 6 within the employee’s Grade shall be placed at the next highest Step, effective January 1, 2018. New employees shall be placed at a specific Step within the employee’s position grade. Each employee’s pay shall be advanced to the next higher Step within the employee’s Grade on the anniversary of the employee’s hire as a City of Racine full-time employee provided such employee received a satisfactory annual evaluation for the prior calendar year.
D E
L A
E S
Fiscal Note: The 2017 cost to implement the plan for employees paid below the plans matrix is $116,000. It is anticipated that the CPI-U provided by the State of Wisconsin for bargaining purposes for the 2018 budget year will be approximately 1.8%. Assuming Common Council takes action to adjust the Compensation Pay Plan Matrix by this CPI-U, the estimated 2018 cost to implement over 2017 amounts will be approximately $1.420,000 for wages, $200,000 for benefits for a total implementation cost of approximately $1,620,000. Funding will be drawn from the newly created Wage and Benefit Provision Fund Balance Assignment. A motion was made by Alderman McCarthy, seconded by Alderman Meekma, that this Communication be Recommended For Approval.
690-17
Subject: (Direct Referral) Communication from the City Administrator requesting the Committee of the Whole discuss dates for the setting of a Special Mayoral Election. Recommendation of the Committee of the Whole on 7-18-2017: To approve the following Special Mayoral Election schedule:
Election, October 17, 2017; Primary, September 19, 2017; Nomination Paperwork First Circulated, August 3, 2017; Nomination Paperwork Due, City of Racine
Page 2
Committee of the Whole
Meeting Minutes - Final
July 18, 2017
August 22, 2017; Next Common Council Meeting/New Mayor Takes Office, November 7, 2017 Fiscal Note: : It is estimated that the Special Election and its related Primary Election may cost up to $200,000. Funding will be transferred from the Contingency Account, 11202-56200 to the various Elections Accounts as needed. There are currently sufficient funds available for the transfer.
A motion was made by Alderman Lemke, seconded by Alderman McCarthy, that this Communication be Recommended For Approval.
Adjournment
D E
The meeting was adjourned at 7:02p.m.
L A
E S
City of Racine
Page 3
Loudon House LLC v. Town of Colonie, 2014 NY Slip Op 9082, 999 N.Y.S.2d 607, 123 A.D.3d 1409 (N.Y. App. Div., 2014)
123 A.D.3d 1409 999 N.Y.S.2d 607 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 09082
Albany County. In an effort to facilitate that development, respondent Town Board of the Town of Colonie enacted a local law in 2007 that rezoned the property as a planned development district. Construction had long been stalled due to financial issues, and the Town Board retained outside counsel to investigate its legal options in responding to the situation. Counsel prepared a written report and, at a June 2012 public meeting, gave an oral presentation to the Town Board and other interested community members detailing those options. Following a July 2012 public hearing, the Town Board passed Local Law No. 5 (2012) of the Town of Colonie, which rescinded the planned development district designation and restored the property's prior zoning designation.
In the Matter of LOUDON HOUSE LLC et al., Appellants, v. TOWN OF COLONIE et al., Respondents. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York. Dec. 31, 2014 Reversed and remitted.
D E
[999 N.Y.S.2d 608] Stockli Slevin & Peters, LLP, Albany (Mary Elizabeth Slevin of counsel), for appellants.
Petitioner Mary Elizabeth Slevin, counsel for the developers, made a Freedom of Information Law ( see Public Officers Law art. 6 [hereinafter FOIL] ) request seeking, among other things, a copy of the report prepared by outside counsel. Respondent Deputy Supervisor of the Town of Colonie ultimately denied that part of her request, holding that the report was exempt from disclosure because it was protected by attorney-client privilege. Petitioners then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking disclosure of the report. Supreme Court found the report to be exempt from disclosure and dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
L A
Friedman, Hirschen & Miller, LLP, Albany (Carolyn B. George of counsel), for respondents.
E S
Before: McCARTHY, J.P., GARRY, LYNCH and CLARK, JJ. CLARK, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Devine, J.), entered August 20, 2013 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioners' application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Deputy Supervisor of the Town of Colonie partially denying petitioner Mary Elizabeth Slevin's Freedom of Information Law request.
“Under FOIL, an agency need not disclose documents ‘specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute,’ ” such as those protected by attorney-client privilege ( Matter of Morgan v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 9 A.D.3d 586, 587, 779 N.Y.S.2d 643 [2004], quoting Public Officers Law § 87[2][a]; see CPLR 3101[b], [c]; 4503[a][1]; see generally
The underlying facts are more fully set forth in Matter of Loudon House LLC v. Town of Colonie, 123 A.D.3d 1406, ––– N.Y.S.2d –– –– (2014) (decided herewith). Briefly, petitioners Loudon House LLC and BCI Construction, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the developers) were involved in an effort to build a condominium development on real property in the Town of Colonie,
[999 N.Y.S.2d 609] People v. Kozlowski, 11 N.Y.3d 223, 244, 869 N.Y.S.2d 848, 898 N.E.2d 891 [2008], cert. -1-
Exhibit B
Loudon House LLC v. Town of Colonie, 2014 NY Slip Op 9082, 999 N.Y.S.2d 607, 123 A.D.3d 1409 (N.Y. App. Div., 2014)
denied 556 U.S. 1282, 129 S.Ct. 2775, 174 L.Ed.2d 272 [2009] ).1 Petitioners do not, in fact, dispute that the report was privileged when it was prepared. They instead contend that the privilege was waived when the contents of the report were later disclosed at various Town Board meetings. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon respondents to demonstrate that the privilege had not been waived and that the report remained exempt from disclosure ( see Matter of Madera v. Elmont Pub. Lib. 101 A.D.3d 726, 728–729, 957 N.Y.S.2d 129 [2012]; Matter of Morgan v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 9 A.D.3d at 588, 779 N.Y.S.2d 643; see also Parnes v. Parnes, 80 A.D.3d 948, 950, 915 N.Y.S.2d 345 [2011] ).
“Determining document immunity claims, and reviewing them, are largely fact-specific processes” requiring an in camera review in most instances, and we cannot discern a clear path to resolving the issues in this case without such a review ( Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 371, 381, 575 N.Y.S.2d 809, 581 N.E.2d 1055 [1991] [citations omitted]; see Geary v. Hunton & Williams, 245 A.D.2d 936, 939, 666 N.Y.S.2d 804 [1997] ). We thus remit so that Supreme Court may inspect the report in camera and render a proper determination on the waiver issue ( see Matter of Xerox Corp. v. Town of Webster, 65 N.Y.2d 131, 133, 490 N.Y.S.2d 488, 480 N.E.2d 74 [1985]; Matter of MacKenzie v. Seiden, 106 A.D.3d 1140, 1143, 964 N.Y.S.2d 702 [2013]; compare Matter of Madera v. Elmont Pub. Lib. 101 A.D.3d at 729, 957 N.Y.S.2d 129).
D E
Petitioners seem to overstate the degree to which the report was relied upon at several public meetings. Nevertheless, “[a] client who voluntarily testifies to a privileged matter, who publicly discloses such matter or who permits his [or her] attorney to testify regarding the matter is deemed to have impliedly waived the attorney-client privilege” ( Jakobleff v. Cerrato, Sweeney & Cohn, 97 A.D.2d 834, 835, 468 N.Y.S.2d 895 [1983] [internal citations omitted]; see Jones v. Gelles, 167 A.D.2d 636, 639, 562 N.Y.S.2d 992 [1990], lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 806, 568 N.Y.S.2d 914, 571 N.E.2d 84 [1991] ). In that regard, outside counsel appeared at a June 2012 public meeting and made an extensive oral presentation—apparently at the Town Board's behest—in which counsel set forth his legal analysis of the zoning issues involved. To the extent that the oral presentation parrots the analysis set forth in the report, it may well constitute a waiver of the privilege protecting the contents of the report ( see e.g. Matter of Horowitz, 482 F.2d 72, 81 [2d Cir.1973], cert. denied 414 U.S. 867, 94 S.Ct. 64, 38 L.Ed.2d 86 [1973]; 1 McCormick on Evidence § 93 [7th ed. 2013] ). Whether and how much the report and oral presentation overlap are open questions, however, because the report was not examined by Supreme Court in camera and is not in the record before us.
L A
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court for
E S
[999 N.Y.S.2d 610]
further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision. McCARTHY, J.P., GARRY and LYNCH, JJ., concur. -------Notes: Respondents further assert on appeal that the report constituted intra-agency material that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87(2)(g). The determination at issue does not rely upon that FOIL exemption and, under the circumstances present here, we cannot consider whether it applies ( see Matter of MacKenzie v. Seiden, 106 A.D.3d 1140, 1143, 964 N.Y.S.2d 702 [2013]; compare Matter of Rose v. Albany County Dist. Attorney's Off., 1.
-2-
Loudon House LLC v. Town of Colonie, 2014 NY Slip Op 9082, 999 N.Y.S.2d 607, 123 A.D.3d 1409 (N.Y. App. Div., 2014)
111 A.D.3d 1123, 1125, 975 N.Y.S.2d 258 [2013] ).
D E
L A
E S
-3-
CITY OF RACINE: CLASSIFICATION & COMPENSATION STUDY
D E
COMMON COUNCIL PROJECT UPDATE & POLICY DISCUSSION
L A
E S
CARLSON DETTMANN CONSULTING, LLC PATRICK W. GLYNN, SENIOR CONSULTANT JUNE 29, 2017
Exhibit C
2
Scope of Work • Job Responsibilities • Internal Relationships • External Marketplace
D E
Measure
Review
L A
E S
Recommend
• Wage & Hour Status • Employee Benefits (High-Level)
• Structure(s) / Schedule(s) • Titles / Levels • Policies (i.e. Maintenance, Progression)
Matters for Discussion • Overview of Process To-Date • Internal Equity Analysis • Review of Job Documentation • Preliminary Market Analysis • Department Interviews
L A
D E
• Policy Issues • Q1: Market Comparisons/Matches (Previously Addressed) • Q2: Market Position • Q3: Pay Structure and Administration • Q4: Implementation
E S
• Next Steps
Disclaimer
D E
L A
Subject to additional review and comments, the information presented today is intended to be a DRAFT report. All ratios, charts, and graphs are subject to revision in the preparation of the final report. However, subject to review and revision by the client, we expect such revisions to be slight, and do not expect significant fluctuations in the data.
E S
L WORKFORCE A E CHALLENGES S
D E
The World of Public Sector Compensation • Multiple Pay Plans, Often Misaligned • Multiple plans, varying levels, differing rules • Some positions have never been looked at side-by-side from an internal equity standpoint • Shifting Market • Numerous public sector compensation plans have been completed/updated • “Hot jobs” are becoming increasingly difficult to recruit/retain • Aging Workforce • Future recruitment needs requires competitive compensation plan • “Silver Tsunami” • Younger Workforce • Newer generations of employees have different expectations. • “Stay a career” mentality is eroding … More mobile with shorter (and more) “careers” • Funds Are Limited • Departments are stretched to the limit • Discretionary services are increasingly under the microscope • Automatic (across-the-board) increases are no longer a given • Compensation Decision-Making Has Shifted • Boards/Councils continue wrestle with the responsibilities that come with managing compensation from a strategic perspective
D E
E S
L A
9
Higher Quit Rate = Wage/Benefits Pressure
D E
E S
L A
11
“Millennials Overtake Baby Boomers As America’s Largest Generation”
D E
E S
L A
City of Racine: Age Profile (Study Group) Grouping
Number
Percent of Whole
Cumulative Percent
Age 60 or Older
26
8.4%
8.4%
D E
L A
Age 55 to Age 60
57
18.4%
26.8%
71
22.9%
49.7%
47
15.2%
64.8%
Age 40 to Age 45
32
10.3%
75.2%
Age 35 to Age 40
31
10.0%
85.2%
Age 30 to Age 35
24
7.7%
92.9%
Age 30 or Less
22
7.1%
100.0%
Total
310 *
100%
Age 50 to Age 55
E S
Age 45 to Age 50
* Excludes vacant positions
City of Racine: Service Profile (Study Group) Grouping
Number
Greater than 35 Years of Service
2
30 Years to 35 Years
4
Percent of Whole
Cumulative Percent
0.6% 1.3%
1.9%
27
D E
0.6%
8.4%
10.3%
44
13.8%
24.1%
15 Years to 20 Years
60
18.8%
42.8%
10 Years to 15 Years
24
7.5%
50.3%
5 Years to 10 Years
66
20.6%
70.9%
Less than 5 Years of Service
93
29.1%
100.0%
Total
320 *
100%
L A
25 Years to 30 Years
E S
20 Years to 25 Years
* Includes vacant positions
Benefits of Fair Pay
D E
L A
E S
Source: Rasch & Szypko (2013) WorldatWork Journal, “Perception is Reality: The Importance of Pay Fairness to Employees and Organizations”
16
4 Essential Policy Questions
D E
Define Market Comparisons
L A
Determine Market Placement
E S
Design Structure (i.e. Plan Type) Develop Implementation Plan
D E
L A POLICY QUESTION #1: E MARKETS COMPARISONS
Market Comparisons: Anatomy of a Benchmark • Reflective of “Marketplace” • Review Data Such As: proximity, population, income per capita, equalized valuation per capita, housing values, municipal levy, hiring practices, commuting patterns, etc. • Traditional Alignments (past comparables, consortia, etc.) • Aligns with recruiting strategy/challenges
L A
D E
• Local, Regional, Statewide, etc.
• Sufficient Set of Benchmark Jobs • Jobs having likely matches in the market • Fairly stable in job content • Representative of different pay and responsibility levels • Sufficient Number of Comparable Employers • At least 10 employers, but typically more (+/-20) • No single employer should be able to influence the results • Data From Relevant Sectors • Public sector matches • Private sector matches where private sector data is relevant • Data from reliable, valid sources
E S
19
Public Sector Comparables • Cities: • Local Review: Beloit, Brookfield, Franklin, Greenfield, Janesville, Kenosha, Milwaukee, New Berlin, Oak Creek, South Milwaukee, Waukesha, Wauwatosa, West Allis • Regional/Statewide Review: Appleton, Eau Claire, Fond du Lac, Green Bay, La Crosse, Oshkosh, Sheboygan, Wausau
D E
L A
E S
• Counties: • Kenosha, Racine, Walworth, Waukesha
• Other: • Menomonee Falls, Gateway Technical College, Racine Unified School District, UW Parkside, State of Wisconsin
Market Comparisons: City of Racine Summary • Number of Benchmarks • 71 Benchmark Jobs
D E
• Likely to change as we clean/verify the job-titles in the data file
L A
• Outstanding Sample Size
• Overall Market Index of 94.7% for Benchmarks • Based on current midpoint in comparison to market estimate • Relatively competitive • Despite overall position, there is variance position-by-position
E S
21
City of Racine Benchmark Jobs • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
City Assessor Real Estate Assessor II City Attorney Deputy City Attorney Assistant City Attorney Legal Assistant Legal Secretary Facility Manager Maintenance Supervisor Carpenter HVAC Mechanic Plumber Building Maintenance Worker Human Resources Manager Benefits Coordinator Human Resources Assistant Human Resources Clerk Affirmative Action & Risk Manager MIS Director Infrastructure Manager Programmer II Workstation Support Technician Programmer I Finance Director City Clerk
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
Purchasing Agent Payroll Manager Accountant Finance Data Technician Commissioner of Public Works City Engineer / Assistant Commissioner of Public Works Civil Engineer IV Civil Engineer II Civil Engineer I Engineering Technician II Engineering Technician I Waste Collector Streets / Solid Waste Superintendent Labor Supervisor (DPW) Streets & Concrete Maintenance Truck Driver (Street Maintenance) Electrician Fleet Manager Fleet Maintenance Supervisor Truck Mechanic I Automotive Maintenance Mechanic Fire Chief Public Health Administrator Public Health Nurse
• • • • • • • • • • •
D E
L A
E S
• Sanitarian II • Director of City Development • Principal Planner / Assistant • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Director Associate Planner Electrical Inspector II Plumbing Inspector Building Inspector II Code Enforcement Inspector Library Director Stationary Engineer Librarian Director of Parks & Recreation City Forester (Labor Supervisor) Parks Equipment Operator Support Services Administrative Manager Police Chief Deputy Chief (Captain) Radio Technician I Office Support (Entry) Office Support (Intermediate) Office Support (Senior) Executive Assistant
D E
L WORKLOAD PA RIOR TO E PROJECTSUPDATE
Steps to Internal Consistency
D E
Job Evaluation
L A
Job Analysis Job Documentation • Employees Complete JDQ • Use Existing Documentation • Up-to-Date Job Descriptions • Employer Team
E S
• FLSA Compliance • Appropriate Job Titles • Appropriate Class Specifications • Job Descriptions
• Objective Analysis • Developed and tested criteria
Job Evaluation Internal Consistency • Definition • Formal process for ordering a set of jobs, independent of individual performance, into a hierarchy based on the value or worth of jobs in the organization.
D E
L A
• Documentation is a Key Element of Internal Consistency • Quality of documentation is important
E S
• Cannot evaluate jobs—or describe jobs—without quality documentation
• Departmental input was also solicited as part of the evaluation phase
• Objective Analysis and Application • Internal review and adjustments • Appeals Following Adoption • Based on changes during study or error in rating
CDC Job Evaluation Factors Thinking Challenges & Problem Solving
Decision-Making (Impact)
Interactions & Communications
Work Environment
Formal Preparation & Experience
Context and Complexity
Impact of Judgments
Required Response
D E
Extent of Actions Taken
L A
E S
Context of Interactions
Outcomes and Effects
Potential for Accidents or Hazards
Physical Requirements
Formal Preparation (or Education) Required
Experience Required to Qualify for Hire
Level of DecisionMaking
D E
L A
E S
DRAFT
D E
L A POLICY QUESTION #2: E MARKETS PLACEMENT
29
Market Placement: Questions to Consider • Where does the City want to position itself in its labor
D E
markets? • What are the organizational priorities?
L A
• High? Low? Average (or 50th Percentile)?
• Will average/50th percentile place the City in the competitive
E S
position it desires to be in?
• Data Weighting & Comparable Usage • Depends on recruitment/retention experience • Benefits • Do benefits matter? • 4 Main Buckets:
• Insurance, Mandatory, Retirement, Time-Off
• Balance between competitive wages and benefits.
D E
L A
E S
DRAFT
D E
L A
E S
DRAFT
WorldatWork: Survey Findings 2010
D E
2016
Anchor Base Salaries at (or near) 50th Percentile
88%
89%
Structure With Established Grades (as Opposed to Broadbands, etc.)
73%
89%
Bonuses (e.g. Sign-on, Retention)
56%
81%
More Than One Salary Structure
59%
73%
L A
E S
Source: WorldatWork, Compensation Programs and Practices Survey, 2010 & 2016
D E POLICY QUESTION #3: L A PAY STRUCTURE & E ADMINISTRATION S
35
Policy Question #3: Preface to Plan Design • Internal Ratings • CDC Job Evaluation
D E
• Establish Groupings for Grade Placement
L A
• External Measurement
E S
• Policy Direction
• Analysis of “Other Factors”, If Necessary • Benefits • Compression • Economic/Market Forces • Organizational Assessment • Readiness & Commitment
D E
L A
E S
DRAFT
37
Creating Pay Grades • Range Intervals • Each pay grade in the proposed matrix will have point intervals • Grades A – D = 25 points between grades • Grades E – U = 50 points between grades
D E
• Assigning Classifications to Grades • Each job is assigned to a grade level based on its job evaluation score • Extenuating circumstances (e.g. market conditions, internal compression) may require adjustment • Grade design includes overlap between ranges • Interpreting the Equation for the Pay Line • Slope
L A
E S
• .04942 is the line slope (every point = $.04942) & + $2.35072 is the y-axis
intercept
• Correlation Coefficient • 0.96633 which can be interpreted as job evaluation system explains 96% of
the variance in market pay for the benchmarks • This is a VERY high coefficient, and provides a solid foundation for designing a pay plan. • The Control Point (C/P) of each grade can then be calculated
38
Example of How We Use the Line Data • Create Control Points for Each Grade • Market equivalent for the jobs in that grade • Linked to market data • Middle value for each grade is used to calculate Control Point
D E
L A
• Example: • Job evaluation score = 722 • Allocated to Grade L (700-749 pts.) • Middle value is 724.5 pts
E S
• Applying the Regression Line Equation (i.e. Pay Line) • ($.04942 X 724.5 pts) + $2.35072 = $38.14 • May vary due to rounding differences between Excel formulas and Excel
graphing features • Becomes the Grade L Control Point (Step 6) • Repeat for each grade
Three Basic Pay Models • Tenure (Step) Model • Life-time employment unless there is a major infraction • Almost all pay raises are step progression, promotion or across-the-board • Step advancement should still be based on an annual performance review that “meets expectations” • More predictable, compact structure
D E
L A
• Tournament (Performance) Model • Employees compete for pay, and only best win • Lower hiring rates with the tradeoff of potentially higher maximum with continued outstanding performance
E S
• Meritocracy (Hybrid) Model • Continued employment requires meeting rigorous standards • Pay consideration for spectacular performance but fair treatment is the standard • Clear path to the Control Point (i.e. midpoint), but no promise beyond Control Point unless performance meets employer’s standards
40
Sample Pay Structures
D E
E S
L A
41
Why Pay Greater Than “Market” Rate (i.e. Control Point)? • Structural Philosophy (Example) • Steps 1 – 4: Target range for recruitment; Minimally qualified; Lessexperienced promotions • Steps 5 – 7: Target range for market competitiveness; possible entry rate for seasoned workers • Steps 8 – 11: Allows employer to be competitive with the upper end of the market; premium for “institutional knowledge” and continued performance • Structure Design • The range of pay (e.g. 87.5% to 112.5%) is designed to make the employer competitive across the entire measured market. • Competitive Needs • If the employer were to stop the range at the Control Point then it only would be competitive with the lower half of the market. • Longer “Shelf-Life” • Having the range reflect the breadth of the measured market will keep the employer competitive for some time without having to re-measure the market annually.
D E
E S
L A
42
Pay-for-Performance Requirements • Centralized Decision-Making • Authority granted to central decision maker to administer • Consistent administrative support • Manager/supervisor accountability
D E
L A
• Performance Measurement & Evaluation • Forms need to be developed, maintained, and relevant • Reliable measures of performance need to be developed • Skilled, trained, and committed managers and supervisors • Auditing and re-training (and then more re-training)
E S
• Strong, Consistent Commitment and Support • Political support from the governing body • Commitment from management to doing it right • Can’t be a fad • Adequate funding
D E
L RECOMMENDATIONS & A E NEXT STEPS S
Observations / Recommendations • Marketplace: • Overall, the benchmarks are at 94.7% of the market
D E
• There will be fluctuations for individual positions.
• Placement: • Recommendation for 50th Percentile / Average as the “anchor” for the pay plan
L A
E S
• Half of the market pays more, half pays less • Revisit, if necessary, in the future
• Structure: • Recommend adopting a “step” plan in the short-term • Employees would progress through the steps on an annual basis, presuming that performance is at an acceptable level • Implementation: • Step that provides an increase
45
D E
E S
L A
46
Implementation Strategy • “Standard” Recommendation • Movement to the step in the new grade that provides an increase in compensation
D E
• Significant—but manageable—cost due to current market placement • Could range from $.01 to 2.49% (or more, if below market)
L A
• May not be in line with employees’ years of service • Implementation commensurate with years of service
E S
• Balance Between Fairness, Affordability/Adoptability • Fairness does not always equal happiness (but, it’s fair)
• Other Options Exist • Our goal is to arrive at an implementation strategy that’s both affordable and fair
47
DRAFT Costing Options
D E
E S
L A
48
Appeals Overview • Error in Classification/Documentation • Substantial Changes to Job
Criteria
D E
Pre-Appeal
• Following Adoption • Typically a Two-Week Window
Information Sharing
• Rating Levels Only, Provided Non-Disclosure is On-File • Ratings Only for Classification in Question
L A
E S
Formal Appeal Review
Recommendation
• Typically Another Two-Week Window • Must Meet the Criteria for an Appeal
• Supervisor & Management Review to Verify Merits of Appeal • Carlson Dettmann Reviews for Content & Meets with Employer
• Recommendations Provided for Action by the Employer
An Employee Appeal Does NOT Apply To … • Adopted Pay Structure • Wage schedule
D E
• Number of steps
L A
• Established Market Comparisons • Benchmark employers AND jobs
E S
• Implementation Strategy • Placement in the structure
• Plan for movement through the structure
• Any Other Policy Decision • Red circled employees, etc. • Weighting of the data (i.e. public/private mix)
D E
L MAINTAINING THE A E STRUCTURE S
51
Maintain the Plan Philosophy • Documentation
D E
• Require documentation of all jobs
• Market
L A
• Maintain consistency with the selected market and market
comparisons
E S
• Position/Job Placement
• Place jobs in the structure based on job evaluation, solid
market data, or legitimate compression issues (within reason) • Progression
• Allow employees to move through the structure as originally
intended • Failure to do so can cause compression or create morale problems
52
Annual Review of the Pay Structure • Considerations • Market conditions or other changes in the cost-of-living
D E
• Ability To Pay • Must be balanced with the organization’s “ability to pay” for any resulting changes in base salary costs.
L A
E S
• Contrasted with an “unwillingness to pay”
• More-and-more, organizations are having to prioritize
• Market Competitiveness • Without structural adjustment, an organization loses its market edge
2018 Forecast: ERI Estimates
D E
E S
L A
54
WorldatWork Surveyed Increases ©
D E
E S
L A
55
CDC: 2016/2017 © Public Sector Annual Wage Increase Survey
D E
L A
E S
NOTE: 2017/18 Survey Currently in the Field
56
Periodically Measure the Marketplace • Purpose • Identify competitive positions • Allows for strategic conversations with key stakeholders
D E
• e.g. recruitment/retention difficulties, recent/planned organizational
L A
changes, workforce shifts, etc.
• Review Elements • Reassess the benchmark positions
E S
• Determine new benchmarks, if necessary
• Established marketplace
• Assess if expanded/contracted marketplace is necessary
• Review Cycle • Hot Market = +/-3 Years • Normal Market = +/-5 Years • Possibly more frequently for “hot positions”
57
Employee Performance • All Structure Types • Expectation should be that an employee meet the expectations of the job in order to progress through the structure
D E
L A
• Even in situations where variable pay-for-performance is not a key
component
• Compensation vs. Other Elements • Pay is only one component—although a critical one—of the employeremployee relationship
E S
• Benefits, Workplace Culture, Work/Life Balance, etc.
• Most public-sector performance pay policies aren’t designed for large
performance incentives • Tendency to be more incremental • Ongoing debate about pay as a motivator (Dan Pink, Dan Ariely, etc.)
D E
E S
L A
59
Classification Review • Jobs Change • e.g. Technology; Restructuring; Legislation/Regulation; etc.
D E
• Employee Request • Substantial and demonstrated change in duties • Clearly documented • Typically to coincide with the budget process.
E S
L A
• Management Request • All newly created or revised positions should be analyzed for proper placement in the pay structure.
60
Final Analysis: Delicate Balancing Act
Fairness
Fiscal
L A
Equitable
E S
Competitive Supportive
D E
Affordable
Sustainable Adoptable
L A
D E
QUESTIONS
E S
Carlson Dettmann Consulting, LLC Patrick Glynn, Senior Consultant patrick.glynn@carlsondettmann.com
www.carlsondettmann.com
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
D E
L A
E S
JUNE 29, 2017
Exhibit D
City of Racine Overview
D E
• Two categories of City of Racine employees
L A
• Public Safety Employees
E S
• Police • Firefighters
• General Employees • All other employees
2
City of Racine Collective Bargaining - Overview • Public Safety Employees
L A
• Police
• Racine Police Association •
D E
E S
Police Officer, Traffic Investigator, Investigator
• Staff Officers' Association of the Racine Police Department •
Sergeant, Lieutenant
• Firefighters
• Local 321, International Association of Firefighters •
Private, Driver, Lieutenant, Captain
• Staff Officers' Association of the Racine Fire Department •
Division Chief, Battalion Chief
3
City of Racine Collective Bargaining - Overview • General Employees
D E
L A
• All other employees
• Non-Represented Employees • Racine Professional Employees Association
E S
• Only remaining post-Act 10, non-Police or Fire union as of January 1, 2018 4
City of Racine Collective Bargaining - Overview
D E
• CPI-U for General Employee union contracts commencing January 1, 2017 was 0.68% maximum
L A
E S
• Racine General Employee unions received 0.68%
• CPI-U for bargained General Employee union contracts commencing December 1, 2017 would be 1.79% maximum • Anticipate receiving January 1, 2018 CPI-U by mid-July 2017
5
City of Racine Compensation Study - Overview • General Employees
D E
L A
• All Full-Time, non-Police and Fire Union Employees
E S
6
City of Racine Historical Salary Adjustments 1995-2017 Clericals - City Hall Clericals - Police DPW/Parks Crossing Guards Electricians Dispatchers Public Health Nurses Health Professionals Racine Prof Emp Assn Police Police Staff Fire Fire Staff Library Union Non Reps ≥GR-10 Non Reps ≤GR-9
1995 3% 3% 2%/1% 2%/1%
1996 2%/1% 2%/1% 2%/1% 3% 2%/1%
1997 2%/1% 2%/1% 2%/1% 2.5% 2%/1%
1998 2.75% 2.75% 2.75% 2%/1% 2.75%
1999 2% 2% 2% 2.75% 2%
3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5.5% 3%
3% 3% 3% 2%/1% 2% 5.5% 3%
2%/1% 2%/1% 2%/1% 2%/1% 2%/1% 2.5% 3%
2%/1% 2.75% 2.75% 2.75% 2% 2% 2.75%
2% 1.5%/1% 2% 2%/1% 2% 2.75%/.25% 0% 2.75% 2% 2% 2% 2%/1% Merit Merit
2000 1.5%/1% 1.5%/1% 2%/.75% 2% 2%/.75%
2001 2002 3% 3%/.5% 3% 3%/.5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%.5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%/.5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Merit Merit
2003 3% 3% 4.25% 4.25% 4.25% 3% 4.25% 4.25% 3% 3% 3% 3% Merit
2004 2.5% 2.5% 0% 0% 0% 2.5% 2% 0% 4% 3% 3% 2.5% 3%
2005 3% 3% 4.25% 4.25% 4.25% 3% 2.25% 4.25% 1.5% 3% 3% 3% 3%
2006 2007 3% 3% + 30¢ 3% 3% + 30¢ 3% 3.75% 2.5% 2.5% 3% 3.75% 3% 3.75% 3% 3.75% 3% 3.75% 3% 3.75% 3% 3% 3%/2% 3%/1% 3% 4% 3% 3.75%
D E
2008 3% 3% 3.75% 2.5% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3% 3% 3.5% 3.75%
2009 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1%
3.75% 3.75%
1% 1%
E S
L A 3% 3%
3.75% 3.75%
2010 2011 2012 2013 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 2.9% or 0%** 3.2% or 1%** 0% 0% 2.9%* 3.2% 0.2485%^ 0% 0% 2.9%* 3.2% 0% 0% 2.9%* 3.2% 0% 0% 2.9%* 3.2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%/.5%^^ 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2.9%*^ 1%/.5%^^ 0% 0% 2.9%*^ 2% 0%
2014 2% 2% 2% 0% 0%
2015 0% 0% 0%
0% 2% 2% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2016 0%# 0% 0%
2017 1% 0.68% 0.68%
0.73% 0.68% 0% 1.5%/1%## 0% 1.5%/1%## 0%/1% 0.5%/0.5% 0%/1% 0.5%/0.5% 0%# 1% 2%#* 1% 2%#* 1%
Where one number is followed by another, e.g. 1.5%/1%, the unit recevied the first percentage increase on January 1 and the second percentage increase on July 1, unless otherwise indicated. * - Effective 03/13/2011 upon WRS payment commencement. ** - WRS Eligible Crossing Guards received higher amount. ^ - Total Base Wages - Not all electricians received pay increases. ^^ - .5% Effective last paycheck in December *^ - Effective 09/2011 upon WRS payment commencement. # - Bargaining unit did not recertify effective 01/01/2016 #* - Not an across-the-board pay increase. Some positions/employees did not receive the increase. ## - 1.5% efective December 31, 2016; 1% effective July 1, 2017
7
City of Racine Historical Salary Adjustments 1995-2017 Clericals - City Hall Clericals - Police DPW/Parks Crossing Guards Electricians Dispatchers Public Health Nurses Health Professionals Racine Prof Emp Assn Police Police Staff Fire Fire Staff Library Union Non Reps ≥GR-10 Non Reps ≤GR-9
1995 3% 3% 2%/1% 2%/1%
1996 2%/1% 2%/1% 2%/1% 3% 2%/1%
1997 2%/1% 2%/1% 2%/1% 2.5% 2%/1%
1998 2.75% 2.75% 2.75% 2%/1% 2.75%
1999 2% 2% 2% 2.75% 2%
2000 1.5%/1% 1.5%/1% 2%/.75% 2% 2%/.75%
3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5.5% 3%
3% 3% 3% 2%/1% 2% 5.5% 3%
2%/1% 2%/1% 2%/1% 2%/1% 2%/1% 2.5% 3%
2%/1% 2.75% 2.75% 2.75% 2% 2% 2.75%
2% 1.5%/1% 2% 2%/1% 2% 2.75%/.25% 0% 2.75% 2% 2% 2% 2%/1% Merit Merit
2001 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%.5% 3% 3% 3%/.5% 3% 3% 3% Merit
2002 3%/.5% 3%/.5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Merit
E S
L A
D E 2003 3% 3% 4.25% 4.25% 4.25% 3% 4.25% 4.25% 3% 3% 3% 3% Merit
2004 2.5% 2.5% 0% 0% 0% 2.5% 2% 0% 4% 3% 3% 2.5% 3%
2005 3% 3% 4.25% 4.25% 4.25% 3% 2.25% 4.25% 1.5% 3% 3% 3% 3%
2006 2007 3% 3% + 30¢ 3% 3% + 30¢ 3% 3.75% 2.5% 2.5% 3% 3.75% 3% 3.75% 3% 3.75% 3% 3.75% 3% 3.75% 3% 3% 3%/2% 3%/1% 3% 4% 3% 3.75% 3% 3%
3.75% 3.75%
2008 3% 3% 3.75% 2.5% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75% 3% 3% 3.5% 3.75% 3.75% 3.75%
8
City of Racine Historical Salary Adjustments 2007-2017 Clericals - City Hall Clericals - Police DPW/Parks Crossing Guards Electricians Dispatchers Public Health Nurses Health Professionals Racine Prof Emp Assn Police Police Staff Fire Fire Staff Library Union Non Reps ≥GR-10 Non Reps ≤GR-9
2009 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%
D E
2010 2011 2012 2013 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 2.9% or 0%** 3.2% or 1%** 0% 0% 2.9%* 3.2% 0.2485%^ 0% 0% 2.9%* 3.2% 0% 0% 2.9%* 3.2% 0% 0% 2.9%* 3.2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%/.5%^^ 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2.9%*^ 1%/.5%^^ 0% 0% 2.9%*^ 2% 0%
E S
L A
2014 2% 2% 2% 0% 0%
2015 0% 0% 0%
2016 0%# 0% 0%
2017 1% 0.68% 0.68%
0% 2% 2% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0.73% 0% 0% 0%/1% 0%/1% 0%# 2%#* 2%#*
0.68% 1.5%/1%## 1.5%/1%## 0.5%/0.5% 0.5%/0.5% 1% 1% 1%
9
City of Racine Net Salary Adjustments 2007-2017
D E
L A
Police Fire
E S
Non-Rep ≥ 10
10
City of Racine Net Salary Adjustments With CPI-U 2007-2017
D E
L A
CPI-U – All CPI-U – Milwaukee Racine
E S
11
City of Racine Compensation Study - Overview
D E
• Common Council Directed Compensation Study
L A
• Agenda Item 0717-16
E S
• September 6, 2016 • Carlson Dettmann Consulting, LLC • $52,500 contract 12
City of Racine Compensation Study - Overview
D E
• Reasons Common Council Directed Compensation Study
L A
• Several years of no or minimal pay increases, including furlough days • Anecdotal evidence that City employee pay scale lagged behind the market rates paid by comparable municipal employers
E S
13
City of Racine Compensation Study - Overview
D E
• Reasons Common Council Directed Compensation Study
L A
• Difficulty in retaining current employees due to salary and benefits • Difficulty in attracting prospective employees due to salary and benefits
E S
14
City of Racine Compensation Study - Overview • General Employees
D E
L A
• All Full-Time, non-Police and Fire Union Employees
E S
• Patrick Glynn, of Carlson Dettmann • Has been gathering information and conducting analyses • Received direction from Committee of the Whole on January 17, 2017
15
City of Racine Compensation Study - Overview • Per Racine Ordinance 2-432
D E
L A
• Common Council establishes the compensation clan • Human Resources Department administers the compensation plan
E S
16
City of Racine Compensation Study - Overview
D E
• Tonight
L A
• Patrick Glynn’s Presentation • Staff will take Committee of the Whole’s input
• Future
E S
• Staff will provide recommendation to Committee of the Whole for implementation 17
City Hall 730 Washington Ave. Racine, WI 53403 www.cityofracine.org
City of Racine Meeting Minutes - Final Committee of the Whole President Dennis Wiser Alderman Jeff Coe Alderman Mollie Jones Alderman John Tate II Alderman Tracey Larrin Alderman Steve Smetana Alderman Sandy Weidner Alderman Raymond DeHahn Alderman Q.A. Shakoor II Alderman Terry McCarthy Alderman Mary Land Alderman Henry Perez Alderman James Morgenroth Alderman Jason Meekma Alderman Melissa Lemke Thursday, June 29, 2017
6:00 PM
D E
L A
Call To Order
City Hall, Room 205
E S
Ald. Shakoor arrived at 6:08 p.m. Ald. McCarthy arrived at 6:51 p.m.
PRESENT: 12 - Dennis Wiser, Jeff Coe, Mollie Jones, John Tate II, Tracey Larrin, Steve Smetana, Raymond DeHahn, Q.A. Shakoor II, Terry McCarthy, Mary Land, Jason Meekma and Melissa Lemke EXCUSED:
3 - Sandy Weidner, Henry Perez and James Morgenroth
Approval of Minutes for the June 20, 2017 Meeting. A motion was made by Alderman Coe, seconded by Alderman DeHahn, that this file be to Approve the Minutes
626-17
Subject: (Direct Referral) Communication from the City Attorney and the Human Resources Manager presenting Patrick Glynn and Carlson Dettmann Consulting’s City of Racine compensation study report and seeking further direction from the Committee of the Whole. Recommendation of the Committee of the Whole on 06-29-2017: that staff provide a recommendation as to implementation. Fiscal Note: N/A Ald. Coe moved to have staff provide a recommendation as to implementation, seconded by Ald. DeHahn. Motion passed. A motion was made by Alderman Coe, seconded by Alderman DeHahn, that this file be Recommended to be Received and Filed
City of Racine
Page 1
Exhibit E
Committee of the Whole
Meeting Minutes - Final
June 29, 2017
Adjournment
D E
L A
E S
City of Racine
Page 2
FILED 04-10-2018 Clerk of Circuit Court Racine County 2017CV001644
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT RACINE COUNTY ______________________________________________________________________________ SANDRA J. WEIDNER, Petitioner, v.
Case No. 17-CV-1644
CITY OF RACINE, a Wisconsin municipal corporation,
Case Code: 30952
Respondent. ______________________________________________________________________________ RESPONDENT CITY OF RACINE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN INSTANTER REPLY BRIEF REGARDING THE PRIVILEGED NATURE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS ______________________________________________________________________________ Respondent City of Racine (the “City”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully moves this Court for leave to file an Instanter Reply Brief Regarding the Privileged Nature of the Communications Submitted to the Board of Ethics (“Reply Brief”) to properly address and respond to the arguments raised by Petitioner Sandra Weidner in her Brief in Reply to the City’s Log/Brief Claiming Privilege (“Petitioner’s Brief in Reply”). For convenience and so as to not further delay this matter, the City has filed its Reply Brief contemporaneously herewith. The City’s Reply Brief also responds to the Court’s requests made in its April 4, 2018 letter. In support of its Motion for Leave, the City states as follows: 1.
By Order dated March 14, 2018, the Court required that “[b]y March 23, 2018,
the City shall file a privilege log (and any supporting materials) relating to the correspondence that are the subject of the City’s request for an ethics advisory opinion.” (Order of Mar. 23, 2018 ¶ 4.) The City filed its Brief Regarding the Privileged Nature of the Communications Submitted to the Board of Ethics on that date.
2029085.1
2.
The Order of March 14, 2018 also required that “[b]y March 30, 2018 Petitioner
Weidner shall file a response, if any, to the City’s privilege log submission.” Petitioner Weidner filed “Petitioner’s Brief in Reply” on that date. 3.
Petitioner’s Brief in Reply sets forth several arguments that are misstatements
and/or incomplete statements of the law governing the attorney-client privilege. Further, her positions would effectively render the privilege non-existent, thereby fundamentally altering legal practice in Wisconsin in every area of law. 4.
As such, and in order to adequately defend itself against the characterizations and
positions set forth by Petitioner Weidner (which were articulated with specificity for the first time in Petitioner’s Brief in Reply) and secure the just determination of the privilege issues before the Court, the City respectfully requests the opportunity to more fully address Petitioner Weidner’s arguments by its Reply Brief. 5.
The relief requested herein is for good case and will result in the just
administration of the case. NOW, THEREFORE, Respondent City of Racine respectfully moves this Court for an order accepting the filing of its Reply Brief.
Dated this 10th day of April, 2018. MEISSNER TIERNEY FISHER & NICHOLS S.C.
By: Electronically signed by Michael J. Cohen Michael J. Cohen State Bar No. 1017787 Email: mjc@mtfn.com Dieter J. Juedes State Bar No. 1088880 Email: djj@mtfn.com 2 2029085.1
111 East Kilbourn Avenue, 19th Floor Milwaukee, WI 53202 Tel: 414-273-1300 Fax: 414-273-5840 Attorneys for Respondent, City of Racine
3 2029085.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 1 of 46
FILED FILED 04-10-2018 01-16-2019 Clerk Circuit Court Clerk of of Circuit Court Racine County Racine County 2017CV001644 2017CV001644
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT RACINE COUNTY ______________________________________________________________________________ SANDRA J. WEIDNER, Petitioner, v.
Case No. 17-CV-1644
CITY OF RACINE, a Wisconsin municipal corporation,
Case Code: 30952
D E
Respondent. ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________ ____________ RESPONDENT CITY OF RACINE’S INSTANTER NTER REPLY BRIEF REGARDING R THE PRIVILEGED NATURE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS MUNICATIONS NICATIONS SUBMITTED SUBMITT SUBMITTE TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________ ________________
L A
Respondent City of Racine ine (the “City”), by and through its undersigned counsel, submits
E S
this Instanter Reply Brieff Regarding the Privileged N Nature of the Communications Submitted to the Board of Ethics. hics 1
INTRODUCTION
In Alderperson on Weidner’s W Brief in Reply to the City’s Log/Brief Claiming Privilege, she cherry picks from portions of the subject correspondence at issue and misconstrues the contents of those correspondence in an attempt to convince that Court that none not a single one
of the
correspondence are privileged. Her positions misconstrue the law governing attorney-client
1
This pleading is being filed contemporaneously with the City’s Motion for Leave to File a Instanter Reply Brief Regarding the Privileged Nature of the Communications Submitted to the Board of Ethics. The City is in receipt of the Court’s April 4, 2018 letter and it addresses the Court’s requests herein.
2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 2 of 46
privilege and effectively render the privilege non-existent.2 If adopted by courts, her positions would fundamentally alter legal practice in Wisconsin and not just in the municipal setting, but in every area of legal practice. Clients would be unwilling to share confidences with attorneys, and thus, attorneys would be unable provide complete legal guidance. And, attorneys would be unwilling to provide full insights to their clients, constantly doubting whether the shared information is privileged. This is not City “hyperbole” as Alderperson Weidner contends; rather, as detailed herein, following Alderperson Weidner’s logic would lead to patently absurd results.
D E L A E S
For these reasons (and the others more specially set forth below), Alderperson Weidner’s elow), low), Alderp positions should be rejected and the Court should determine communications are in fact mine that the communica communicati privileged.
SUMMARY RESPONSE TO ALDERPERSON CONTENTIONS DERPERSON RPERSON WEIDNER S FLAWED F While the City will respond to Alderperson Alderpers Weidner’s arguments for each correspondence in seriatim below, it must mus first fir highlight some of the overarching flaws in Alderperson Weidner’s eidner’s reply.
Flawed Contention Contentio One: that the privilege only applies when an attorney specifically directs a client what to do and that it cannot apply when an attorney researches, analyzes, and transmits law that is publically available. Wis. Stat. § 905.03 codifies the attorney-client privilege by stating that a client “has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services.” Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2) (2017) (emphasis added). Alderperson Weidner’s arguments completely ignore this text, as she would have it read “confidential communications made where
2
It is impossible to even imagine what would in fact be privileged under Alderperson Weidner’s positions since she contends (incorrectly) that she alone can determine whether a communication between an alderperson and the City is privileged.
2 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 3 of 46
the attorney directs the client what to do.” As the Court is aware, an attorney can provide “legal services” (or at the least, “facilitat[e] the rendition of professional legal services”) in several ways, including, without limitation, (1) receiving and analyzing a client’s communication about a matter; (2) locating and providing legal authority, including case law, statutes, and ordinances; (3) providing factual background and summary regarding the factual context of a given transaction, case, or legal matter; (4) summarizing procedures applicable to the client’s situation; and (5) providing guidance and advice on how to handle certain situations. Communications involving these issues are indisputably privileged. Alderperson Weidner makes much ado about ut the fact that some of the subject communications involve the City Attorney’ss Office responding to Alderperson inquiries by Alderp providing publicly available statutes, most of the time, include s, ordinances, rdinances, or resolutions, which wh the City Attorney’s Office’s the same. Her position appears to e’s ’s comment and guidance regarding regar be that the underlying cannot be privileged. This is an erlying rlying topic is public, so the t communication c absurd position, n, as most, if not all, aal legal authority (e.g., case law, statutes, regulations, ordinances), is available ailable to the t public by its very nature. However, when a client inquires of an attorney regarding the law and the attorney analyzes the inquiry, conducts research, finds the applicable law, and responds by providing the law (and often times, related input), that reveals the attorney’s mental impressions and analysis as to what law is relevant and how it applies.3
3
See, e.g., Oasis Int’l Waters, Inc. v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 87, 104 (2013) (“an attorney's interpretation of a statute, regulation, or contract may be privileged, even though the information underlying the attorney’s interpretation is in the public domain”); Glaxo, Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 148 F.R.D. 535, 540 (E.D.N.C. 1993) (“Courts have therefore held that where a communication contains technical data or public information intermingled with requests for legal advice or the rendition of such advice, the privilege will attach.”).
3 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 4 of 46
Stated differently, the City Attorney’s Office is not merely acting as a “conduit” for public information in this instance, it is undertaking the legal process noted above.4 For example, under Alderperson Weidner’s position, when an attorney responds to a client inquiry about the applicable statute of limitations for a claim by providing the relevant statute, that communication would not be privileged because the statute of limitations is public. This would be an absurd result and would open up “Pandora’s Box” for a host of similar communications. The attorney-client privilege protects these communications and does not
D E
apply as narrowly as Alderperson Weidner would like.
Moreover and contrary to Alderperson Weidner’s City has never dner’s suggestion, the C Ci
L A
maintained in this case that all correspondence Office and ndence dence between the City Attorney’s Atto Alderpersons are privileged.5 An inquiry nquiry iry from an Alderperson to the City Attorney’s Office as
E S
to the date and time of a City meeting and a non-descrip non-descript response to that inquiry would not be privileged. However, fall into this category. Further, while wever, none of the subject communications ccomm the City Attorney’s public meetings, at those meetings no one has an ney’s Office does attend att expectation of confidentiality. As such, during the public meetings, the City Attorney’s Office is fidentiali fidentialit 4
While Alderperson Weidner frequently invoked her “conduit” theory, she does little to explain it or provide any analogous case law. The theory applies when a litigant attempts to invoke the privilege over documents that do not involve legal counsel by transferring those documents to the attorney. See Ashland Oil Inc. v. Delta Oil Prod. Corp., 1979 WL 24977, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 9, 1979). This type of situation is so dissimilar to the facts of the present case that it strains credibility for Alderperson Weidner to rely on such a theory. 5 Alderperson Weidner highlights the City Attorney’s statement in one of the correspondence
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision Alderperson Weidner maintains that this is an improper statement of the law controlling privilege. Given, inter alia, (1) Redacted
and (3) that the privilege belongs to the City and not an individual Alderperson, the City Attorney, like most attorneys, erred on the side of caution and set forth a bright line rule for Alderpersons to follow so that the privilege would not be breached.
4 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 5 of 46
careful to only provide responses which do not implicate confidential processes, advice or information and the office will often times “nip confidential topics and discussion in the bud” and not let the discussion go any further when it implicates confidence. Finally, while some of the communications may seem innocuous, that does not change
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
their privileged nature.
In this regard,
E L
Attorney Hinkston’s non-explicit “public records request” that uest” est” was tethered to his contention co Alderperson Weidner be allowed to participate pate ate in the anonymous Board of Ethics process.
A E
(Letteney Aff. ¶ 11, Ex. B, Hinkstonn September “Ms. Weidner should be provided eptember 5, 2017 letter, “Ms copies of the subject communications so that she may participate in the munications involving her forthwith forth process.”).
S
Shee obviously had no right to participate in the advisory opinion process, as p
evidenced by the hat she did not even pursue that mandamus request after the City filed its hee fact that motion to quash.
Flawed Contention Two: that the individual Alderperson’s subjective intent in seeking information from the City Attorney’s Office controls the privilege determination. Alderperson Weidner’s arguments are premised on the notion she did not make her inquires to the City Attorney’s Office in confidence (including, that she was acting as an “ombudsman” for constituents), and thus, those communications and the City Attorney’s Office’s response cannot be privileged. (Pet. Br. in Reply at 6, 9, 11, 26, 27.) However, when Alderperson Weidner contacts the City Attorney’s Office and receives feedback, she does not hold the privilege and she does not make the determination as to whether her communication or
5 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 6 of 46
the response was made in confidence.6 Rather, those determinations are made by the City (as embodied by the Common Council) and for good reason because otherwise an Alderperson could obtain sensitive information from the City Attorney’s Office and use that information in a manner adverse to the City without the City having the protection of the privilege. Adopting her position would also force the City Attorney’s Office (who is required to respond to client representative inquiries) to guess as what capacity the Alderperson was seeking input, which will likely not be clear from the face of the communication.7
D E
Her position leads to extreme results, as demonstrated byy the following example from a actual case in which the City had privilege concerns.. In Holmes v. City of Racine, Eastern Ra
L A
District of Wisconsin Case Number 14-CV-208-JPS, 08-JPS, 8-JPS, Thomas Holmes, forme former owner of Park 6 in downtown Racine, alleged millions of dollars due to alleged discrimination. Suppose a group of discrim
E S
former Park 6 patrons and nd City constituents wanted him hhi to get his liquor license back and reopen. Assumee further that those constitue constituents pressured their Alderperson (“Alderperson 1” for purposes of reference erence rence herein) to obtain greater information regarding the case. Wanting to pacify his constituents and nd thinking thinkin he was an “ombudsman” for those constituents, Alderperson 1 thinki inquires of the City Attorney’s Office of the status of Holmes’ claim, Holmes’ prospect for damages, the City’s defenses thereto, and whether Holmes will likely get his license back. The City Attorney’s Office responds to these requests. Under Alderperson’s Weidner’s position, such an inquiry and response is not privileged because Alderperson 1 makes the privilege 6
See, e.g., Wendt v. City of Denison, 2018 WL 1547119, at *3 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 29, 2018) (“When the client is a municipality, the privilege belongs to the City, and not to any individual employee.”); Guidiville Rancheria of California v. United States, 2013 WL 5303748, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2013) (“In short, the acts of a single council member, acting unilaterally and without the requisite authority, cannot erode the protections of the City Council's attorney-client privilege.”). 7 Contrary to Alderperson Weidner’s misplaced suggestion, the City Attorney’s Office is not legal counsel for the people of Racine. It is legal counsel for the City. While the City Attorney’s Office responds to public records requests, it does not provide legal services for the people of Racine.
6 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 7 of 46
determination, not the Common Council. The communication then can be openly disseminated without any protection and used to undermine the City’s interests. And again, this is not “hyperbole” as Alderperson Weidner contends; Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
.8 Moreover, it is notable that Alderperson Weidner is directing her inquires to the City Attorney’s Office, and not the Mayor, City Administrator, City Clerk, City Assessor, Department
D E
of City Development, Finance Department, etc. Alderperson Weidner’s eidner’s now claimed lack of intent to seek legal services rings hollow because the correspondence orrespondence rrespondence confirms that th she knew the
L A
City Attorney’s Office, and not some other department, with answers. In sum, epartment, partment, could provide her wi wit Alderperson Weidner wants the benefit legal services without nefit fit of the City Attorney’s Office’s Of O
E S
having to respect the privilege should be rejected. lege that accompanies it. Her position ppo
Flawed Contention Three: that there is th i no privilege when the City Attorney’s Office proactively assesses sesses possible legal issues issue impacting the City and provides input on these issues to the Common ommon Council and Mayor. M Alderpersonn Weidner Weidn contends that when the City Attorney’s Office proactively communicates with the Common Council regarding legal issues, the City Attorney’s communications are not privileged absent prior express communication from the Common Council on those issues. Her position appears to be based on a statement in Wisconsin case law that the privilege “does not protect communications from the lawyer to the client unless 8
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
7 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 8 of 46
disclosure of the lawyer-to-client communications would directly or indirectly reveal the substance of the client’s confidential communications to the lawyer.” Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Sch. Bd. of Sch. Dist. of Shorewood, 186 Wis. 2d 443, 460, 521 N.W.2d 165, 173 (Ct. App. 1994). As her theory goes, when the City Attorney’s Office writes proactively to the Common Council absent prior communication from the Common Council it is impossible to tell whether the City Attorney’s Office communication reveals the substance of the client’s confidential communication to the lawyer. However, her position fundamentally ignores the role of the City
D E
Attorney’s Office and incompletely and inaccurately reflects the hee scope of the th attorney-client privilege in Wisconsin.
L A
Specifically, the only client of the City City. It works for the tyy Attorney’s Office is the City Cit City twenty-four hours a day, seven en days a week. Per statute, the t City Attorney’s Office is
E S
responsible for “conduct[ing] the city is interested.” Wis. Stat. § ing] ng] all the law business in which whi wh 62.09(12) (2017). previous submission, the Common Council 7). ). As such, and as detailed in City’s C and Mayor lookk to the City Attorney’s Attorney Office to be proactive and provide them with advice on legal matters whenn presented presente in due course to the City. The City Attorney’s Office should and must be on the lookout for possible legal issues affecting the City and provide advice on these issues to the Common Council and Mayor
often times prior to the Common Council and
Mayor expressly seek legal insights on a particular issue.9 Accordingly, against this background, the “client’s confidential communication to the lawyer” is the fact that the City (the client)
9
All of this makes the City Attorney’s Office’s role dissimilar to that of an outside law firm retained by a multitude of different clients for specific well-defined legal issues. In that context, the Journal/Sentinel principle perfectly fits because the client will always first contact the attorney at the outset of any given legal matter, and thus, any subsequent communications by the attorney to the client will reveal the substance of prior client to attorney communications.
8 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 9 of 46
empowers the City Attorney’s Office to handle “all [its] law business” on a daily basis and looks for the office to be proactive and advise it on confidential legal matters. Not surprisingly, in similar contexts, courts have found that the privilege applies to an attorney’s proactive legal communications to a client when the client is a perpetual client, as is the case here. Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 1991 WL 441904, at *2 (N.D. Ind. July 26, 1991) (“self-initiated attorney communications intended to keep the client posted on legal developments and implications may also be protected.”); Hercules, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 434 F. Supp. 136, 144 (D. Del. 1977) (explaining that “it is not essential, the [client’s] ial, al, however, that t request for advice be express”). As the court in Burlington gton Indus. v. Exxon Corp., Corp., 65 F.R.D. 26 Corp (D. Md. 1974) explained in finding that att a privilege existed over attorney initiated communications: While certain advisory isory communications from the attorney to the client were not in direct response ponsee to a client request, it is evident that an ongoing attorneyclient relationship elationship lationship existed. Moreover, Moreov the attorney would have been remiss in his duties keep his client informed of pertinent legal uties ies were he not to ke kee developments ments with respect to the matters for which his services were obtained. Consequently, requests for legal advice and the self-initiated ently, ly, both the implied i attorney communications were properly protected. mmunica Id. at 37 (emphasis added). The same analysis applies here: an ongoing relationship exists and the City Attorney’s Office would have been remiss in its duties if it did not proactively communicate with the Common Council regarding legal matters.
Alderperson Weidner’s
position fails to reconcile this reality and the above authority. Finally, if adopted, Alderperson Weidner’s position would once again
lead to absurd
results. Under her position, if the City was sued in a lawsuit seeking immediate injunctive relief (or for that matter any lawsuit), the City Attorney’s Office could not even e-mail the Common Council advising of the suit, the allegations therein, and the City’s strategy for responding absent
9 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 10 of 46
prior communication from the Common Council regarding that lawsuit, which it may not even know about unless brought to its attention by the City Attorney. This would make it impossible for the City Attorney to communicate with the Common Council regarding the lawsuit and grossly frustrate the City’s ability to defend itself. In sum, Alderperson Weidner’s positions misstate the law governing privilege and if accepted, would lead to absurd results. Against this backdrop, the City replies to each communication one-by-one y below.
D E
L A
E S
10 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 11 of 46
Correspondence One10 Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
May 22, 2017
Ald. A
Scott Letteney Ald. A requesting the City (City Attorney’s advice on the Attorney) status of pending claim against the City Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19
May 24, 2017
Ald. A
Stacey Salvo (Paralegal)11
Ald. A forwards the above correspondence to a paralegal.
D E
Reply to Alderperson’s Weidner’s Contentions: An Alderpersonn (a City representative) is clearly communicating with the City Attorney’s Office regarding garding arding the status of a pending claim
L A
against the City and seeking information Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision Whether that tth Alderperson believes he is “standing in the shoes off his constituent” is immaterial because the Alderperson
E S
does not have the unilateral authority to determine whether whethe his communication to the City wheth Attorney’s Office iss privileged, underscored by this communication because then vileged, which is unders undersc otherwise the Alderperson and use it in a manner adverse to the City’s lderperson could request information in interests.
Further, Attorney was not “acting as a conduit for non-confidential her, r, the City Cit A Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
information,” as he w was being asked about a
legal analysis (analyze the inquiry, research and analyze the applicable authority, and respond appropriately), must be implemented to respond to that inquiry.
10
For the Court’s reference, the City will leave in place its privilege charts from the prior submission in this pleading. 11 The City Attorney’s Office was not implying anything by including this communication, It was including it in the Board of Ethics submission so that the Board of Ethics could render an opinion. Regardless, the communication is still privileged.
Redacted Pursuant to 1.
11 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 12 of 46
Correspondence Two Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
August 2, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
Common Council, Other City Employees
The City Attorney is providing advice to the Common Council and City employees regarding the process the City should take with respect to a Petition for Direct Legislation filed with g the City ity Clerk’s Cler Office Cle Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
E L A E S
August 2, 2017
Ald. B
Unknown (e m il address off nse sim nsen@f ocusracine.or ocu ocus g)
Ald. B forwards the above co correspondence to someone outside of City government.
Reply to Alderperson’s rperson’s Weidner’s Contentions: The City Attorney’s Office provides legal onse nse to a Petition filed with the City seeking changes in City ordinances, guidance in response
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
day when things have just been filed, the communication provides
As attorneys do every
Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision
Yet, this approach does not somehow make the preliminary communication not privileged, as Alderperson Weidner incorrectly suggests. Further, as to the suggestion that the communication does not reveal the substance of any confidential communication from the client because the
12 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 13 of 46
communication does not follow a direct client request, see Flawed Contention Three above and the authority cited therein.12
D E
L A
E S 12
The City has never contended that merely labeling a communication as privileged makes it privileged. Conversely, failing to label a communication as privileged does not make it not privileged. However, the label can be intended to provide further caution to the Common Council to dissuade Alderpersons from sharing the communication with third-parties.
13 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 14 of 46
Correspondence Three Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
January 6, 2015
Robert Weber (Then City Attorney)
Ald. C
The City Attorney is providing insights to Ald. C, in response to her inquiry, regarding why the City retained outside counsel for a development project.
Redacted Pursuant to 1
E L A E S
January 6, 2015
Ald. C
Jan ary 6 2015
Roberr W ber (Then (T City Attorney)
January 31, 2017
Ald. C
Robert W ber (Then Then Ci y Attorney) nd Tho s Th Thomas F edel (Then City ity Adm nistrator nist nis ) Ald. C and Thomas Friedel (Then City Administrator ) George Meyers
d. C responds to t the above, Ald. questioning whether the whet wh outsidee counsel coun has a conflict of nterest nter in representing the nte City. C Ci
The City Attorney responds to Ald. C’s inquiry providing legal insights as to why outside counsel does not have a conflict of interest. Ald. C. forwards the above email chain to someone outside of City government.
Reply to Alderperson’s Weidner’s Contentions: Whether Alderperson Weidner believes she is “acting as an ombudsman” is immaterial because she does not have the unilateral authority to determine whether City communications are privileged. Further, it is immaterial that her initial inquiry was to the City Administrator because, as the City Administrator properly recognized, it involved legal issues that were better addressed by the City Attorney’s Office.
The
correspondence clearly involves legal services because it pertains to the City Attorney’s thought
14 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 15 of 46
processes and actions regarding the selection of outside counsel and it includes a discussion as to why outside counsel does not have a conflict of interest (which specifically requires legal analysis), clearly a confidential discussion between counsel and a client representative.
D E
L A
E S
15 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 16 of 46
Correspondence Four Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
January 17, 2017
Ald. C
Scott Letteney Ald. C requests legal advice (City and legal authority from the Attorney) City Attorney
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
January 17, 2017
January 18, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
Ald. C
Ald. C
George Meyers
regarding when the City Council or a City board may go into closed session. The City Attorney responds by providing the legal authority including ority rity requested, req Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Ald. d. C. forwa ds d the above esom so mail c ain t someone outside ity government. gov gove of City
Reply to Alderperson’s Weidner’ss Contentions: Contentions ontentions:: Alderperson Weidner We begins her argument by making a convoluted
nd quite frankly, hard to discern disc and
argument about some perceived
distinction about The argument is a red hearing and non utt “legal advice” and “legal authority.” aut sequitur.
The communication refle reflects that she is requesting
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
To respond, the City Attorney analyzed the inquiry, researched and located the responsive legal authority, and provided Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision As such, he is not merely acting as a “conduit” for public information. If the answers could have been “discovered by other means,” then surely Alderperson Weidner would not need to contact the City Attorney to obtain the information. Finally, Alderperson Weidner does not have the unilateral authority to determine whether City communications are privileged or confidential. The communications are confidential (i.e., not intended to be disclosed to 3rd persons under Wis. Stat. § 905.03(1)(d)) because they reflect the
16 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 17 of 46
mental impressions and legal processes of the City Attorney, who works for the City and not third parties outside of City government and further pertains to a topic, open versus closed session meetings, that those outside of City government often challenge. Again, like many of the subject communications, Alderperson Weidner wants the benefit of the City Attorney’s Office’s legal services without having to respect the privilege that accompanies it.
D E
L A
E S
17 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 18 of 46
Correspondence Five Ex. G PDF Range
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
26 of 68 (Page 7 of 48)
February 20, 2017
Nhu Tran (Assistant City Attorney)
Ald. C
February 20, 2017
Ald. C
George Meyers
The Assistant City Attorney responds to Ald. C’s inquiry regarding the Redevelopment Authority (a specific issue of state law) and the resolution that created the authority. Ald. C. forwards the above email to someone outside of City government.
D E L
Reply to Alderperson’s Weidner’s Contentions: Alderperson Weidner is requesting req from the City Attorney’s Office the resolution (i.e., authority) that Authority hat created the Redevelopment Redevelopm Redevelop (a specific issue of state law). To respond, the City Attorney’s Office analyzed the inquiry, an
A E
13 researched and located the responsive ve authority, and provided the authority. a As such, the City
Attorney’s Office was nott merely acting as a “conduit” ffor readily available information. If the
S
information wass “readily available from ot other sources,” again, Alderperson Weidner would not need to contact ctt the City Attorney’s Office to obtain the information. Finally, Alderperson Weidner does not have the unilateral authority to determine whether City communications are privileged or confidential.
The communications are confidential (i.e., not intended to be
disclosed to 3rd persons under Wis. Stat. § 905.03(1)(d)) because it reflects the legal processes of the City Attorney who works for the City and not third parties outside of City government.
13
Per the Court’s request, the City has attached to this pleading as Exhibit A the resolution that created the Redevelopment Authority and the related information, which was the attachment to the Assistant City Attorney’s February 20, 2017 e-mail.
18 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 19 of 46
Correspondence Six Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
December 5, 2016
Ald. C
Scott Letteney Ald. C requests information (City from the City Attorney Attorney) regarding the authority of the Redevelopment Authority Redact
December 5, 2016
February 20, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney) Ald. C
Ald. C
The City Attorney responses to Ald. C’s inquiry with legal authority and statute citations.
D E L
George Meyers
Ald C. forwards forwar the above ema l chain to omeone outside o of C y government. governm governme
Reply to Alderperson’s Weidner’s Contentions: entions: nti Again, gain, the communication communi reflects that
A E
Alderperson Weidner is requesting authority regarding the ng from the City Attorney legal le l Redevelopment Authorityy (Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision Once again, to respond, the City
S
Attorney’s Office and located the responsive legal authority, ce analyzed the inquiry, researched resear re
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
As with other similar the City Attorney’s Office was not merely acting as a ilar communications, comm com “conduit” for information available from other sources. Once again, if the information was “readily available from other sources,” then Alderperson Weidner would not need to contact the City Attorney. Finally, Alderperson Weidner does not have the unilateral authority to determine whether City communications are privileged or confidential.
The communications are
confidential (i.e., not intended to be disclosed to 3rd persons) because it reflects the legal processes of the City Attorney who works for the City and not third parties outside of City government.
19 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 20 of 46
Correspondence Seven Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
January 23, 2017
Ald. C
Scott Letteney (City Attorney), Thomas Friedel (Then City Administrator ), Amy Connolly (Director of City Development nt Departmen men ) Same me ass above. a lld. C, F edel, e and Connolly onnolly
Ald. C requests information from the City Attorney regarding the status of a City Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision contract
D E L A E S
January 24, 2017 January 24, 2017
January anuaryy 24, 24 2017
Ald. C
Scott Lettt ney (Cityy Attorr ey) Ald. C
J nuary 24 24, 2 2017
Scott S Sc Letteney (City Attorney)
March 2, 2017
Ald. C
Ald. C requests confirmation c of receipt eceipt of the above e-mail. Th City C Ci Attorney confirms receipt re and indicates that information will be forthcoming. Scott Sco Letteney Ald. C thanks the City (City Attorney. Attorney) Ald. C, The City Attorney provides Friedel, and legal insights regarding the Connolly terms of the contract in response to Ald. C’s initial inquiry. George Ald. C. forwards the above eMeyers mail chain to someone outside of City government.
Reply to Alderperson’s Weidner’s Contentions: Contrary to Alderperson Weidner’s argument, whether the contracts Redacted
Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision would be
subject to public records law is immaterial.14 Alderperson Weidner specifically asks the City 14
See, e.g., Glaxo, 148 F.R.D. at 540 (“Courts have therefore held that where a communication contains technical data or public information intermingled with requests for legal advice or the rendition of such advice, the privilege will attach.”); Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Texaco, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 329, 332 (N.D. Okla. 2002) (“However, factual information which is communicated by an attorney to a client within the
20 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 21 of 46
Attorney for input and interpretation of the contracts as to Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision To respond, the City Attorney performed legal services contracts, and provided
analyzed the inquiry, reviewed the
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
The City Attorney would have no obligation to undertake this type of action and provide this information in response to a public records request even though the contracts themselves would be provided in response to a request. As such, the City Attorney’s Office was not merely
D E
acting as a “conduit” for information available from other sources Weidner urces rces as Alderperson Alde incorrectly argues. The communications are confidential disclosed to 3rd al (i.e., not intended to be di
L A
persons under Wis. Stat. § 905.03(1)(d)) because processes of the City cause ause they reflect the legal pro pr Attorney who works for the City and nd not third parties outside of City Ci C government and it reflects
E S
the City Attorney’s interpretation (contracts which could become the source of a retation of the contracts (contra (contrac dispute in the future, ture, ure, such that the City would wou not no want its counsel’s interpretation public).
context of the attorney client relationship is protected by the attorney client privilege.”); Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 92, 103 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“[T]he mere fact that a document contains some public or non-confidential information does not necessarily make the document discoverable.”).
21 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 22 of 46
Correspondence Eight Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
March 2, 2017
Nhu Tran (Assistant City Attorney) Ald. C
Ald. C
The Assistant City Attorney responds to Ald. C’s inquiry regarding a Racine ordinance and a prospective ordinance. Ald. C. forwards the above email chain to someone outside of City government.
March 7, 2017
Jan (last name unknown)
Reply to Alderperson’s Weidner’s Contentions: Alderperson Weidner is requesting from the City Attorney’s Office
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
To respond, the City Attorney’s Office analyzed the located the he inquiry, researched and a responsive authority, and provided
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decisi
. As such, the City Attorney’s Attorney Office was once
again not merely acting as a “conduit” information. Similarly, if the nduit” it” for readily available in information was “readily available from other sources,” then Alderperson Weidner would not need to contact the City Attorney’s office for the information. Finally, Alderperson Weidner does not have the he unilateral authority to determine whether City communications are privileged or confidential. The communication is confidential (i.e., not intended to be disclosed to 3rd comm persons under Wis. Stat. § 905.03(1)(d)) because it reflects the legal processes of the City Attorney who works for the City and not third-parties outside of City government.
22 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 23 of 46
Correspondence Nine Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
March 27, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
Common Council, Other City Employees
The City Attorney provides initial legal advice on
March 27, 2017
Redacted Pursu
or filling a vacancy in the Office of Mayor. The City Attorney attaches a fiv page detailed five orandum memorandum providin legal advice providing
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
Common Council, Same Other City Employees As Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision Above or filling Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision a vacancy acancy in i the Office of Mayor. Mayor Aldd C G orge o Ald. A C. forwards the above eMeyers mail chain, including the memorandum, to someone outside of City government. Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Redacted Pursuant
E L A E S
March 28, 2017
Reply to Alderperson’s derperson’s rperson’s Weidner’s Contentions: Co C These are communications from the City Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral
Attorney’s Office, e, in which the City Attorney’s Office had to digest and then summarize
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
for filling a
vacancy in the Office of Mayor, unquestionably constituting “legal services” under Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2). The documents are Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision An attorney does not have to
Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision
for a document to be privileged as Alderperson Weidner contends,
because, it is the City’s (i.e., the Common Council/client’s) decision to make based on the options articulated by counsel that allow the City to comply with the law. Further, as to the suggestion that the communication does not reveal the substance of any confidential communication from the client because the communication does not follow a direct client request, see Flawed Contention Three above and the authority cited therein. 23 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 24 of 46
Correspondence Ten This correspondence is a continuation of correspondence seven above. Only the additional portions of the e-mail chain will be logged/indexed below. Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
January 25, 2017
Ald. C
April 4, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
Scott Letteney Ald. C requests information (City from the City Attorney Attorney) regarding whether a contract for a specific amount would need Common Council approval. Ald. C The City Attorney Att At responds to Ald C’s inq iry i providing a legg l analysis
April 7, 2017
Aldd C
Subject Matter/Description
D
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
G orge o Mee ers
specific fo a sp amountt needs nee need Common Council Counc approval. Counci Ald. A C. forwards the above email chain to someone outside of City government.
Reply to Alderperson’s rperson’s person’s Weidner’s Contentions: Cont Contenti Alderperson Weidner specifically asks the City Attorney for input and interpre interpretation regarding whether a contract for a specific amount needs Common Council To respond, the City Attorney again analyzed the inquiry, ouncil approval. ap reviewed the contracts
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision .
Alderperson Weidner does not have the unilateral authority to determine whether City communications are privileged or confidential. The communications are confidential (i.e., not intended to be disclosed to 3rd persons under Wis. Stat. § 905.03(1)(d)) because they reflect the legal processes of the City Attorney who works for the City and not 3rd persons outside of City government, and moreover, the validity of the contract could be questioned pending the City Attorney’s analysis.
Finally, contrary to Alderperson Weidner’s misplaced argument, the
24 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 25 of 46
communication is dissimilar to that provided in a public meeting because of the content and level of detail provided by the City Attorney in the confidential communication to her.
D E
L A
E S
25 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 26 of 46
Correspondence Eleven Ex. G PDF Range
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
42 to 44 of 68 (Pages 23 to 25 of 48)
April 7, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
Ald. C
April 7, 2017
Ald. C
George Meyers
The City Attorney responds to Ald. C’s inquiry regarding City ordinances with respect to the procurement of professional services, including providing a specific ordinance. Ald. C. forwards the above email too someone outside of so some City governme government.
D E L
Reply to Alderperson’s Weidner’s Contentions: Alderperson rperson Weidner requeste requested from the City ng the procurement of professional professi profess Attorney legal authority (ordinances) regarding services. To
A E
respond, the City Attorney’s Office once ce again analyzed the inquiry, inquiry researched and located the responsive legal authority, and provided the legal authority. authority As such, the City Attorney’s Office authorit
S
was not merely acting as a “conduit” for information. Finally, Alderperson Weidner does not iinform have the unilateral whether City communications are privileged or ateral teral authority to determine det dete confidential.
Thee communication is confidential (i.e., not intended to be disclosed to 3rd commun
persons) because it reflects the legal processes of the City Attorney who works for the City and not 3rd persons outside of City government.
26 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 27 of 46
Correspondence Twelve Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
June 2, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
Common Council, Other City Employees
The City Attorney detailed a confidential prospective settlement
June 5, 2017
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
which included the thought processes and activities of the City Attorney’s Office and City-retained retaine outside counsel. retained Ald C. forwar forwards the above ema l to someone someon outside of Cityy governm nt. n 15
D E L A
Ald. C
Unknown (email: susan.nofear ofear @gmail.. om)
Reply to Alderperson’s Weidner’s Contentions: tion This is a correspondence corres corresp from the City Attorney to the Common Council uncil (and City employees) summarizing ssu the status of a
E S
revocation proceeding settlement roceeding eding and the terms of a prospective pr pro
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Redacted Pursuant
Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision
The Journal/Sentinal case is
dissimilar because se it involved an a analysis over whether the settlement itself (embodied in a memorandum of understanding) that had been reached between the municipality and a thirdnde party was entitled to privilege. Journal/Sentinel, 186 Wis. 2d at 447, 460. Given that the agreement itself was between adverse parties (and thus, obviously not confidential), the court found that it was not protected by the privilege. See id. at 460. Here, the document is not a settlement with a third-party, but rather the City Attorney Office’s confidential communication with its client regarding a potential settlement. If such 15
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
27 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 28 of 46
communications were not privileged, adverse parties could obtain the City’s thoughts on prospective settlements before those settlements were approved and finalized, and thus, the City would lose all negotiating leverage should the matter not settle. Attorney-client communications are often times “wrought from interaction between [opposing] attorneys,” (Pet. Br. in Reply at 21) which does not somehow change the confidential nature of the attorney-client communication related to these interactions. If not privileged, it would led to the absurd result of being able to obtain opposing counsel’s view, insight, and advice to the client on the matters
D E
discussed between counsel.
Further, as to the suggestion that the communication of any ation does not reveal the substance ssub
L A
confidential communication from the client because ecause cause the communication does not follow a direct client request, see Flawed Contention on Three above and the authority cited therein.
E S
28 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 29 of 46
Correspondence Thirteen Ex. G PDF Range
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
48 to 49 of 68 (Pages 29 to 30 of 48)
February 20, 2017
Nhu Tran (Assistant City Attorney)
Ald. C
February 20, 2017
Ald. C
George Meyers
June 18, 2017
Ald. C
Unknown (email: ey dennismontey 55@gmail mail co m))
The Assistant City Attorney responds to Ald. C’s inquiry regarding the Redevelopment Authority (a specific point of state law) and the resolution that created the authority. Ald. C. forwards the above email chain to someone outside of City government. Ald. C forwards forw the above email chain t someone outside s m off City gover ment
Reply to Alderperson’s Weidner’s Contentions: ntentions: ns: Alderperson rson Weidner Weidne requested from the City Attorney’s Office the resolution on (i.e., authority) authority that create created the Redevelopment Authority (a specific issue of state te law). w). To respond, the City Attorney’s Office once again analyzed the inquiry, researched responsive authority, and provided the authority. As such, rched hed and located the respo respon again the City Attorney’s was not merely acting as a “conduit” for readily available orney’s Office Offic O information.
If the he information was “readily available from other sources,” then again
Alderperson Weidner would not need to contact the City Attorney’s Office to obtain the information. Finally, Alderperson Weidner does not have the unilateral authority to determine whether City communications are privileged or confidential.
The communications are
confidential (i.e., not intended to be disclosed to third parties under Wis. Stat. § 905.03(1)(d)) because it reflects the legal processes of the City Attorney who works for the City and not 3rd persons outside of City government.
29 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 30 of 46
Correspondence Fourteen Ex. G PDF Range
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
50 to 58 of 68 (Pages 31 to 39 of 48)
July 18, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
Common Council, Other City Employees
July 18, 2017
Ald. C
The City Attorney provides legal advice to the Common Council on possible Mayoral election dates as permitted by state statutes and City ordinances, including advice on twelve different possible scenarios that would be consistent with the timing provided ded in the t statutes and ordinances. rdinances. Al C. forwa dds the above eil hain to omeone om o mail outside f City gove nment. nme nm
D E L A George Meyers
Reply to Alderperson’s Weidner’s Contentions: ntion The subject communication com specifically addressed multiple scenarios for or possible Mayoral election dates d as permitted by state statutes
E S
and City ordinances.. (See ee Ex. G at Page 32 of 48, 48 “Due to a quirk in State law, the Special Election may not ot be held on November 7. 7 . .”) Whether some of the content contained in the communication wass later discuss discussed in public is immaterial because the communication itself was confidential and privileged. See, e.g., Glaxo, 148 F.R.D. at 540 (“Courts have therefore held that vile where a communication contains technical data or public information intermingled with requests for legal advice or the rendition of such advice, the privilege will attach.”); Astra Aktiebolag, 208 F.R.D. at 103 (“[T]he mere fact that a document contains some public or non-confidential information does not necessarily make the document discoverable.”); In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 2000 WL 1545028, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2000) (“While the underlying facts discussed in these communications may not be privileged, the communications themselves are privileged.”); Oasis Int’l Waters, 110 Fed. Cl. at 100 (“The privilege protects the confidentiality of communications regardless of whether the information they contain is confidential, because a 30 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 31 of 46
communication by a client with his or her attorney is generally assumed to be a request for legal advice.�). Attorneys often times share information with the public that is in part also embodied in attorney-client communications.
In fact, pleadings are a perfect example of this
e.g.,
information in this pleading is also in part reflected in correspondence between Meissner Tierney Fischer and Nichols, S.C. and the City Attorney’s Office.
However, just because that
information is in a pleading, does not mean that the correspondence is not privileged.
D E
L A
E S
31 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 32 of 46
Correspondence Fifteen Ex. G PDF Range
Date
59 of 68 June 29, 2017 (Pages 40 of 48)
July 19, 2017
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
Scott Letteney
Common Council, John Dickert (Then City Mayor), and James Palenick (City Administrator ) George Meyers
The City Attorney provided the Common Council and other City employees with PowerPoint presentations made by the City Attorney’s Office to the Committee of the Whole on June 29, 2017.
Ald. C
Ald. C. forwards the above email and nd its attachments to omeone ou side si of City someone goo ernment.
D E L
Reply to Alderperson’s Weidner’s Contentions: ons:
Contrary to Alderperson Alderpers Alderpe Weidner’s
A E
contention, even though the PowerPoint attached was public, this ed to the subject communication commun commu does not mean that the attorney ey to client communication itself iits is public. See legal authority noted in Correspondence attorneys often times attach publically ence 14 above. As set forth above, ab
S
filed pleadingss in an e-mail to cl clients. The communication is still privileged and confidential. In this regard, in hiss communication, the City Attorney went beyond the PowerPoint and communica communic specifically noted that hat he would answer, or obtain answers to, questions
i.e., “facilitating the
rendition of professional legal services” under Wis. Stat. § 905.03(2). Contrary to Alderperson Weidner’s assertion, “the animals were never let out of the barn” (Weidner April 10, 2018 Letter at 5) because the subject communication was and will always be privileged.16
16
Stated differently, the communication was never voluntarily disclosed.
32 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 33 of 46
Correspondence Sixteen Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
October 26, 2015
Rebecca Mason
Scott Letteney (City Attorney) and Ald. C
Attorney Rebecca Mason sent City Attorney Letteney and Ald. C an e-mail, which attached a letter . The letter implored the City of Racine and Ald. C to stop making alleged defamatory statements about Attorney Mason’s client, a City of Racine Racin employee. In Raci part, included art, such statements state reference eference to confidential con medical dical information informati informa oncerning the City Ci employee. loyee.17 Ald. C C. forwards the above em ma mail and the attached letter to someone outside of City government. Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Dec
D E L A E S
July 20, 2017
Ald. C
Unknown (e m il: dick121 jspp dick1212 @gmail.com) @gmail.c 18
Reply to Alderperson’s lderperson’s erperson’s Weidner’s C Contentions: At a minimum, the letter relates to confidential medical information of a City employee, i.e., dical al informatio informati Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
The letter lists the name of the City employee,
Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision
and Alderperson Weidner made contemporaneous public (although anonymous) statements Redacted Pursuant to 1 9 19 Oral Decision
see http://journaltimes.com/news/local/alleged-failed-drug-test-draws-
concerns/article_fdc102f3-0967-5298-924a-b7841adf95fd.html (Racine Journal Times article from October 13, 2015) and http://journaltimes.com/news/local/no-news-following-closed-doortalk-on-employee-drug-test/article_cabb4f83-e6f6-51e6-8472-a50d2c0dfeb9.html 17
(Racine
Per the Court’s request, the City has attached to this pleading as Exhibit B an unredacted copy of the letter from Attorney Rebecca Mason. 18 Again, it is not City “hyperbole” regarding Mr. Spodick. He and his associates present a real threat to the City interests, as demonstrated by his past involvement in litigation against the City. See footnote 15 in the City’s prior submission regarding Mr. Spodick and his litigation history with the City.
33 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 34 of 46
Journal Times article from October 29, 2015). Thus, if the letter was public, it would be easy to connect the two (Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision ). In essence, it would reveal employee information that is protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPPA”), see Pub. L. 104-191, and Wis. Stat. § 103.13(5); see also Wis. Stat. § 19.36 (recognizing exemptions for disclosure to comply with federal and state law). And, even if not outright protected under these statutes (which it is), it would be subject to the public records public policy balancing test under Linzmeyer v. Forcey, 2002 WI 84, 254 Wis. 2d 306, 646
D E
N.W.2d 811, and given the contents of the communication, determined based rmined mined to bbe confidential c on policy considerations in not wanting to spread information medical mation related to the employee’s emplo emp
L A
information.19
Finally, the City never contended ended ed that the document was attorney-client at privileged, so it
E S
on n Weidner addresses privilege iin her response. is unclear why Alderperson
19
It is difficult to fathom why an Alderperson of the City would not respect information of this nature involving a City employee.
34 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 35 of 46
Correspondence Seventeen Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
July 24, 2017
Karen Wirtz (Executive Legal Assistant)
Legistar__Ag enda__Final; Scott Letteney (City Attorney), James Palenick (City Administrator )
Subject Matter/Description
The City Attorney’s Office provides notice regarding an agenda for the Committee of the Whole, which is posted to Legistar, the City’s publically available online hosting database for meeting agendas and minutes. The City does not contend that this correspondence in sponde sponden isolation The solation is privileged. p below elow chain that tha follows, which ich is what the th public ecords request pertained to, pe is however owever privileged. p C inquires of the City Scott Letten y Ald. C. A At (Cit (City Attorney as to why certain tt rney), Att items are being addressed by Common the Committee of the Whole Council, in the order that they are. Cou James Palenick (City Administrator ), Janice JohnsonMartin (City Clerk), and Mark Yehlen (City Commissioner of Public Works) Ald. C The City Attorney responds to Common Ald. C explaining the Council, scheduling and timing of James several matters to be dealt Palenick (City with by the City Committee Administrator of the Whole. ), Janice JohnsonMartin (City Clerk), and
D E L A E S
July 24, 2017
Ald. C
July 24, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
35 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
July 24, 2017
Ald. C
Filed 01-16-2019
Mark Yehlen (City Commissioner of Public Works) Scott Letteney (City Attorney), Common Council, James Palenick (City Administrator ), Janice JohnsonMartin (Cityy Clerk),, M rk Yehlen (City (Cit Commissi er f Public Works), John Roo ney (City (Cit ssistant ssistan Commissioner Com of Public Works), Thomas Eeg (City Assistant Commissioner of Public Works), Bill Folstrom (City Superintenden t of Public Word), and Patrick Leary of the Racine Journal Times Ald. C, Common Council, and James Palenick (City Administrator
Page 36 of 46
Ald. C responds explaining that in her view certain agenda items should take precedence over others. She also included in the correspondence a Racine Journal Times correspondent- someonee ooutside of City government. rnment.
D E L A E
S
July 24, 2017
Scott Letteney (City Attorney)
36 2029077.1
The City Attorney responds to Ald. C. providing insights on why the agenda items had to be set in that order. He also provided legal insights on why it is improper for her to
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
)
July 24, 2017
Ald. C
Unknown (email: dennismontey 55@gmail.co m)
Page 37 of 46
include an outsider of City government on communications between the City Attorney’s Office and the Common Council. Even after being admonished by the City Attorney to not share privileged information, Ald. C. forwards the above email and its attachments to someone outside of City government (a Racine Times Journalist). ).
D
Reply to Alderperson’s Weidner’s Contentions: Again, Alderperson rperson person Weidner Weidn does not have the unilateral authority to determine whether City communications munications m unications are privileged or confidential. The City Attorney’s first response reflects the City Attorney’s Offices
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
If this issue did not ot involve legal services, servic again Alderperson Weidner would not need to contact servi the City Attorney’ss Office to t obtain the information. Her perception that the matters where not confidential and her cc’ing in a Journal Times reporter is inconsequential, as she does not determine what is confidential or privileged. Moreover, the later communication from the City Attorney pertains to his legal advice
Redacted Pu
as the City’s highest legal authority, to not share privileged information, which itself is privileged because it provides legal guidance and advice on a legal issue, the attorneyclient privilege.
37 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 38 of 46
Correspondence Eighteen Ex. G PDF Range Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision
Date
Author
Recipient(s)
Subject Matter/Description
August 4, 2017
Ald. C
Scott Letteney (City Attorney) and several (at least nine) people outside of City government
Ald. C contacts the City Attorney, while copying several people outside of City government, about revisions to the nuisance ordinance
Redacted Pu
D E L A
the eeby revealing inf nf rmation t aat she prev v ously lea nned via mmunications. rivileged c m mmu
Reply to Alderperson’s Weidner’s Contentions: ontentions: ons Once again, Alderperson Alder Alderp Weidner does not hold the City’s privilege and cannot unilaterally determine w whether something is privileged or
E S
waive the same by sharing inform ion with third pa parties. As detailed in the Flawed Contention ngg information Two section above, results. Further, the subject of communication ove, this would lead to absurd ab pertains to information learned via privileged communications, namely those mation tion that she previously p about revisions to City ordinances Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision and about possible action towards an establishment’s liquor license.
38 2029077.1
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Or
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 39 of 46
CONCLUSION The City respectfully requests that this Court find that the above eighteen communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege (with one, Correspondence 16, being confidential) and thus exempt from public records law. Alderperson Weidner cannot unilaterally determine which communications to and from the City Attorney’s Office are privileged and confidential and she cannot unilaterally waive the privilege.
If the City
Attorney’s Office cannot trust individual Alderpersons to keep matters confidential and
D E
privileged, it hampers the ability of the City Attorney’s Office to protect and serve the City. Adopting her positions would eviscerate the privilege and the nd lead to absurd results, undermining uun
L A
City’s ability to function.
Finally, regardless of thee Court’s decision on the privileged nature of the
E S
communications, Alderperson in whole or in substantial part” erson rson Weidner has not “prevail[ed] “prevai under Wis. Stat. 19.37(2) in this matter given give the th Court’s prior rulings dismissing her mandamus requests. As such, uch, there would be no n basis to award her any attorney’s fees. The City would request on opportunity unity to bbe heard regarding Alderperson’s Weidner’s fees contention following the Court’s decision on the privilege issue if the Court’s decision on the privilege issue even warrants the consideration of fees.
39 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 40 of 46
Dated this 10th day of April, 2018. MEISSNER TIERNEY FISHER & NICHOLS S.C.
By: Electronically signed by Michael J. Cohen Michael J. Cohen State Bar No. 1017787 Email: mjc@mtfn.com Dieter J. Juedes State Bar No. 1088880 Email: djj@mtfn.com 111 East Kilbourn Avenue,, 19th Floor Milwaukee, WI 53202 02 2 Tel: 414-273-1300 000 Fax: 414-273-5840 3-5840
D E
L A
Attorneys neys for Respondent, Ci City of Racine
E S
40 2029077.1
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
EXHIBIT A
Page 41 of 46
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
EXHIBIT A
Page 42 of 46
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
EXHIBIT A
Page 43 of 46
Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
EXHIBIT A
Page 44 of 46
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 45 of 46
Redacted Pursuant to 1.9.19 Oral Decision Case 2017CV001644
Document 183
Filed 01-16-2019
Page 46 of 46
FILED 04-10-2018 Clerk of Circuit Court Racine County 2017CV001644
STATE OF WISCONSIN
CIRCUIT COURT
RACINE COUNTY
SANDRA J. WEIDNER, Petitioner, v.
Case No. 17-CV-1644 Case Code: 30952
CITY OF RACINE, a Wisconsin municipal corporation, Respondent.
TABLE OF NON-WISCONSIN AUTHORITIES REFERENCED IN RESPONDENT CITY OF RACINE’S INSTANTER REPLY BRIEF REGARDING THE PRIVILEGED NATURE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS
Oasis Int’l Waters, Inc. v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 87 (2013) .............................................3, 30 Glaxo, Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 148 F.R.D. 535 (E.D.N.C. 1993) ......................................3, 20, 30 Ashland Oil Inc. v. Delta Oil Prod. Corp., 1979 WL 24977 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 9, 1979) ..................3 Wendt v. City of Denison, 2018 WL 1547119 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 29, 2018) .....................................5 Guidiville Rancheria of California v. United States, 2013 WL 5303748 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2013) ................................................................................................................................................5 Amcast Indus. Corp. v. Detrex Corp., 1991 WL 441904 (N.D. Ind. July 26, 1991) ..........................................................................................................................................................9 Hercules, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 434 F. Supp. 136 (D. Del. 1977) ....................................................9 Burlington Indus. v. Exxon Corp., 65 F.R.D. 26 (D. Md. 1974) .....................................................9 Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Texaco, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 329 (N.D. Okla. 2002) .........................................20 Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 92 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ...............................21, 30 In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 2000 WL 1545028 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2000).......................30
2029607.1
!
! ! "#! "$%&
! " # ! $ $ % $ &
' $ '
( ) * + ,- . $ . / ) ! , 0 % 1 , * 2 $ . /
' ( ) ) )*( )
+ ' , )( ) ( * ) , ( * ) -. ( , / 0 * )1 2 ** 3
7#8 )* ) )(,, ( 1)
* )* ( : 7<8 ,, 1) ) ) ) )( ) ,
( ) ( ) ) , *
) )( )(
)( 2
,
* : 7=8 1) ) )( , , ( * ) , *
) , ( ( ) )(
,
* ) ) ) )! ( )(
)( 2
, * * ( ) . * *
> ) 4 ) ?&#@
* ) )
, ( )
! ) ! ( )
) ) ) ) (
( , )! 4 ! 5 !
6 7%8 * )) ( ,, )( 9 * ( ) ) *
* : 7"8 * )) ( ,, * ( * , ) )
-) , )(
0 ( ) ) *
* :
A , )) , B *
)
% ) ) ) !
A ) C ) ) / * ) +
7;8 ) ( ) )* , ) *
* :
* )
( ) , *
)
7&8 )
, (
( )
*
* :
; ) ) ) "
!
!
, , ( )
E() )) ( ) +
(
* * ) ( )
) ) 1) D( ) , !
) **
) ) 1) () )) )
* * )
1) ( )!
! )( ) , , (
, *( * ) ,
; ) ) ) #
" ) ) ) '
A )( * ) ( , * ,
F( ) ) , ,
> *
,
)
* ! ))( ) , , ) ) )
) * )
* ** * * )
* ))
* ) ( , ) ) ) ** ) ) )
) ) ) $
A , )) , B *
)
(
+ 1) ( )
) *
))( D( ) , ! , *( * ) ) ,
* ! ( )) ** ) )* ) D(
+
(
* * ) )( ) ,
( )! ) *
) )( , ( , ) ) (
: ( , )! , ! *
) ! ( , )
( D( ) , )) )
* ) ) * 3 ,
(
) ) ) %
A , )) , B *
) C,
, ( , ) D( ) , ! ) ))
)) ( ) * ( , ) * ! , *( * ) ) , ( ) *
* ) ) )
&
( , : *
: ) )
* )) )
& ) ) ) )
B,, , , * )
: * 3 ) ( ) + ) ( , ) (
* ( ( D( )
, : ! ,
!
!
( ( D( ) ,
) * () *
) )( ) , 1) * (
#
* 3 1) )( ,
1)
" ) ) )
, , ( )
) ) ) $
* * ) , , ( ) )) , , ) , ! () ( )
)
))( D( ) ,
( 2 .
: A ( ) ) +
( , * (
* )
** )
( !
)( 2
( , (
) *
)
) ) ) %
( , : *
: ) )
* )) ) , , )(
) * (
* () )
)( ) , 1) D( ) , : ! , , )(
* , ) ) )( (
)) , 9 ) ** 1) ,,
)( ) , * ( ) ) )
. , ( )
* ** ) ( ) ,
)( ) , D( ) ,
% ) ) ) "
( , : *
: ) )
* )) ) +
(
* 3
) ) )* )
1) ! ) )( , , )
) (* ) * ,
) )( ) 1) D( ) ,
) ) ) !
. ( ) , ) ) * )
% ) ) ) &
) ) A )) ,, 1) -. ( , / 0 ) ()) 1) ) , ))( , ! ,, )( 9 * ( ) ! ) *
* ! (
* )) *
, *
) 2()
: , * ))
,, D( )
!
"
!
) ( ? GC @ ) ( ( ! ) *
* : ) *
( ) ) GC ) ( ( ( ) ( - )(,, 0 ) )! ) ( )
) )(
, ) 3* ) !
, () ))
*
, ( ) 1) ) ) ) ) '
E() )) ( ) +
1) , () (
) ) ,
() ( , ) ) ),
1) ( ) () ))
( *
*
) ) ) !
,, 1) -. ( , / 0 ) ()) 1) ) , ))( , ! ) ( ? GC @ ) ( ( ) - ) ) * * * * ( D( * ) , * * !0 ) *
* : ) ) )* , ! )( ) , 1) D( ) ) ,
) ) ) (
) ) A )) ,, 1) -. ( , / 0 ) ()) 1) ) , ))( , ! ,, * ( * , ) ) -) , )(
0 ( )
! ) ( * ) ,
, ) )) D( * ! ) *
* ! ( * )) ( , -G / 0: * )) )( ) , * (
) * ) ) )
!)
) ) A )) ,, 1) -. ( , / 0 ) ()) 1) ) , ))( , ! ( ) 1) )
) )
) ) ) !!
A , )) , B *
) 5() )
1) * , ) ( ! ( ! * ! ( , (
1) * ) *( !
* ** * 1)
D( ) ) , )) ,
, ) ) ) ) ) ,
) D( ) ) ) , ) ) )
!
#
!
!"
A )) ,, 1) -. ( , / 0 ) ()) 1) ) , ))( , ! ) ) , )
, (
( ! ) *
* :
1) ) , ( )( ) , D( ) ,
) ) ) !#
* ) ) ) )( ) )) ,( 1) ,( )
) )
% ) ) ) !&
C * 3 ! *
* ) ) * 1) )
3 ) ) ,, ) ) ) ) ) !'
+( , *
)
* )( ( ) )
* , ( ) ))
*
> , *
* ) !
!$
) ) ) !(
( ) ( A ) 4 , H ): ( ) A )
!%
+ ) * ) ,
) )( , * ( 1) )
> , * C, * ) (
*
) ) ) * ( !
* ) ) * )* (
+ 1) ( ) )( , * ( * ) )( ,
* * ) ) )
*
A ) , ,, )
+
B * )! H,, )! + )
A ) )
)) *
) ) )
> , *
% ) ) ) ")
> , * G )) ,
* )(
, * * ( ) ( ( D( * ( ) ) ( 1) ) )( ) ) )
!
$
!
"
) ( ! * 2( * ) , *
* ,( ) )( )
> , * C ) ) * ( ! ) )
* ! * , ) ) * , ) 2
* 1) () , * ( (
% ) ) ) "$
)* ) ( ,, , + 1)
)(,, ( 1)
* )* * )) ) -. ( , / 0 , ,, 1) * )) ! () )* )
* ) ) ( * , )( : )* ) ) )(
* )(** ) ) ,, ! ( )* )
* ) ) * )
* , ) ( )) , , *
) ) ) "!
> , * ) * ) ( ,
* () , (
) ( ) ) ) * ( , * ( ) ) )
""
> , * C, ( ) * )
* )* * ( ( !
3 )
( ) ) )( 2
! )( 2
( ,
* ) ) * ( )
) )( 2
,,
) ) ) "%
,, ) ( ) (
) *)! )! , )! ) )! ( ) * ) , , * )! )( ) * 1) )
> , * +) ( )( 2
,
* ) ( * * ) , , ))! ( ) ) ( , , ) ) * , )( 2
! ( ( ) ) , ) )( , * ( ! ( ,
*
A ) , ,, )
+
B * )! H,, )! + )
" ) ) ) "#
> , *
) ) ) "&
*
A ) , ,, )
+
B * )! H,, )! + ) ,, ) * )
)* )
)
!
%
!
!
! ) , ) ) ) ) "'
) ) ) #
> , *
> , *
,, ) * ! ,
3* ))! (
* ( )
) , ) () ) )( , ,
) * , ,, 1) ( )
+ ) , ,, , + 1) ) ) )( ) ,
( ) ( ) ) , * ) 1) )( )(
)( 2
,
* ) ) -. ( , / 0 ,
,, : ,, 1) ) )( , * ( ) * ( ) 3 , ) )
/ B #$"? @
) ) ) "(
*
A ) , ,, )
+
B * )! H,, )! + ) )* ) ) * ,
) *
* ) ( )
#)
) )
) ) ) #!
) ) )
> , *
> , *
)) ) )( 2
,
* ** ) ) )( ) , ! *
( ) , / B #$"? @
*
A ) , ,, )
+
B * )! H,, )! + ) C ) ( 9 ( ) )! ,, ) ( ) * ) ): ) ) , ) * ) ) !
* , ( ) ! ) , (
) D(
% ) ) ) #"
> , * ' 1) )! ( )
! ) ) , ( * ) , *
) , ,, 1) -. ( , / 0 ) ()) 1) ) , ))( , )(
,
* ) ) * ) ,
!
&
!
* ) )( , ) , ( **
/ B #$"? @
( : 1) , (
* ) , ( )
) ) , ( ) ( , *
) , ( *
) ) * ( )
) ) )
) ) ) ##
> , * C
)*( ! - 0 ))( (
, ) * )1 ! *
) )( , * ( (
* , ( ( ) * ) ( 3* ) * )1 ) ) ) ) ( ,
* ! * ( , ,
* ( ( , ) ) * , ( ) : )* D( ) , ( ,
) )( ) , * ( ) / B #$"? @ % ) ) )
#$
> , * C , , )) ) )! 1) ) )( , * ( ) ( ) ! ) ) *
) ) , ,, 1) -. ( , / 0 ) ()) 1) ) , ))( , ! )(
)( 2
,
* )* * ( ): 1)
, -(! . / 0 1 0 2 3 4 $)!0 5* , ,3643 4H/ ! 5 , ! )! ) )( ) ( * ) , ( * ) 5
+** 3 , +( () "%! "$%"! )*
* (
-. ( , / 0 " , ) ) -(" *
* ,,! H ) ) C > )! C ?H ) )@! ** , ) ) * , ( ) , . ( ** ) 5
+** 3! * ,, * ) , +
( . ( ) ( ! ) * , . ( ! * %! "$$< ** )
D( ) ) - ) )0 , ( ) ( , 5( + ! . 2 ?. 2 @ . . ) ) , , ( * )) ) , . ( !
- ) , !0 *( )(
* ! * ) ) ) ) ( . ( ) ()) ) 1) ) , ))( , ?A$$$%%@
>"=A&+I$#I I$$$"! ) ))( * ) G ( ?G @ / / ) ! ; ) 3 ,, ))
! ** ) , . ( 2( ( ) "$$< +
( 3* ) , ) , . ( , ) ) * 5
!
!
+** 3! G / ) 1) ) ( ** ) ) ) * , ) , . ( (
5 +** 3! ) ( , G ( ?G @ + A ,,
) ! +( () ;! "$%"! * ( , ( ) , . (
** ) 5 +** 3! ) *
! ! ) ) ! * ,, * , ) * * ) > * ) , 5 +** 3 ( +( () "%! "$%"! , ,
5 +** 3 * ) ) ! - , 5 +** 3! * ) 2 ( 5 +** 3 0 C )* ) ! ) ( () ) )*( ) * )! * ,, )) ) )*( * )) ) * () , ) (
( ) +
( * ,,
( ) , . ( ** ) 5 +** 3 * ) , ! * ,, * ) ( ! ( ( ) , ) ! , * ( H ) ) , ( * ) , ) * ! *
) , . (
) ) ) * ) , * )) ) ,
) ) * ,
! * ,, )
- ' 1) * ( , ( ) H ) ) ) , ( * ) , . / 7. ( , / 80 )
) , ( * ) , *
) ,
. ( ) ) ) ) , . (
, 1) )( ) ( * )
5 +** 3 A ,, )
) G / ) )( ) ,
( ) )( 2
, . ( * ,,1) )( ! + I.
* ! C ?+ I.
@! ) ) , )
G / ) ) "$$< ) ) ,, )) C ) ! , ) * * ) )
. ( *( )( H ( D( ) , * )! - ,, ( , * ) )(
, ) )( , * )0 ( ) A ,,! ! )
H ) ** ( ) , . ( -(# ) ( 5
+** 3 () * ,, ( ) ( ) A ,, )
* , ( ) , . ( ** ) 5 +** 3
) , ) A ,,
) + A ! * ,,1) - * ) 0 * , * ,,1) D( *
)( ! + I.
! ( ) , . ( "$$= , E 2 5 )! ! * ,,! ) -H ) )1) * ' * ,
,
) !0
( . 5 ) , + C C ! C ? + C@! ) * * *
, . 5 )! =! "$$=! . A , ( ) , . (
+ I.
1) ! **
, . ( * ,,1) + , ) )(
( * )! , )
) )( , ( ) , . ( . A ! . 5 ) * ) )(** ? /@ E ! ,, )) "$$= ( ) * ) 5( %J! "$%"! ) ) 2
)! . 5 ) )* 6 -C )KC + C
() D( ) )* ) ) E(
CKC ) D( ) )* ) 0 + C ) , -, ( * ) )! ) + ) 0 A ,, ) ( ) , ) * ( ) , . ( () . 5 )! ) * ) ! -
,(
( 0 ) ) ( . A * ,
! * ,,
) , * -7 8 ( =! "$$=!0 . 5 ) * . ( . A C ( *
, * 2( ! . A ) ) ) . 5 ) ) * * ,, -, * * 0 * ) ! ( ) ) ,,
* . A ,( )
. 5 ) -) ) ,, , L4 ! ( ( )
, ) ) : * ( ,, M 0 . A ) )
-)
. 5 ) )
* ) ) 0 .
!
'
!
A )
* ) * ! ) ) ) , * ) ( ) , . (
)
* ! ** ) 5 +** 3 C . 5 )1 ( , . ( . A "$$=! * ,, ) , * "$$<! G / ) ) ) ) , )
* ( ) A ( 5 ,, )! , B3 ( H,, , + I.
C ) )! G / ) ) ) ) )
( ) 1) ) , ) ( (
( ) *( , -
, ( ) ) ( ) 0 G / ) ,( 3* -
) ( () , , ) ,
, ) * , ) ) () , D( * 0 ) )!
* ,,! * )( ) , )( ) ,
( ) . ( A ,, )! , ! -7 8 ) ) * ( ! * () ) H ) ) ( ) , ( ) ) ( ( , ! ' ,
* ) * ) , )( , ( ) 1) * 0 A ,, ) ) ) G / ) 1) ) )( "$$<! . 5 )1
) )( "$$=! )(
- * )( 2
0 , * !
* ,, - ) ( ) ) ( ( , ) ' ) ))
* 0 ? * ) ) @ , )* ) * ,, - ) () ) ) * )) ) . / 7. ( , / 8 -($ ) , ) , *
( ) 0 , ) ( )
* ,, . 5 ) (
) ) . ( () A ( .
!
A ) , H ) )! 3* )) )* )
, . 5 ,, ) . ( 1) ) )( - L ( ) ( ) 2 M 0 , ! ! * ) - * ,, , , ( )0 ) * , . 5 ) )( * () ) ) * ( )
. A ! , ! . 5 )
( * , , ,
) )) ) * ,, - * () (
L ) ) ( 7)8M , , ' 1) ) 0 ?
@ ,
() ) * ,, , - * ,
* , ( ) )!0 ))
* ,, - ) )( ) , 0 * ,, -
) 0 ,
) ** ( ) ) ) )( )(
) , )( L M 0 A ,, 2 ) , 1) 9 ) ) - ) ( ! ! ,, )) I)(** ( ) , , 1) , ,(
* , I H ) ) , () * , L (
7 8 - ) ) ( )0 M , 0 ?
@ A ,, ) 9 ) , 1) () ) ) - ( () ) !0 ) ) , 1) ) -( , ( !
)) ) !0 )! -7 8 ) )! ) ! ( ) ( ( ) , ) 0 , ( ! ) * , 3 , * ) ) * ) , ) * ) ) ) ) +
( ( ( ) ( * ) * 3* ) ! ( ,( 3 ) , ( * ( !
) ! ( 1)
) , 1) , ( * )) ) . ( (
))( , ( E () * ) ,
* )) ) ))( *
( ) , . ( ** ) 5
+** 3! ( D( ) * ,
. ( , , , A ,,1) , ) ( ! !
* ,, ) ) ) , ( ) , . ( ** ) 5
+** 3 ( ! ! ) ) ) ) , . ( ) H , ) * )) , ) ) ) ) ) , , ( ) ) * & , . ( ! E ) ( $$$$J""N! ( - * / ) ( 0 * )) ** )! ,
) * ! )( 9 G / ) , 5 C DO+, ) ?5 CO+@ * )) )
!
!
( ) , . ( ** )
5 +** 3 ) , . (
) , ) * )) !
) ) * )1 )
, O , D( +
( , ) ) * ) ! -5 CO+ G !0 , )
, ,
* )) ) * 6 5 CO+ G 7 8 , 1) * * ) , ) * )) ) ) ) ) ,
, ( * ) , *
) ,
. ( * ( , * ,, ( ) , * ) ) * )) , ) ) ) ) ) , ) , ) * * * # , . ( ! E ) ( $$$$J";$! ( - , H 2 )O A , IE ) > !0 ) 6 H,, ! ) , )(
5 CO + G !
* ( A , I E ) > ?AE> @
*
, H 2 ) -(% 78 8 *
9 : 8 5 * 8 . 8 . ; ) . < ) $' => 3 5?@A AE> , ) * * '
D( * ! ( ' ,( ! * )) ' * * , D( ) )( ) ) ) ) D( )
) , * ()
, H 2 ) ? ) * ) ) @ ) * )) ) *
( ) ,
. ( ** ) 5 +** 3 , , ( * , )
) ) , ( * ) , *
) , . ( ,
* () * ( * ,, ( ) !
,
6 - ) ( * ) ,
, ) )) D( * K!0 * ) - ) * ) **
4 + ?) %$ +( O%$6#J ( LG / M@ 0 * )) , ) ) ( ) , ) ) ) * * , ) * #! ) E ) ( $$$$J";$! ( - GC 7 ( 8 ( ( 0 ) ) ) 6 G ( ) 7 8 * ) )! '
) ) * GC , E
> * ( * * GC ) , * ( * , , +
! '
) ) * GC , D( * ) ! 7 8 ) GC ) ( ( ) ) ) * * * * ( D( * ) , * * + * , ) * )) ) *
( ) , . ( ** ) 5 +** 3 ) ) * ) * )) ) 6 - ) GC ) ( ( )
( * , ) A$$$%% * GC ) ( ( ,
* ?) @ 0 , )
) , , ) * ) ) C , ( * ) , *
) ,
. ( , * () * ( * ,, ( ) ! , , ( * )) ))( , , ) ) -G
( ) !0 )
) ) ) ! * ,
) !
, , , ) * ,
!
, ( * ) , *
) , . ( ,
6
!
!
G ( ) 7* () 8 * ) )! '
) ) * GC , E
> * ( * * GC ) , * ( * , , +
! '
) ) * GC , D( * ) 7* () 8 ) GC ) ( ( ) ) ) * * * * ( D( * ) , * *
! , ( * )) , ) ) ) , ) -A %" , %"0 ,
. ( ) ( ) , G / ) G ?A * +)) )
/ )* ) , K )@! E ) ( $$$$J";= , ( * )) ) )6 - ) ) ) 6 . 2 . . ! + *( 5( + 5 K C DO+, ) 0 ? * ) ) @ , ( * )) ) ) *
( ) , . (
** ) 5 +** 3 , , , ( * )) ( , ( * ) , *
) , . ( * () * ( * ,, ( ) , - 3 * 0 , , ( * )) )
,
) ** ) . 2 . 1) ) ( 6 C ( , )( , 5+ ) ( ( >"=A&+I $#I I$$$" D( ) ) ) ) , -(& ) GC ) ( ( ) (
. 2 . 1) ) ( ) * , ( * ) , *
) , . ( , * ( * ,, ( ) +
( ) ( ) ( ) , . ( ( ) , . ( ** ) 5
+** 3! ) ( ** ) -.C 4+BG .+/ C ! . 2 + *( 5( + 5 K C D O +, ) 0 , ) ) ) ) ! * *) () 2 , ) * )
( ) ,
. ( ** ) 5 +** 3 , ! ! ) ** . 2 . 1) ) ( ! ! * !
. 2 . - ( 7 8 , )( , 5+ ) ( ( >"=A&+I $#I I$$$"!0 , ( * ) , *
) , . ( , * () * ( * ,, ( ) ! " C , 1) ) ( ! ( () , )
* ** ) ) , , ( * )) ) , ) ) ! ! , ** ! , * () * C ! -7 8 , ) )( )
)) ) * 0 ! &"# ;N%! &$;! N< %#<N! &J G B " ;N ?%N=<@ ? J > ! " P ""N" ?. ( %N<%@@: # ! $ $ % &
% ! %"" ; %&$N! %&%# ? %NN=@ *( * ) ,
* ) - ( L,(
, (
) ) * *( ) )
) , ) , 2() M 0 ' ( ) ! #"& ;NN! &$;! %%J "$J%! %&% G B " ;=N ?%NNJ@ ?D( * ! &&N ;J;! ;JN! %$% <==! << G B " #J& ?%NJ%@@ * ! ! - L ) )
, ( )
! ) ! ( ) ) ) ) ) ( M 0 + , ! =< JJ! N$ ?"$$=@ ?D( # ( " ! <N =J&! J%$! ! ) $&I=& ! $&I=# ! "$$< >G <=;#J=% ? "$$<@@: * ! &&N ;N$! %$% <== ?
* - 3 ) ) *
, * , )) ) ( ) , , ) ( , 0 ? )
@@ * )
( ) , * ) +
!
!
, ! =< N% ?C ) ( ) ! -7 8 ( ) *
, 5() 1)
)
* ) ) *
* (
* 0 ? )
@@: & '- ! $%I"$%G! "$$< >G #<"#=<$! Q& ? +( =! "$$<@ ?-7G8 9 ! 0 ? # + % " ! <%= " J#&! J<; ? %NJ$@@@: + - - ! %N <N=! <NN ?%NN$@
* * )
1) ( )! -
! )( ) , , ( 0 , *( * ) , $ . $ ! J"J " =;&! =&# ? %NJ=@ ? / , , 0 ! N$ / "%! "J ? C
%NJ$@@: ! $ ! %$" =N;! J$$ ?"$%"@ ? * ) **
( ) ,
@: ! 1 ! N% &N<! #$" ?"$%$@
$ % ! ;% (** " N! %" ? %NNJ@ ?- ) * )( *
* , ( )
) ) , ! ** ) * )( * ** ) ) , ' (* ) ) () )) ) , () 0 ?
@@ / )) , ( ) ))( D( ) ,
! , -
0 , ( , ) D( ) , ! ) )) - )) ( ) * ( , ) * ) 0 $ 6 ' ! $ ! "$; ; J$$! J$< ? "$$$@ ? ** ( @: ! 1 ! N%
#$< ? 4 5 " ! #& ;%#@: 7 ) 5! ) ! &< ;%"! ;%# ? * ) ( , ) ) ** , * ) ( ) - ) ) 0 , D( ) ) , @! ! &< J"= ?"$$$@
& ' +
( * * ) ( )
) ) 1) D( ) , ! # $ % - * )) * ) ) **
) ) 1) () )) ) $ # $ ! ( , ) ) ) ** 0 ! &<" +**3 N=#! N=J ? "$%"@ ? ! 1 ! N% #$" ? -(' ** ( ! -7 8 ) )*( ) 2 3 - ! =# &&J! &#<
* ) ) ) ) * D( ?"$$=@@ + 1) ( )
!
)(,,
) ) ( ))( ) ! ) *
))( D( ) ,
* , )) ) ) ? ) ** ) () ))
! - L( )) ** ) ) )@! )) ,
)* ) D( M 0 4 5 " ) )* ) ) , * 0 ? ! #& ;$<! ;%# ?"$$"@ ? * ) ) 8 ' ! N< ; %"N&! %"N= ?N %NN<@@@: @ ?D( J > ! " P ""N<@: $ 6 ' ! $ ! "$; ; J$#I$< ! NN ; %&N#! %#$%I$" ?N ? ** ( 2 (
%NN<@! ! #"$ %%<=! %%= %&"N!
)( )) , -*
%;= G B " #;J ?%NN=@ - * )( *
!0 () )) ) )! ) ( ) ( * 3 , ( * D( ) , () )) @: " () ( ) * ( * ) ! &# &J%! &J# ?"$$$@
* ) ) ) 3 ( * ) ? + % " + - ( ! %;N
* 0 A ( / / ! / "N#! ;$$ ? @! ! %;N / P = ;$! %";JI;N ?"$%"@ #N& ? %NN%@@ C ) ) ) ,, (
! ! & ! "&%
*
(** " %$<#! %$=< ? "$$"@ ?-E () () ( ) ( ) ( ) * *( * () )) () )) ! * / ! * * )! P =6"!
* )( *
) ( ) %%$J ?-B) ) ( ( ) ( ) ) 3 ( ) () ( ) ) * , *( * ) () ( ) 0 ?
@@! )
!
"
!
, ) ) ,( * , (
( ) ! ) 3 ! () )) ) ,
* 0@ C " ! ( * ** )
, ) * ( )! )( ) - L )! * )) )! ) ( )! * ( )! * ) * ( ) 3 , M 0 " ! &# &J# ?D( , 1 ' ! , ( + - ! %<% / ""&! ""= ? %NN#@@ C - 0 -(( 7 9 ! ) ! ( ** *
1) ( )
) ( ( ) ( () )) ! ) ) )
) -,( )
0 - 0 7 9 ! %NJ$ ) GBRC %#$&"! Q&I< ? %=! %NJ$@ )* () ** " ! ( , ( )! ( / > ! )( ) 9 , )
) - () ))0 - 0 ) ) ()
) ) )
) * ** * * )! ) ) ) ( 1) - / ! P =6%$! %%<<I<= ?- (
! ) D( ) 1) ) ) * ** , * * ) )* , , ) ( ,( ( ( C D( )
* , ) ) ) 7 8 ( , * D( , 7 8 , * ) G )) ) D( )
, L2( , ) * ) M 0 ?, ) )
@@: J > ! " P ""N<! #<<I<= ?-C ) ) , , )
, ) ( ) > *( * ) ) ) )! * ( ) ( * !
( ) , ( K ) , , ) ) ) ()) ( ) , * , )
* 0 ? * ) ) @@: ! NN ; %#$" ?-
1) L M L () ))1 ) * () : () 0 ? * ) ) @@ () ** " ** ) * ) **
1)
() ))
) D( ) ,
))( ) , , ) )! ! )
) * )
* **
* * ) + ,, (
, - L, 7 8 , ) , ) ( ) M 0 ( * ** > !
)(
)
- L , ) 7 8 ) !M 0 * ** ) , - L *( * ) M 0 , )(
L ) ) ) M 0 ! NN ; %#$%I$" ?D( J > ! " P ""N<! #<<I<= ? * ) ) @@ . ! -7 8
) 9 * )) ,
!
* L
) )1 ( ) * , ) )( 0 $ % )- , ! << / "$< ? %N=&@ ?D( , ! JN (** ;#= ? . )) %N#$@@ ( ) C !
( * * )
)( ) ,
( )! - ) * ) )( , ( , ) ) (
0 * ! &&N ;N#! %$% <== , )!
, ! *
) ! ( , )
( D( ) , )) )
* ) ) * 3 ,
( ,- & ! "#$ / ;#$! ;<; ? C
"$$=@! % ! #J$ ; &J# ?= "$$N@: 0 ! $ ! $ ! "%N / #$;! #$JI$N ? "$$;@: * ! &&N ;N#IN<! %$% <== ?- L+ , ) (
, ) ,, M 0 ?D( 6 - " ! "$# (** J;$! J;% ?B A %N<"@@@ + ) (
, ) ( D( ) , ! &"# &$;I$&! N< %#<N: " & ! 11 9- ! J$ %""! %;J ?"$$=@ , ( ( D( ) , ) * ! ! () *
) - )) )( ) , 1) * (
)$! %J< / %#&! %<" ? %NNN@ ? ( )
) * , )
( *
) @:
!
#
!
, 5 & - 5 ! $ ! ) N$I;"=&! N$I&;"N! %NN% >G J<N;%! Q" ?B A . %&! %NN%@ ?
) ) )
* ! ) * @: ! $ ! %"# / ;&! ;< ? %NJJ@ ? * ** ( ) , ) 1) ) , ) (
() ( ) - ) D( , L M 0@: 8 & - + % ! "%& / &;"! &&= ?B 3 "$$;@ ? * , (
)
) * () - , ) * 3 ) ( ) ( 7 8 * ( 0@! - - $ & - + % ! $;I&$J<$! "$$; >G "%N%%;;; ?# 5( "#! "$$;@ * * ) , , ( ) )) , , ) , ! () ( )
)
))( D( ) ,
4 5 " ! #& ;%# ?
1) * , ) ( ! ( ! *
( , ( * ) *( @: $ - 1 ! J% / ;==! ;JJIJN ? %N=J@ ?-7C8 ) )) , , , * ** 0@
( )!M L 3 !M 1 0 , *( * ) , ) * , @! ! ;=% N#%! J; #$#! N G B " &NN ?%N<;@: 2 ( 3 ! <# / #";! #"< ? %N=&@: & '- ! "$$< >G #<"#=<$! Q& )- 1 9 % + - ! ;%; (** ""&! ""#I"< ? %N=$@ ? D( ) ) * - )(
( ) * * ) ) ) , , * 0 * )) )( ) , * ( )@ , ,
)(
! !
) * () )
)( ) , 1) D( ) , 7- ! 7- ! ( , + ! =## " %"%%! %"%N ?< %NJ#@: 7 ' 2 ! #%< " #;! #J ?# @ ?- , ( ,() ) 3
* , , )(
* 0 ? J > ! " P ";%;! . ! " P N$ ?" %N="@@@!
% % ! #"% " J%# ?# %N=#@ ?( *( ) ) @! ! &"& N%<! N< %%%<! &= G B " ;"%! % ! &"# N&#! N< %<J=! &J G B " %JN ?%N=<@ , , )(
* ! ! , ) ) )( ( -
)) , 9 ) ** 1) ,, 0
)( ) , * ( - ) $ . $ ! J"J ! " +
( , * ) " =&#: - 5 ! <;N ; %;&< ?-7/8 D( ) )( , )( 2
** )
( !
( *
)( 2
( , ( * ( ()( ( ) ) 0@: / !
) *
) P <6""! %$$< ?-7 8 - 5 ! <;N ; %;&$! %;&& ? "$%%@ ( , ) ) * , () , ?- L ( ) ) )
)( 2
)(,, * ( * )) )) ,
) , )1 * ) ) * M )( ) ( , ! ( ) )* ,
0 ?D( 1 9 4 ! "&N
)( ) , , ( )
; %$==! %$J% ? "$$%@@@: # $! $ 5
0@ ! "<# ; %"<J! %"=; ? "$$%@ ? ** , ( -7 8 D(
# $ * ) 3 1) ( , ) ) * ( ) )
)( ,
1) )) )) , * ()
)$! %J< / %<$I<% ? ** * ( , ) ) ) * 0@ ? 9 - * 1) )( 9 " ! %N= ; "$$! "$< ?# %NNN@@! % ( ) ,
! - ? @! ! #;= %$&<! %";
) ) * 7 8 , ) ( <""! %#& G B " #%J ?"$$"@: ! , E 7 * 8 )
0@: ;$< " <;;! <;<I;J ?" %N<"@ ?
D( 9 ! "$< / ;"#! ;"N ? "$$"@
( ,
) * , ? * 1) )( ,
1)
- L )* ) )! )( ) L !M L , ,
!
$
!
* ) * () -
* ( 7 80 )( ) , * 1) D( )
, @ C !
( * 3
) ) )* )
1) ! - $
$ ! %#$ / #N&! <%% ? C @! % ! J#" (** =$& ? C %NN&@! ) )( , , - )
) (* 0 ) * ,
) )( ) 1) D( ) ,
, : ! =$ / #$J! #%<I%= ? @ ?* * , (
* ( * ) ) 3 ( , * , ) ) ) , * ( ) 3 ( ) ) )
1)
@! ! #;& " %$;% ?" %N=<@
; %#$% ?D( J > ! " P ""N<!
#<<I<=@ +
1) , () ( ) ) ,
() ( , ) ) ),
1) ( ) ( * ! () )) - 0 7 9 ! %NJ$ ) GBRC %#$&"! Q#I< C ) ) ! 5 CO+ G 1) , , * ) )
* ) () , ) ( ) G / )
, ( ) , , ) * )) !
( * ) ! )
( ) ( ( ) * , () , * )) ) , ( ) ) )
( , ) ) )
( ) ,, (
) ,() ! ! ) % * ** ) ( ) * ,,1) - )! 9 , 5 CO+ ( ) ,
)( ) G 1) ) ) - () )) 0 ,, , D( ) , * ! , ! ( ) C ) * ) -5 CO ** ) )( ) , + G 0 ** ) 2() , ) ) , , )
. ( ))( 3 )( ) * )) * * , )
,, ) )! ! ) *
)(
) ) 5 CO+ G ) (* ) * , )(
) D( ) , $ ,, ! 5 CO+ G ! . $ ! J"J " =&#: )$! %J< / * ) ) - L
M 0 , %<$I<% , ) * )) ))( ! * ( , ) ) ,
* )) ! ) ) , * * ! ) & ' > )* , ) * )) , D( ) , 5 CO+ G 1) ! )
) ) ! * ,, ) ) )) ) ) ** , * )( , ( )! -5 CO+ 7 ) 5! ) ! &< G !0 , ) - () )) ) ;%# ?D( $ 6 ' ! $ ! "$; *
* 0 C ** ) ; J$< ? ** ( @@
*( * ) , )( 9
, ) * )) ) * , . ! * ,,1) , () ) ( , )) ,, ! G / ) ! )) , ) * )) ) ) ( ) *( * )
1) ( ,, ) ) , * B , G / ) ! NN ; %#$" A ,, ) ) ( , (
( ) , ) * )) , ) -, , ) , ( ) )!
* ) 0 , ) ) ) ,
G / ) ) ) , , ) * )) 5 CO+ G )(
5 CO+ G ( ( * 7 8 ) , , ) * )) ) , * ) ) D(
7 8 +
( -, *
1) ) ) , )0 ) ))( ! , , )
, ) * )) ! ) ! )
* )) ! )
) ) ) (
! G / ) ) , G / ) D( ) 5 CO+ ) , ( ) ) )* ) G 1) *
5 CO+ G 1) + ) )( , ) , , 5 CO+ G 1) - L
, ) * )) ! , ! ) ) 3* ) )( ) ) M 0 ! NN , ) * ( ) ,
!
%
!
: ! =$ / #%= ?-
* )) , * )( ) , () )
) (* ( ,, (
* , * 0@ ) !
, ! , ) * )) ) * , ()
) ) )
)( ) , , 1) D( ) ) ,
! ! )( 9 5 CO+ G 1) )! )
) G / ) 1) ) * , 5 CO+ G 1) , (
) )* ) ) ) ( ( )! ! * ) ** ) * )) , ) ) ) , . ( ) * )) ** ) ) ( 6 -
, H 2 )OA , IE ) > 0 ) ) G / ) * ( A , IE ) > ! -) ,
)(
0 5 CO+ G H ) ) ) , ) ) ) )6 - ) ( * ) ,
, ) )) D( * I ) * ) ** 4 + ?) %$ +( O%$6#J ( LG / M@ 0 , 1) ) 3* ) ) )
) * )) * ! (
-H ) ) ) () ) ) * )) ) . /!0 ( ) * ))
))( ! - ) , ) , *
( ) 0 ) * )) 1) * , - LG
/ !M 0 ! )
G / ) ! )(
5 CO+ G H ) )! * ( A , IE ) > ! ( * ) ) ) ** 4 , + )
) )( ) , ! )
)( ) , * (
) * * , ) ) -( LG / M 0 ) * )) , . ( ) ) ) ( ( *
( ** , * ! $ ! %$" J$$ ) ) * )) ) , ) ) ) , ,
)(
) * () ) ) ) ( , -
)) , 9 )
** 1) ,, !0 ) )( ) , ( * ( ) - )" $ . $ ! J"J " =&#: - 5 ! <;N ; %;&< C , ! * ) -( LG / M 0 ,
, -+( O%$6#J0 , ) * )) . ! , ) ) ) * * ) , ! ) )6 - H,, ! ) , )(
5 CO+ G ! * ( A , I E ) > ?AE> @ *
, H 2 ) 0 ) ) ) ) ,
G / ) 1) )(
-5 CO+ G !0 ( ) ) ) ) ) , * ( ) , 1) D( ) ) * )) ! ( * )) )! ) ) ) ) ) , 1) * ) !) , ) , ( ) ) , * )) * * ) , ! ) , . (
- GC ( ( !0 * () ) )
)( ) , , 1) D( ) ) ,
, ) ) ) * * )) ! ) )* 1) GC ) ( ( * , A$$$%%6 - ) GC ) ( ( )
( * , ) A$$$%% * GC ) ( ( ,
* ?) @ 0 , ) ) ,
* )) ! , ) ! ) )6 -G ( ) 7 8 0 ) ! ! , ( ) ) ) - )0 6 * ) ! '
) ) * GC , E
> * ( * * GC ) , * ( * , , +
! '
) ) * GC , D( * ) ! 7 8 ? * ) ) @ +
( * ,, ) ) ) ) * ) )!
( () * )) * * ) , ) )(** * ,,1) * )) ) ) ) - () )) 0 ) *
( ) ) GC ) ( ( !
!
&
!
5 CO+ G ( - )(,, 0 ) )! ) 5 CO+ G ) )(
, ) 3* ) ! , () )) +
( ) ) , * )) )
) ) ,
( ) ! ) ! -7 8 * ) )! 7
- GC ) ( ( () , , * * ( * ) () ,
) , D( * * !08 ' ) ) * GC , E
> * ( * * GC ) , * ( * , , 0 ) )( , ) )* )
, ) ) * )) * * ) ,
) )( ) ,
) D( 1) ) ) ,
1) ) )( ) , , : ! =$ / #%= +) )(
! ) , ( ) * * ) , * )) ! -7 80 ) ) ) ) )
-7 8 0 , ) , ( ) ) , * )) * * ) , ! ! , ! * ()
)( ) , , 1) D( ) ) , ! , , ) , * )) ! )
) , . (
- GC
( ( !0 ) * () ) )( ) , *
( , , ) ) )6 - ) GC ) ( ( ) ) ) * * * * ( D( * ) , * * 0 , , ) ) ) * , ) GC ) ( ( . ! ) GC ) ( ( ) ,(
) 3 * , . ( ! , ) ) - )# , , ) , * )) ,
D( ) ) ! , ! ) * ()
) ) )* , ! )( ) , , 1) D( ) ) , !! A ,, ) ) ( ) ( , * )) ) * )) ) * () ) -, ( , 0 ) ) ) * ,, 5() )
1)
* , ) ( ! ( ! * ! ( , (
1) * ) *( ! * ** , 1) D( ) ) ,
)) , ,
) ) ) ) ) , ) D( ) ) ) , 4 5 " ! #& ;%#: ! 1 ! N% #$& ?-7 8 ( ) *( , ) ) * , ( ) ) )( ( )) , ( ) ( ) , 0@: $ - 1 ! J% / ;JNIN$ ?-C ) )) , , , * ** 0@ +
( * ,, ) , *
) , ( , * )) ! , ) , ( ) ) , * )) , ) ) * ) & 1 ! $ 1 ! JN / &%$! &%# ? H %NJ%@ ?-> ! ) A ,,)1 * ! *
)
D( ) ! L> ( ) A ,,)1
SM E( > ,() ) )
, ) () * ) , )( , ) ( A ,,)1
0@: 0 ! "%; A F N;<! N&$ ? %NJ$@ ?-C )! )) * , )
)! ( )) * , ) ) ( )
) 0@ !" , ( * )) , . ( ,
D( ) ) ) * * )) ) )
, . ( ! )
. ( ! ) 6 - ) ) ) 6 . 2 .
. ! + *( 5( + 5 I C DO+, ) 0 ? * ) ) @ +) * ,, )! ,
) 3*
1) ) ,
. ( ) )( ) , D( )
, ! * ( . 2 . 1) , ) - 3
* 0 , * ) , . ( - 3
* 0 ,
1) ) ! * () * ) ( -%" , %"!0 ) ) ) , )
- ( 7 8 , )( ,
!
!
5+ ) ( ( >"=A&+I &
$#I I$$$" 0 , 1) ) - )$ ( ) ) ' ) , D( ) , ) ) )( ))
( , ( (
-A %" , %"!0 , . 2 . 1) , , ( * ) , - 3
* 0 , * ( * ,, ( ) !
, ( * )) , D( ) ) ** ) , )( )
) * C )( ! ( , ) , ) * )) , ) , ( ) ) , * )) ,
. ( ))( * () * ) D( ) ) , 5 CO+ G 1) )* ) ) , 1) D( ) ) , ) * )) ! , , ) , * )) ! , ( * )) , . ( ! ! * ()
)( ) , D( ) , )( ) , ! ) * ,
. ( ! ) -A %" , %"!0 )! * ! . 2 . - ( 7 8 , )( , 5+ ) ( ( >"=A&+I$#I I$$$"!0 ) * 6 A ,,
) ,
* . ( E 2 5 )! -H ) )1) * ' * , ,
) !0 ) ) ( "$$= + A ! * ,,1) * ) * , * ,,1) )( C ! * ,, )) )
G / ) 1) ) A ( 5 ,, )!
, B3 ( H,, , * ,,1) )( ! )(
, * )) ) "$$< () ) ( , ( )
( ) )( ( ) ( ( , A ,, ) ( ) . 5 )1 ) )( "$$=! G / ) 1) , * ( ) . 5 ,, ) "$$<! ,, )( 2
3 )
- ( ) ) ( ( , ) ' ) ))
* 0 ? * ) ) @ , ( ) . 5 )1 ) )(
)(
() , + ) * * ) - + )
, +
0 , ! , ! ( ) . 5 ) ( * , , B , . 5 ) G / ) * , , "$$< "$$=! ( , ) , * * ) , . ( ) )(
, , 1) * * ( , , ( * ) , *
) , . ( * ,, ( ( ) , ) # !# !$ !% ) * ,
*
) ! ,
, 9 * /( ) , B * "$$J A , "$$J * ) /( ) , B ! ) ( , +** ) , ( 6 - )% - )
) , ) ( ) )( 2
, ! ( ) ( ) ) ,
) )( ! ( , ) (
* 2( * ) , *
* ,( ) )( 0 2 - ! &%" ; %;&$! %;&N ? "$$#@ ? ) )* , ! , ) ( , D( @! ! #&= %$<N! %"< %=<J! %<& G B " #%# ?"$$<@ -
* ) ! 0 $ & ! 11 ! &N= ; %;<$! %;=" ? "$$=@ ? )
@! !##" %";$! %"J %&&#! %=$ G B " "=# ?"$$J@ + 1) ( ) )( , * ( * ) - )( , * * 0 2 - ! &%" ; %;#$: # ! N$N " %&#$! %&#% ? %NN$@ ? @! - ! A( G %$;I&"&! P N? @! %$J
&;<% ?%NN&@! . ,- ! ;$J ; %""$! %""; ? "$$"@ ?
@! % % ? "$$;@ ) )( , * ( 1) )! ! ) * ) ) ) )( ) )) ,( 1) ,( )
% ! NN &""! &"=I"N ?"$%%@: $
) ! %< ; N"N! N;=I;J ?J @ ? * ) *1) ) )( , ( * )(
*
)(
) - ,( D( ,
!
'
!
* 0@! % - % ?J %NN&@: 8 , ! $ ! <" ;=%! ;=# ?"$$&@ ? 1) ) )( , * ( ) - )
* ) () , ( 0@ !& C * 3 ! * * - ) ) * 1) )
3 ) ) ,, ) ) 0
- - &
% 6 - ! &=% ;&;! ;&J! %$# %NJ<! J# G B " ;=" ?%NJ#@ ) ) () -7)8 * )
)
( * 1) , ) 7 8 7 8 ( , ,, ) )
, , , ) 0 $ ;&J &! %$# %NJ<: )$! %NJ / ;$<! ;%# ? "$$$@ ? * 1) ) )( , * * ( ) * ! ( ( * ( ) 1) ( 9 , * )* , * )( 2
, * ( * *
* @: 2 - ! $ ! %%& / <N;! <NJI=$$ ?B T %NJ=@ ?-G
! * 2 , ) , 3*
* ( ) * ) D( ) *
* ) ( ) , L (* M 0@ !' +
( ( ) , ) ) ) ! ) ) **
) * , (
)* * ( )( 2
$ 7 - + ! $ & ' # ' ! J&% (** %;N;! %;NNI%&$$ ? %NN&@ ? , ( ( * () ( ) ( , * ) , * ! -
) * * ) ) (
)* * * )0 ! ! * @ +) ) 6 ) ) , * ) , )
(
* ! ( ) ,
* *
) (
1) * * C ,
, ) )! ! ) ( ) ** ( )
,, , ) * * ) )
* !
* 1) * * - )& 7+8 ) * 3 ) ) ( * ) * , () ! * )
, / ! P N6"$! <&I<# ?, )
@ - L+( 7 8 )
* )( ( ) ) * , ( ) ))
7 8 * M 0 7 1 - ( ! JJ< " ;""! ;"& ? @ ?
) @ ?D( 5 U / ) !
# &; ?%NJ"@@! % ? %NJN@: ' & - ! JN$ " %;##! %;#N! %;#N " ?= %NJN@ ? ) ( , 1) * ) ( * ,
* @: ; - ! "# #J%! #J= ?%NN"@ ?-7+8 * ( 1) H 7 ,, 8 ) * ) * , 7 8 ( , ( ) )) /( 7 * 8 () 3
/( * (
7 8 0 ? )
@@ C , * ( ! ! - () !
) ! ) ! ( (*
( L ) M ) )
* ) ) ) , ) * ) ) * ) 0 ( # ! $ ! "" %N! "= ?%NN$@! % ! N;= " <"& ? %NN%@ ?( *( ) ) @! ! #$" %$#=! %%" N;&! %%= G B " %$# ?%NN"@ !( ") " C, * ) ( *
) ) ) * ( ! * ) ) * )* ( 7 ) 5! ) ! &< ;%N G )) ,
!
!
* ) )(
, * * ( ) ( ( D( * ( ) )
( 1) ) )( 2 - ! &%" ; %;#$ ? * * )* ( ) * ( )* ) D( ) , ( ) * () *
) )
( ) () * ) (
, ) * () ) )( @: " $ , ! $ ! JN &J$! #$$! #$=! #%$ ?"$$N@ ? ) )( , * (
* ( * () - ) ) ))
) ( ) !0 ) ) * * *
) ) *) , 3 @ C ) ) ) * , ) ) * , ) 2 * 1) () , * ( ( - 1 ( ,- ! $<IJ="! "$$N >G %#N"="! Q% ?> A 5 ""! "$$N@ ? * * ( , 1) ,
*
) * ,,
2 * ,,1) () , ( ( * ) * ,,1)
, (
* ) , ( @! ! "$$N >G ;;%#&N ?> A %%! "$$N@: $ % ! $ ! ! %J& / <&! <=I<J! =& ? . %NNJ@ ? 2 * 1) ,
) )( ( * * ( * * ( * ( , ( ) <&!$$$ * ) () * ( * 2 ** ) * 1) () , ( * ) ! ) ( ( , ( *( )( *
* ( * ( @ "! 4 ! -7 8 ) * ) ( () , (
) ( ) ) ) * ( , * ( 0 & ! ;" ;<$! ;<% ?%NN&@ ( ) ) ( , , ) 9 ) )( ! ( ?%@
) ) * * ( ) * ) )( ! )( ) () , * )! ?"@
( , , ) ) * ) ! ?;@ ) * , ) ! ?&@ 3
, ) )( ! ?#@ , )) * ) - )' ;<%I<" ? )
@ +) ! * "$$J! /( #$"? @ , /( ) ,
B ) ) ( ) ) )(
, ) )( , * ( )* ,
- , * ,
,, 0 ,6 ; @ ) )( ) : ;!@ , * * ) ) *) * ) )( : ;"@ * *
) ) *) ,
! ( ? , ** @ ,
/( , A ( "<? @?#@?E@ < / B #$"? @ ?"$%;@: = 9 % 7 - ! "%N <%"! <%<! %N=N >G %$%=< ?%N=N@: 5 5 ! %$< #=%! #J&?"$%"@ ? ) ()) ) * /( #$"? @ * ()! ( ) ) , @ & ! ;" ;<$! )
() , ) ) ( 1) **
) )( ) C & ! )* ) , 1) D( ) , * ( ! * ,,
, )* -;$ 3 ) , ( )! * ) ) , () ) , * ) 0 $ ;<$ * ,, ( ) , )! , * ) , * ( ,
, )* ( ) $ ;<% * ,,! !
! , * , ) * ( $ , D( ) * , ( ! ) * ) $ * , 1) D( ) ! * ,, , , , * ,,1) * ( , ( $ E ) )* , , ) , ) ! ( , ( ) *) *
) )( - ) ,( 0 ( * ,,1) , * $ : $ % )- , ! ;= #NN! <$; ?%NN=@ ?) ) ! ) )
( 9 7 - ! "%N <%"! %N=N >G %$%=< ?%N=N@6 -7A8 ,, () *
) ) * ( )0 () ) - D( , ) ) ) * * ,, * ) )( , * ( ) 0@: " $ , ! $ ! JN #%NI"$ ?-7 8 ,
) , ) - )( ( )
!
!
)
* , , * ( )(,,
, ( ) ) * ( ) , * ) )( C ! (
* ) )( ) , ) , ( ) )( ) , 1) ) * ( ) D( 0@ , ( 2 ** ) * 1) () ,
* ( ( ) ) ) , * ( * " $ , ! $ ! JN #%$I%% ? * 1) , ( 2 () ,
* ( ( * ) )! , ( ) ( , ( , * ) )! ) ( , * ( * @
( ) ) )( 2
0 $ %;&N ( 6 $ < $ ! 8 ( , ! $ ! <&= " %J ?N %NJ%@! ) ) )( ! ( ) ()) * * ) , , )) ( * )( 2
) 2 - ! &%" ; %;&N )
/( , B #$"? @! ) ) * , )( 2
) )! , ! () /( #$"? @ - ) ) ( ) *
*( ) * , ) ! ) ( , 7!87 8 ,
) ) )( , * , )(
)( 2
0 / B #$"? @! : " "" "# C, ( ) * ) ' ( - ! %$= * )* * ( ( !
="#! =;$ ?"$%"@ ?- /B #$"? @ * ) ) )(
3 )
( ) -
)(
)( 2
?%@
) )( 2
0 2 ) L !M 0 ? * ) ) @@ - - ! &%" ; %;&N ( 2
( 2 ) )(
$ ! J== " N=< ( , * ) ) * ( ) ? %NJN@! ) )( ,
) )( 2
,, ( ) ( ) (
) ( $ "
% ! &&J ; %"N&! )( 2
0 / B #$"? @! %"NN ? @ ? 3 , * )* ( ) () ( ) +) ( ) ) 9 )*
, )) ) ) ) ) /( ( ) ( ) ( ) ) )( 2
, B #$"? @! ! ) ( )
@! ! #&N %$N<! %"= J&<! %<< -/( #$"? @ ) ) * , )(
G B " <<# ?"$$<@ ( ) ) * , * ) )( 0 6 1 9! $ -) , * !0 - 0 5 & ' ( 5 11 ! <J& ; %;<&! D( )(
* ( ) %;<N ? "$%"@ ? ** ( @ E * , , )) ) * ) )! /( #$"? @ ** ) -7 8 ) )( ) ( , !0 () * - ) , * , ,, ) ) 0 $ %;$% ? :4; 0 / B #$"? @ +
( ( ! ;&J ; %<! "& ?%) "$$;@@ +)
(
) ( , (
- ) ( - ) ( * * ) , , ))!0 $ , ( ! ** ) )( 2
& ! 11 ! &N= ; %;="! ( ) ) ( , ( ** ) )( )
, ) ) * , )( 2
! ( * ! ( ()( ( ) ) ( - ( ) ) , ) )( ! ( ) - 1 5 ! $ ! =# , ) ( * 2( * ) ==N! =NJ ?"$$=@ ? 5' # - - ! , *
* ,( ) )( ) 0 $ 0 < 7 - # ! $ ! %%< / &<! 2 - ! &%" ; %;&NI#$ #" ?. %NJ=@ ?- ( ) )( ) )* , ( ( ) C 2 - ! )
)( 2
, ( ) )
( , +** ) , ( ) ** * ) , ) )( ! - ) ) , ) )( ) , * -
( ) ,, )( 2
$
5 - - - = ? * ) ) %;&&! %;&N ( ) 6 - @ ? )
@@@: 4 5 " ** ) , ) * , ! #& ;%< ?
,
* ) ** )
!
!
-)( 2
) ** ) )( ) 3 , 2( * ,, ) !0 (
( )( 2
) **
* ( ! ) )( ))( ! ( ( ) 3 , ! - () * ,,) , ) * 2(
0@ ? $ )- '! J"J " N&! %$" ?" %NJ=@@ )- " & ! 11
9- ! J$ %"N! %"N N ?)( )
)( 2
** ) )( ) ( )
3 , @ )( 2
**
) )( ) ( * ) ) )
*( * ) , /( #$"? @ )) - )* * ) ) )) * )
,
* * (
* ( ) )( ? @
* ) )( 2
,
* ( ) , !0 - ) )*
( ) ) ) 0 / B #$"? @! : , 7 ' $ ! $ ! "=% / %"#! %;& ? > T @ ?
/( ) , A A ( , 5( , , )
) 5( ,
) 4 () , / * ) )! ,
* ) )) /B #$"! - L+ )
) 3* )) , , ) 3 ) , * . ) ( , * ( ( ) ) ( ) )( 2
! ) * )) ( ( )) 3* ) M 0@! *
- ;6$NI$&J%! "$%$ >G "N&&=== ? > T 5( ";! "$%$@: )- - ! $=I I$"&=%IA+EI . ! "$$N >G &N&NN#N! QN ? %&! "$$N@ ?- / B #$" ) * %N! "$$J! ))
) ) ) , )) * )
,
* ( * ) ) )( 0@! "$$N >G #"%=N== ? "N! "$$N@ C, ( ) 3 , ! ! /( , B #$"? @ 3* )) ) 3 ) , ( ) ) ( ) ( )) -; @ ) : ;!@ ) )
( ) ) ( ) , ) )( 2
: ;"@ ( , )) ) 0 / B #$"? @ ? * ) ) @ +
( , ) ! ) ,
( ! , + ) *
* , ! ,
) ) ) )(** , ) * ) , ) , ) ) ()) (
* ) 9 )
* 3 ! 9
3 , *( * ) , 9 ,
* 5() ) * ,, 1) ( 9 , * )*
* * * , * ! )$! %NJ / ;%#! ) ( ) )( ) ! ) )*
)! ( , 1) * ) ) ( ) * * ) ) * , ) ( ' & - ! JN$ " %;#N! %;#N " ? - L M 0 ) +( * ( * , , ) +( @: $ 7 - + ! $ & ' # ' ! J&% (** %;NN ?
, ! * * ) ! - ,,
, 1)
* 0 ? )
@@ "$ C ) (
, ( ! ))( ) E 2 5 )! ) !
)* ) ! ( ! 3* )) , ) )(* ! * ( , ) * ) ! * , "$$= ) ) . ( + A ! * , * ,,1) D( *
)( ! + I.
1- ! NJ #;! #<I#= ?"$%%@ ?
* ) ,, ) - * ( ( 0 (
@ C . 5 ) ) )(,, (
* !
( , ) )) ) ,, ) )(,, ( ( ** ( ) * 3 ,
!
"
!
) , , 1) , + ) ( * , , + ) ) ) , ( ) , , ) ) , , 1) * ) ) ) ) ) ) (* ( 1) * 3
* ** ) D( ) ) ,
( ) 9
* 1) * * * )! * ! &&N ;N%! %$% <== ?-. K K * ) ! ) ) * , * !
* ) () ,, (
)
(* ) * ( () , () )
*( * ) , * ) ( ( , , * ) ,
) )
* 0@! )
) (* ( 1) )( ) ) * ) (
* 1) ,, ) * * 1) *
- - &
% 6 - ! &=% ;&J &! %$# %NJ<: 2 - ! $ ! %%& / <NJI=$$ ?-G
! * 2 , ) , 3*
* ( ) * ) D( )
*
* ) ( ) , L (* M 0@
%;"&! %;;" ? "$$%@@@: ) 5 ! $ ! ;<# ; %;&#! %;## ? "$$&@ ?-C )
) ) ,, ) , ) ) ) 0 ? )
@@ . ! ( , ! ,, )! , , )! ( ) ) ( 9 ) )( , * ( ) ) , *( )( ( ) &J / P ; %$&I& ?"$%"@ C ! + ( ) ) ,, ) ) - ! * ) , D( ) ) , * ( , ( , C , + ! # P ##" ? (** CCC "$$N@! + / "#I## ** E?"@? @?J@ ?%NN=@! )* ) ) 2( , ) ( ,
) ) * () ,, ( ,
* " $ , ! $ ! JN #$$I$% C )( ! ,, )
( ) (
) *)! )! , )! ) )! ( ) * ) , , * )! )( ) * 1) ) 6 < ) 2 3 - ! &N= ; %;;N! %;&& ? @! % % ? "$$=@: &J / P % <$"I" ?"$%"@ ?- ,, ) )* ) , )( * , ,
)) ) , ,, ! )( * ) , ! ) , ( ) ) ,
) ) ( ) *) 7 8 ,, ) ) (
( 3 ) "% "& "' , 1) 9 * ) () )) 2( 0@: ! 1 1 !
, + () &"& ; %"#&! %"<% ? "$$#@ ?- ) ) ) ) 9 * * ) ,, ) () ( 9 , ,
( , ,, ) , 0@ +) )(
, ) ,, ) ) ( ! ,, ) * ) ,, ) )
)* )
) ! , , +$8" &3 # ! $
! ) , ) ! <=$ ; %;=$! %;J# # ? "$%"@ &- ! """ "==! ?' 2 ) ! 5 )) @ ?-7>8 9 "J<IJJ! <%& " =&$! =&#I&< ?%NJ$@ ?
K ) ) ( (
,, ! - ) ' 1) * ) !0
( K ,, ) ( 9 )) ) ) , ) ( , + I+)) + @ , ! (
)(* ) 0 ? )
@@: $ ( , * ) ! ,, ) ! <%& ; %;&=! %;#% ? "$%$@ * ! , 3* ))! ( ? - ,, ) L
3 ) ) * ( ) (* , ))( ) , ) , ) () * ( * )) M 0 ?D( $ -.
) )( , ,
# + # - ! ";J ; ) - * 0 , ,, 1)
!
#
!
( ) ( *
, * 2( ! . 5 )1 ( * - )(**
,, ! * ( )! "( #) C ) ! )* ) )! * 2 * ( , ) , ) , ! * ( ( 9
)
)! * ) * ) ) 0 / E ) ))
)(,, ( , 1) -. 5 ) ( ) ) ,, *
( ) ,,
)* ) )! , 3 * ! *
* 5 IC 0 E . 5 ) / E **
) ( )
. 5 )1 ( )* ! $ ! %$& "<%! , , ) ! ( "== ?"$%"@ ? 1) )* . ( . 5 ) )* ) 1) ) ( ) ( )(** / E ! ) )* )
)* ) 1) , ( ) , ) ) . 5 ) ,, @: 9 "9& # ! 2 3 9 )(,, ( * , , ! %$; ;;J! ;##I #< ?"$%"@ ? ) * 2 1) (
, ,, * 2
. 5 ) , ( ( @
* ) ,( ) ) ) () C ) ( 9 ( ) )! ! ) )(
+** ( ) ,, ) ( ) )* ,
* ) , * , * ) ) 6 <) J
,( )! ( 2 3 - ! &N= ; %;&& + ) ) , )! ** ( ( )! ) * ) ) ) )! )! ? * @ ) , (
** )* ) ) D( ) ) ( ) D( ! ! 9 "9& # ! 2 3 , C , + ! - ( 9 ! %$;
)* ) ) ! () , ) ( ! ( ! ;##I#< * ! D( 3 ) , 2( ( ) ) +
( . 5 ) ) ))
( ) 7 1 - ( ! JJ< "
;"& ? D( )
@
G / ) , . ( ! . 5 ) ( ,, ! / E ! G / ) 1) )( )) ! . 5 ) **
) ) . ( . A "$$= + ) 5( %J! "$%" * ) ! ) ) 2
)! . 5 ) )* 6 -C )KC + C
() D( ) )* ) ) E( CKC ) D( ) )* ) 0
+ C ) , -, ( * ) )! ) + ) 0 C ) * ) ) ! . 5 ) ) ) , ( ) , / E ) ! ( ( - " , + 1) 3 ) , * ( ! * )(** , / E 1) ) , . 5 ) ,( ) ))
. ( ( ( , / E ! ( ( ) . ( ( / E 1) ** / E ) ! "$%"
0 &J / PP = #$;? @! ? @?%"@I?%;@ ?"$%"@ N
( . 5 ) * )(** ) ) + ) ) )
( )( ) ) , (
! () ) )( ) -7 8 !0 -7 8 ) !0 - ) ())!0 -7 8 9 !0 - )!0 -* * ) !0 - )) ) 0 ,
) ) ( . 5 ) * ) ) )* ,
* * )
* . 5 ) , - )7 8 ( ) 1) 9 ( )) , , ! )) , ( ? ! , ! * ! ( @! * * , )
* ) !0 ( )) . 5 ) / E 1)
** , ) *( &J / P "#" "$&I=$$$? @ ?"$$&@ +) )(
! ) )( , ( ) (
/ E 1) ** ( )
!
$
!
) * , . 5 )1 ( - * 0 , . 5 )1 ( . (
. A "$$= 7 1 - ( ! JJ< " ;"&: $ 7 - + ! $ & ' # ' ! J&% (** %;NNI%&$$ A ,,! ! ) . 5 ) - ) * 2 !0 D( ) , 8 1 2 ! ;; ;"= ?%NN#@! ( 6 -
( . 5 ) ) , + ! ) ( ) * () , ( ) )( , ( LA 2 . M )(,,
) * 0 ?D( 8 1 2 ! ;; ;;# =@ C 8 1 2 ! ! , )) * ( * ,, )
) * , * 2
) * , 4 () * ?4 @ $ ;;# = , ( ) *
( )( , - # ,, 1) -, ( () )0 () ,, ( ( D( ) , $ 8 1 2 ( * ** () ) - )
5 ) ) ( ( * ( , 4 0 $ () 8 1 2 ! * ** ()
) )( ) 4 2
( 1) ) )( ! ! ) ))
( * , (
) )( $ B ))( * 2 8 1 2 . 5 ) ) ( ! * ,, ) * ( 1) 8 1 2 4
2
* ( 1) ) )( * ,,1) () * 2 ! ) )(
! )* ) . 5 )! (
* ) )(
, ( , )* * ) ) ( ) ) , * ) ) ) ( ) , , ) * ) 8 1 2 C )
4 1) ** , ( 2 ) )( 8 1 2 ! / E ) ) ( *
, * 2( ) ( , . 5 )1 ) )( ( * &! "$%"! . 5 ) ( ) ) * ,, / E ) ( ( ) ,
, 1) ) - * ( ) ) 0 , C ) (
, ( ! . A ) * ) * ) * . A
-) 0 . 5 ) )
* ) ) () * * C ( ) * ) , * ,,1) )( ! + I.
! ( , . 5 ) . A * . ( !
) )( , . ( - ( ) ( ) 2 !0 * ,,1) -
) !0 . 5 )1
, . ( ) ( ()( +
! ( ( ) ) * ) 8 1 2 ! ( ) ) , ) * )
,
( )( ) , * ( ) ,(
) )( , . ( ! ) ) > . 5 ) * , . ( . A * !
,
- L * 7 * 8 ( ,, M 0 , ! . 5 ) )
)* ) ( 3* )) * (
(
* , , ) %$ # C ) . 5 )! ! G / ) ) * ) * , , ) ) ) )( ) , ,
( ) . 5 ,, )! , B3 ( H,, , + I.
! "$$< +
( , ) ) ( ))
* ) ( )! * ,, ) D( ) ( - ' 1) ) "$$< "$$= ) ( * )( 2
0 , * ! ) *
3 ) )( , ( ) "$$< ) , . ( )( 2
, G / ) 1) ) )( . 5 ,, ) *
)( 2
) ) * )) ) , ) )
, . ( C ) ) , )! G / ) ) ) ( ) 1) * * ) , ) ( ( ) ) G / ) ) ) ) ( ) 1) , * * ) ! )
) ) ( ) 1) ) () , ) C , )! G / ) ) ) ) -, L ) M
!
%
!
) 0 +
( , ) ) * )) , ) ) -%$ +( O%$6#J ( LG / M 0 - * - $
) 0 ) )( 2
) G / ) 1) ( ) . 5 ,, )! )( 2
) ** ) * )) () ) * )) ) * #! > )* * )) !
( (
) , ( * , * )) * ! , ) , )! ) ( () ) ! )( 2
, "$$< ) G / ) ) * )( 2
, * )) . ! ,
( * ) * , )( 2
! G / ) 1) ) )( , * ( ) "$$< ( )(
, * )* ) , . ( () G / ) 1) ) )(
* ( ) 3 , ) )
* ,, )) ) )( 2
** ) ) )( ) ,
! *
( ) , $ "
% ! &&J ; %;$% ?-7 8 , * D( )(
* ( ) * , , )) ) * ( , C )( ) ! * () )
* ) ) ) * )( () )! 9 * , ) ) ) ) )
( ! )
* )
)( ( ) ) )( 2
0 ? )
@@: 4 5 " ! #& ;%< ?-4 ! )( 2
) ** ) )( )
3 , 2( *
,, ) 0@ A ,, )
3* G / ) 1) ) )( , ) , * ( ) "$$< ( ,, , * ,, * ! ) , "$%$ +
( 2 ! &%" ; %;&N! ) ) )
( 3 ( ) -
) )( 2
!0 /( , B #$"? @ * ( ) 3 ) , ( ) ) ( ) ( )) ) ) ( ) ) ( ) - ( , )) )
0 / B #$"? @?;@ +) ! /( , B #$"? @ ) ) 3* )) ** ) -7 8 ) )( ) ,
* , ,, )
* 0 / B #$"? @ ( ** )! ! - , (
( ) ) , * , )) ) ) ) * , )!0 ! , ! ** ) , )) ) ) *
) , /( , B #$"? @
) * , G / ) 1) ) )( , * ( ) , ) , ) 6 1 9! $ 0 5 & ' ( 5 11 ! <J& ; %;<N! %;=; ?* ( (
,
- , ( ( 0
D( ) ) , , ))! ) , /( #$"? @! 9 ) * , ( ) ( ) 3 , @: 2 - ! &%" ; %;&N , G / ) 1) ) )( )
) * ( ) A ( 5 ,, ) , + I.
, ) ) )! ,
! * ,, C , ! G / ) * ) 6 -+) C , )
75 CO+ G 8 ! C
, 0 ))( . 5 ,, )! , , , ! -7 8 )
* ) 0 G / ) ) . 5 ,, ) , ! - )
* , () 0 C ! G / ) 1) ) )( ) +
( ) ,, ,( ( , ! ) )( ) ) ( * ( ) G / ) 1) ) )( ,
( ) "$$<!
, ! )(
)( 2
() * ,, ) ) G / ) 1) ) )( ) - % , , )) ) G / ) 1) ) )! ( ! - ( , )) ) 0 ) , . ( / B #$"? @ #" C ) G / ) 1) ) )( )! , 1) * () ) )( ) , , ( * ) , *
) , . ( * ,, ( ) * , * %% C
, ( * ) * () ) ) * ,,!
!
&
!
, ) ) ,
* )) ! * ) , , ) ) ) , * )) %" +
( , )* , , ) , 5 CO+ G ) * )! , , ( , ) ) ,
* )) 1) , -G ( ) !0 )
) ) * ) ) ,
* )) ! * , ) ,
* )) ! , ) )* ) 5 CO+ G 1) 6 - * ) )! ' ) ) * GC , E
> * ( * * GC ) , * ( * , , +
!
' ) ) * GC , D( * ) 0 , 1) , (
* ) , . ( , , ( * ) , *
) , . ( * (
* ,, ( ) * , !
) ) * !
) ) * ( ) 2 - ! &%" ; %;#$: " $ , ! $ ! JN #%$ C ! )
, 1) ) ) ,( * , ) , ( ) ( , *
) , . ( * ( * ,, *( )( H ( D( ) , * ) $ % ! $ ! ! %J& / =& C )
) ! ( ! ! ) ,
) * )* ,
-G ( ) 0 , ) ) , * )) !
, ) ) , * )) ! )
) ) ) * , ) ,
* )) () , 1) ( * ( . ( *
,
* ,, ( ) ) * 2 - ! &%" ; %;#$ ?-+ * 1) , ( * ) * )(
)) ,
* 0 ?
@@ 3 , ( ( ) )( , . ( * ,, *
, ) ! ! ,
) ** - ) ) *) * ) )( 0 - ) ) *) , 0 ** , /( , B #$"? @1) * 3
, ) )( ) / B #$"? @ , 1) * ( , , ( * ) , *
) , . ( * ,, , 3 . ( , * , ** ) ) (
)( ) ) , D( * ( ) ) ) )( " $ , ! $ ! JN #"$ - & ( ) ) , , 1) ) )( ) ) , & ! ,
* ( ( * ,
. ( * ,, , ) )
) ) * & ! ;" ;<% C ) ! ,
* ( , ( * ) , . ( * ,, ) , ( ) )) ) ) ) , * B , (
, , 1) ) )( , , ( * ) , *
) , . ( * ,, ) ! ( )
( , ,
* )* , -G
( ) 0 , ) ) , * )) !
, ) ) , * )) ! )
)
) ) * , ) , * )) () , - ) ) *)
* ) )( 0 , ) * ) ) * ,, , 1) * ) )( ! , ! , , * ,, /( , B #$"? @ ## ( 9 )
* * ) ) ! ) * +( () "<! "$%% H ( ! * ) ) )( , ( ) -)
* ,
( 0 ( ) 9 ) ! -7 8 )
( ) )! * ) , ( )( )) * ( ,
, , * 0 / A "<?,@! C ! ) ( )
* , * ) /( #$"? @ , * )
( , ,, ; & ( & , 11 ! $J %$;%$?5 /@! "$%$ >G #$<#N<;! Q% ? <! "$%$@ ?
* )* /( #$"? @ () * * ) - ! ( !
* ) * ( )
* ( 0 ? * ) ) @@
!
!
C ) * )
, ( ! ! H ( ! * * )1 ! * )
) - ) ( 3* ) * 1) ) ) ) ) /B #$" 0 " ' ( - ! %$= =;$ ? 2 * * ) ) - L * )1 )* )
) * ( ) ) 7 8 ) )( , * ( )1 0 ( /( #$" ?
@ ?D( 6 + - ! J$< (** " &&! &N ? "$%%@ ? )
@@@ * )1 ) * ) ) - ) ) /B #$" ) ) ( 3* ) A 1) ) ) ) ) 0 ( 1) H * )1 ! , ! * ( , 9 , 1) ) )( ) ( /( #$" " # ! $ , 9 " % ! %% %N"J! "$%" >G %#=$=="! Q%I; ? C
. ;! "$%"@ ? ** /( #$"? @ ) 3 ) , * ) )( ) * - 7 8 ) )( ) ) ) / B #$"0@ #$ E () , 1) * ( , , ( * ) , *
) , . (
* ,, ( ) ( - ,
* !0 ( G / ) 1) ) )( ) "$$<! D( ) , /( , B #$"? @ () , , 1) 3 * ( ) / B #$"? @ /( #$"? @ D( ) , 1) - !0
, 1) ) )( ! , )( 2
** / B #$"? @?%@
, *
) ) * ( ) * ,,! , ! )
)) ,
* )* ) ( ) ) 8 - ) ' ) ' ! "=# / &;! &= ? . )) "$%%@ ?- /( * )
- ' L M ) )( )
D( L M L M ? L ) )( M L M@ ) , + )
1) +* ! "$$= )( ( )( 2
( )) * ) )( ( * ) 0@: "; > U
' ! ( - P #&&% ? (** "$%"@ ?-
)
, ,
! *( *
L)( 2
) )( )!M /( #$" * ) )( ) ? @?%@ 7 8 D( L 7 8 M 0 ?, )
@@ ( )
) )( ) (
- ) ) ) * ) ( , ) , ) ) 0 % #- * ! "=& / "J! ;% ? "$%%@ ? 1
&- ! %$ "%<N! "$%% >G <"%"&! QNI%$ ? C
5 <! "$%%@! *
- ! "$%% >G &N&<"; ? C
&! "$%%@@ / )) , , 1) ) )( , , ( * ) , *
) , . ( ) ( , * ! , )) ) ) , 1) ) )( ) ( )(
)*
* ( ) / B #$"? @ +
( )( 2
) ** ) )( ) ( 3 , ! () - ) ( * * ) , , )) ) )
* * , ) (
() () * ) ) ) !0 ( )
, 1) , * )*
) ) ! * ) , , ) ) ) , * )) ) 3 , . ( ! * ( )! () , 1) * ) )( ) ** , * ,, $ & ! 11 ! &N= ; %;=" E * ,,1) )) ! , * )) ) - ) )
H ) ) 0 C ! , ) )
* )) ) ,
) ) * , . ( * ,, (
, 1) ) )( ** ) )(
, D( * ( ) -7 8 ) )
, ) ) ) , ) 0 " $ , ! $ ! JN #"% )) )
, * * )) ! * ( )! (
* , ) )( ! ) , 1) ,( ( () , ) ) ( ) , )
/ B #$"? @
!
'
!
,B >+ C,B , 1) . ( ) ( +** 3 A ) * , A ( ) D3.B746 CB .37 64BC46 CB .37 ( 6C34 7 , ! , ) H ! )( * , *
) , . ( * () * ( * ,, ( ) ! E ) ( $$$&<=%; C , ) H ! ,
)
( *
** ( - , H 2 )O A , IE ) > 0 E ) ( $$$&<=%=! ( , ) * )) , ) ) ,
) )
( *
** ( - GC ( ( !0 (
, -G ( ) 0 , ) ) ,
* )) , ) ) ! )
) ) ) ) 6 - * )
)! ' ) ) * GC , E
> * ( * * GC ) , * ( * , , 0 , ) )
( ,
) ) , * )) , ) ) 6 -+
!
' ) ) * GC , D( * ) 0 C ! , )
( - ( , , ) , * )) 6 - ) GC ) ( ( ) ) ) * * * * ( D( * ) , * * 0 , ) )
(
, ( * )) , ) ) ! ** ) E ) ( $$$&<="&6 - ) ) ) 6 . 2 . . ! + *( 5( + 5
KC DO+, ) 0 ? * ) ) @
! , )
(
) * , . ( E ) ( $$$&<="#! )! * ! . 2 . - ( 7 8 , )( , 5+ ) ( ( >"=A&+I$#I I $$$" 0 ( 6C34 7 * ) , 5
+** 3 , ) H ( ) 6C34 7 * ,, , ) * ) , . ( ( )
* ( ( ) , ,
* ) ! ( )) , * ,
! * ,, )
, ) ,
, ) * )) , ) ) ! ,
( , * ))
, ) ) 6 G ( ) * ) )! '
) ) * GC , E
> * ( * * GC ) , * ( * , , +
! '
) ) * GC , D( * ) ! ) GC ) ( ( ) ) ) * * * * ( D( * ) , * * C7 C , ,364346A .
%%$ J=
Footnotes
1 2
This Order was issued under seal on March 28, 2013. The parties were asked to propose redactions prior to public release of the Order. Where words have been redacted, it is reflected with the following notation: â&#x20AC;&#x153;[redacted].â&#x20AC;? As explained below, although defendant's motion â&#x20AC;&#x153;requests that the Court substitute pages 930â&#x20AC;&#x201C;42 of the joint appendix, with the attached copy of the identical memorandum for record (MFR) with privileged passages redacted,â&#x20AC;? the version of the memorandum attached to defendant's motion does not include the last page of the version of the Memorandum contained in the Joint Appendix. Four different versions of the Memorandum have been disclosed to plaintiff and a separate in camera version of the Memorandum has been submitted to the court. The four versions of the Memorandum previously disclosed to plaintiff include: (1) the redacted version of the Memorandum that defendant attached to its motion, (2) a second, redacted version of the Memorandum that defendant filed on the court's electronic filing system in support
!
"
!
3 4
5
6
7
of its motion, which includes the last page missing from the unredacted version of the Memorandum that defendant attached to its motion to substitute appendix pages, but which otherwise contains the same redactions, (3) a partially redacted version of the Memorandum, four copies of which defendant produced to plaintiff during discovery with identical redactions, and (4) the unredacted version of the Memorandum that appears in the Joint Appendix, which apparently plaintiff had acquired in 2007. Lt. Col. Richardson achieved the rank of Colonel after the events described in this Order. In the redacted version of the Memorandum attached to defendant's motion to substitute pages in the Joint Appendix, defendant did not include a copy of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;next page,â&#x20AC;? although in the unredacted version of the Memorandum that appears in the Joint Appendix, the page following the attorney's endorsement, the second â&#x20AC;&#x153;Page 12 of 12,â&#x20AC;? was included, albeit in largely illegible form. The court was able to review a copy of that â&#x20AC;&#x153;next pageâ&#x20AC;? from the four copies of the partially redacted version of the Memorandum that plaintiff submitted to the court in response to defendant's motion, which plaintiff represented were contained previously in â&#x20AC;&#x153;the Government's production of documents to Oasis,â&#x20AC;? as well as the in camera version of the Memorandum that defendant submitted to the court after the court directed the parties to submit a legible copy of the Memorandum. In the copies of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;next pageâ&#x20AC;? submitted by plaintiff, Maj. Martin's name, rank, and job assignment are not redacted, even though defendant seeks to redact this information from the preceding page, although a concurrence â&#x20AC;&#x153;with the foregoing summary of JA involvement with restructuring contract W27P4Aâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;05â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Câ&#x20AC;&#x201C;0002â&#x20AC;? is redacted. In the four copies of the partially redacted version of the Memorandum that defendant previously produced to plaintiff during discovery, defendant included redacted versions of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;next pageâ&#x20AC;? following the attorney's endorsement, but defendant did not make conforming redactions to the â&#x20AC;&#x153;next pageâ&#x20AC;? in the second, redacted version of the Memorandum that defendant filed on the court's electronic filing system on September 18, 2012 in support of defendant's earlier motion to substitute pages in the Joint Appendix. The language, â&#x20AC;&#x153;I concur with the foregoing summary of JA involvement with restructuring contract W27P4Aâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;05â&#x20AC;&#x201C;Câ&#x20AC;&#x201C;0002. Detailed questions concerning the legal analysis of the revised CLIN structure should be directed to my attention,â&#x20AC;? on the next page, the second â&#x20AC;&#x153;Page 12 of 12,â&#x20AC;? in the most recent filing with the court is not redacted and not requested for redaction by defendant. The court recognizes that the clawback agreement that the parties submitted to the court, which was largely incorporated into the Clawback Order the court entered for the case, provided: In connection with Documents produced by Oasis or the Government, and consistent with FRE [Federal Rule of Evidence] 502(b), the inadvertent disclosure of any Document which is subject to a legitimate claim that the Document should have been withheld as Privileged Material shall not waive any privilege for that Document or for the subject matter of the inadvertently disclosed Document in the present case or any other federal or state proceeding. As indicated below, however, the existence of a clawback order does not prevent the court from finding in particular instances that defendant waived the privilege during the course of discovery. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) provides: Information Produced. If information produced in discovery is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialpreparation material, the party making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The producing party must preserve the information until the claim is resolved. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B) (2013) (emphasis in original). Federal Rules of Evidence 502(a) and 502(b) state in full: The following provisions apply, in the circumstances set out, to disclosure of a communication or information covered by the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection: (a) Disclosure Made in a Federal Proceeding or to a Federal Office or Agency; Scope of a Waiver. When the disclosure is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency and waives the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, the waiver extends to an undisclosed communication or information in a federal or state proceeding only if: (1) the waiver is intentional; (2) the disclosed and undisclosed communications or information concern the same subject matter; and (3) they ought in fairness to be considered together. (b) Inadvertent Disclosure. When made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency, the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a federal or state proceeding if:
!
"
!
8 9
10 11
12
(1) the disclosure is inadvertent; (2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and (3) the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error, including (if applicable) following Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). Fed. R. Evid. 502(a), (b) (emphasis in original). In Winter v. Cathâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;dr/Balti Joint Venture, authority to act under the contract had been expressly reserved in the contract to the contracting officer on the matters at issue. See Winter v. Cathâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;dr/Balti Joint Venture, 497 F.3d at 1345â&#x20AC;&#x201C;46. Although the regulation at 48 C.F.R. § 7.503(d)(13) cautions that â&#x20AC;&#x153;[c]ontractors participating in any situation where it might be assumed that they are agency employees or representativesâ&#x20AC;? are â&#x20AC;&#x153;generally not considered to be inherently governmental functions,â&#x20AC;? the introduction to Subsection (d) also states that services and actions â&#x20AC;&#x153;may approach being in that category because of the nature of the function, the manner in which the contractor performs the contract, or the manner in which the Government administers contractor performance.â&#x20AC;? See 48 C.F.R. § 7.503(d). Having found that Mr. Jenkins lacked authority to waive the privilege for defendant, the court does not address defendant's assertion that there was evidence of â&#x20AC;&#x153;betrayal or connivance,â&#x20AC;? and, therefore, a waiver should not apply. Defendant also carelessly disclosed the Memorandum in unredacted form when defendant filed the Joint Appendix with plaintiff on August 21, 2012, which defendant should have carefully reviewed before filing with the court. See Eden Isle Marina, Inc. v. United States, 89 Fed.Cl. at 510 (This oversight â&#x20AC;&#x153;was so careless that it cannot be construed as inadvertent.â&#x20AC;?). The parties, however, had agreed that, â&#x20AC;&#x153;by filing the Joint Appendix, neither party waives any objection to any document contained within the Joint Appendix.â&#x20AC;? See Dowd v. Calabrese, 101 F.R.D. 427, 439 (D.D.C.1984) (refraining from finding waiver as a result of disclosures made during deposition testimony when parties previously agreed that privileged communications revealed in the testimony would not constitute a waiver of the privilege). In the four copies of the partially redacted version of the Memorandum that defendant previously disclosed to plaintiff, defendant also failed to redact: â&#x20AC;&#x153;This included an operating lease for the bottling facilities and associated equipmentâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;â&#x20AC;? from the second passage, all of the fifth sentence of the third passage, and all of the fourth passage. These portions of the Memorandum, however, are not privileged and, therefore, do not raise waiver issues.
End of Document
Š 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
!
"
!! "
! !" # $! ! % & $!" # $!" ! !" '(" ())*
! "
$ $ $ $ $ A
$ +
++ $ $ $
" + < $ $
$ $ $ $ $ 6 $ " $ $
<+ $
+ !
#$%&' ( # ) # * $ + " ','-.% / $0 1 23 12 (,2 24' 5 %* 63 11
+ $
$ $ ++ , $ - ! .
/ $ + $ " $ " $ 0
1 " 2!" 3 4'5 $ $ +
+ 6 4(5
/ $ , + $ + 6 475 $ $ $ + + $ $ $ + 6 485
$ + $
$ $ ! + 6 + !
B $
$
8 $
; + + 1 +
$ + + $ !
; + + ; +
$ + " < + $ $ + ++ " $ $ $ $
! != !; $!= (>" (? @!%! !A!
; $ & +
$ # $ $ $
$ " $ , $ $ $ $ $
+ + !
0 9 4':5
$ $
$
8 $
; $ $ $ +
++ $ @ %
$ + $ + / $
$ + " " $ $
! "
# $ %
!! "
$ + 6 + @ % + $ " $ $ $
! != !; $!= (>" (? @!%! !A!
%
A
$ + + $
$ + ++ $ $ + + $ $ <$
$ $ 6 " + < $ $ $ $ $ -
$ ! != !; $!= (>" (? @!%! !A!
: $
!
; ; + $ $ $ + $ + $ + +
$ + ++ ! != !; $!= (>" (? @!%! !A!
"
#
; ,
7 $
$
1 $ $
;
; ,
$ +
@ %
@ % + ++ $
$
$ + @ % +
$ $ $ $
!
A
$ + ++
$ $ +
$ $ $ $ $
-
$ $ $ ! != !; $!= (>" (? @!%! !A!
: $
( $
$ 0 , ; $ ; 6
; + $ +
+
$
+ + + $
$ + " " + $ $
$ , + $ + "
$ + ++ ! != !; $!= (>" (? @!%! !A!
&
$ 0 , ; $ ; 6
; + $ $
A
$ + + $
/ $ / 6
" $ $ $ , + $ + ! != !; $!= (>" (? @!%! !A! ' $
( $
! "
# $ %
!! "
$ + +
$ < " + , $ +
$ , + $ 6 $ "
, "
"
+ + $ + $ + + ! != !; $!= (>" (? @!%! !A! ' $
$
$ 6 $ <$ + # $ $ + "
, $ +
$ + ++ $ + $
$ +
, - + 6
+ + + $ $ $ + $ "
+ $ + $ ! != !; $!= (>" (? @!%! !A! ' $
$ C $ ++ + , + $
! != !; $!= (>" (? @!%! !A!
$
$ 6 $ <$ +
$
$ 6 $ <$ + , + $ + " -
$ +
+ $ " + , $ + $ + $ $ $ $
+ + $ + $
8 $
# 6 @% ; 8"'(?">:?! ! ' $
' ( ) $
* ! 2 + 0! & " D E A
" = " " + ! 2 = 0
$ " " 0
$ " $ " % D F " = " " ! + .= &= &==& & 0# #A 1. &" $ 2 !
$
$ $ ! + $ + $ $ + G <
$ + ! +
$ + $ $
$ + + G < +
$ + $ ! " $ + + + " + !
,- $' . ; G < $
+ $ $
, " $ , $ F $! + 4 />:? + 5" $
" $ + $ $ * " $ $ G < $
'!
! "
# $ %
!! "
/>:? + <+ '**:! $ + 4 /87' + 5" $ $
$ $ G < $
(" <+ ())(! # A '**'" + !" $ $ " A A++ $ 4A A5 A - + , $ - F $ + <+ />:? + '**:! ++ $ $ /87' + 7: @!%! ! H (B'" G < $ -
$ '**'! # " + /87' + $ + $
+ $ />:? + ! # + + / $ - " G <
$ '?) $ $
$ + $
$ $ $
, + $ ! G < + $ $ " + $
G < / +
$ ! # ++
$ + " + $ $ G < + ! G < / + + - $
$ + " + + + $ $ $ + $
! ! " A + " + + + $, + ! #
- $ $ " + $ + $ ++ /87' +
$ <$ +
$
+ ! ++
+ / + $
( + $ $ + &< + 7( + $ + />:? + " G < , , +
$ /87' + ++ $ ! + $
+ ! " +
+ $ ! % $ " $ + G < / $ + $ <$ + " $
$ + + $
$ + + $
! # $ ()" '**7" $
+ / ! # ++ G < / $ + $
$ + $ + $
- , $
! !=! !;! = (>! 9 $ + / $ + " $ + G < ++ "
+ + / !
,,- /, 0 ,+1 # " $
# $ + " + $
G < / + $ $ +
4'5 + $ " 4(5 $ $
" 475 4
$ $
$
5" 485 $ $ $ G < /
+ @ ! A
$ $ $ " + $ " + $ ! 0
$ +
3 * # 4'5 0 $ , 4(5 + $ + $ $ " 475 $ $
+ + 485 $ $ 4:5 $ " 4>5 $ +
+ $ 4B5 $
! "
# $ %
&
!! "
" 4?5 <$ + + $ ! ? 2! 0 " & $ H ((*( 4 $ ! '*>'5! + + + $ $ $ $
! 88* @!%! 7?7" ')' %! ! >BB" >> !& !( :?8 4'*?'5! A
+ ++
$ $ $
" + $ I !!! < + $ $ $
$ " + " $ C + $ $ $ $ $ $ !J B8? !( ?B'" ?B8 48 !'*?85! . $ " $ $ $
<+ $
" + ! ?B:! # $ $ $ " $
, $ $ $ " $ $ $
+ + !
+ " $
+ $ + G <
$ ! + + + $ " 8(: @!%! 7*'" *> %! ! ':>*" 8? !& !( 7* 4'*B>56 B8? !( ?B>" $ $ G < / + + $ ! #
$ " G < / $ " " $ + $ + $ '?) $ " $ +
C $
$ $ ! G <
$ $ " 2 1! " $
$ + ! + + G < $ + @ % @ G < + " A $
1 + !
:8> !% ++! ((" (: 4 ! !. '*?(53 G
" $ $ + +
+ " + ! !" # *' !=! ! ' 4 ! !#
!'*?)56 !!! $ + $ + " " +
+ $ @ % ; . $ + $ " $ $ % &
?' !=! ! 7BB" 7*(L*7 4 ! ! !'*B?5" + $
$ $
!
& % % ' $ 8* !=! ! ?( 4&! !; !'*>*5" (() 8B? !( '7*? 47 !'*B75! $ + $ + $ $ + $ + + $ + $ K $ $ + ++ $ ! $
$ % &
?' !=! ! 7BB" 7*( 4 ! ! !'*B?56 *% * & + # 7*B !% ++! ''8> 4 !%! !'*B:5! " $ $
+ " $" + $ $ $
! , % -..
878 !% ++! '7> 4 ! !'*BB56 / # 0
:8 !=! ! 88 4 ! ! !'*B'56 * %
& % % ' $ 8* !=! ! ?( 4&! !; !'*>*5" (() 8B? !( '7*? 47 !'*B75!
$ " "
$ $ 1 + $
$ $ 1 $ + , @!%!
$ $ $ @!%! ++ $ + C $ $
$ + ! (>! % & " ' & " () ! $ $ K $ +
$ + " % &
! $ $
! 1
2 # ( 0 &
')7 !=! ! + $ $ + + :( 4 ! ! !'*?85" <+
$
+ +
$ $ + $ & , @ ! C $ $ ! % 3 + $ $ -
*: !=! ! (B 4%! ! ! !'*?(5! + $$ K $ + % +
+ $ $ $
! "
# $ %
'
!! "
+ $ + $ + +
$ + !
" A$$ " $ $ $ + @!%!
$ $ @!%! + ++ $ + @!%! +
$ $ $ $
! G < & , $ " $ $ $
$ + ! '
$ " $ + ! * & &
# G < $ $ $
+ $ $ +
$ G + ( 4 ! ':)5 + $ + $ +
A A 4 ! '>)5! 1 $ $ " G < $ " + $ , + $ +
$ + ! +
$ + ++ $ " + G < / $ $ + + $
$ + ! @ $ $ $ " , + $
+ ++ ! = (>4 5485" !=! !;! % $ + $ , + $ + " $ $ $ + $
$ + ! $ + $ ! + # & ( & & &
% + $
G < / $ I + + $ $ "J I $ $ J G < $ <+ $ $ $ ++ $
$ + ! G < + $ $ I + + $ $ J I <$ $ $ "J $ $ " + !
+ $
$ + $ $ ++ $ $ $ +
* & $ ! & 4 5 5 ( $ '(' !% ++! B*( 4 ! !'*:85! 9 $ 4 $ + + $ $ $ $ $" " !
& # ! 7B7 @!%! 7B*" ?7 %! ! '7((" ') !& !( 8(? 4'*>75" " % + $ + + $ $ I + $ $ J $ $ $ + $
$ +
$ $ $ $ + $ $ ! + $ + " ! # + ++ "
- $ ++ $ $ <
" $ $ $ $ $ - $ ! $ $ $
! $ $ " *% * & + # 7*B !% ++! ''>?"
!
- $ $ $
$ + $ ! 2% # (
.
6 ! '(( !=! ! 8?(" 8*( 40! ! !'*??5! A$$ " +
$ " + ++ $ " + + $ " $ $
+ $ $ ! 7 *' !=! ! :! % " $ $ <$ $ $ $ + + $ ! % 3 *: !=! ! 7'! A +
/ $ $ K " " - $ $ $ $ $ + $ $ - $
$ $ $ $ $ + $ + $ $ $ $ ! +
+ $
$ ; . $ 6
$ $ + + $ $ $ $,! $ $ $ $ $ + $ - $
$ $ " +
$ ! *' !=! ! 8!
! "
# $ %
(
!! "
@ " $ $ G < $ $ <$ + $ $ $ "
+ $
$ + ! $ +
+ + $ < ! < " " $ $
+ $
$ - $ $ " + "
$ + ! 7 , $ " !
+ $
+ $ G < / $ $ + $ + + + $ " $ $
$ $ $ + + $ $ ! # ++ " + $ !" # *' !=! ! ' 4'*?)5" $ $ $ " *
$ + ! G < / + $ " + " $ $ $
$ + +
$ ! % $ ++ + +
$ + " ! #
+ + $ $ " $ " $ + ! B8? !( ?B'! $ $
$ " + $ $ $
+ $ $
+ + $ $ ! $ $ + /
$ $ + + " & 2% # ( '(( !=! ! 8*(6 *% * & + # 7*B !% ++! ''>?! . $ " $ $
$
+ $ ! # + + $ + " + $ , + $ + ! G < $ $ $ " ! A $ $ " + / $ + !
# " $ - ! " 9 + + + $ G < / $ "
$
+ / $ $ $ $ -
$ + $ + + $ $ !
# + $ + $
$ + " + , ( " $ $ $ $ $ ! , % -..
878 !% ++! '7>" ':: 4'*BB5! 1 + + A+ ('" '**7" $ $ $ + $$
$ ! # ++
" + + $ ?" '*?7" ;
&< C $ G < / $ /87' ++ $ $ + &< + 7( />:? + ! . 2 >" '*?7" &< $ $ G < /
$ C $ ! < / $ $
$ " I <+ $ + + - !J . 2 ?" G <
- $ $ &< + 7( + $ ' " $ $
$ +
(" $ /87' + ! G < $ (
$
$ $ $ '! < -
" />:? + I $ 4 < + 7(5 $ 4$ '?5 $ + $ ++ $ !J $
I ++ $ / $
$ M $NJ I
<+ " + $ $ ! " $ + $
<+ $ + +
+ $ !J
! "
# $ %
!! "
# + $ " G < 2 7" '*?8 $ G < $ ++ - $ ! # $ + $ " $ G < + + $
+ &<
( + + $ &< + 7( '!
+ , + ( $ ! # $ " 4'5 , "
$ + + $ 6 4(5 + 6 475 + $ + + $ + ! 2% # (
.
6 ! '(( !=! ! 8?( 40! ! !'*??5!
% . # & + /
$ 2 9 * 9 " $ G < / %+ $ $ + @ ! ! 9 / $ $
3
A++ + $ + $ " $
+ , ( $
9 $ "
7! @ + O $ - " + $ &< + ' + ++ $ ! ! ( $ % ( -. 89 ( : ;<9=>?= ! ! ' $ < " ! ! !
+ $ $ + < + $ "
+ ! P P P P P P :! A$$ + $ &< 299 ' $ + + $ !!! ' $ ! 3 &
-. 89 !!!
4'5 + + $ &< 299'
< + $
9 $ + + &< + 7( + $ 4 + 56 4(5
+ + +
&< + 7( + $ ++ $
$ &< 299' < + $ $ 4 56 475 G < , &< 299'
+ $ $ + $ &< + 7( + "
&< 299' $ +
< 4 56 485 + $ 4 $ 56
P P P P P P B! + $ ' ( $ %+ $ $ + $ + , + $ $
+ $ ! 9 $ ))'>>" '>B" '>*! M + N! + + $ + $ + $ $ &< 299 '
+ + &< + 7( + $ ! G <
< $ $ + ' + + &< + 7( + $ ! 0 $ + 9 $ $ ; . $ " "
+ + !
+ + + + $ &< 299' + + &< + 7( + $ " $ + $ + $ + ! $
$ $ " $ < $ 9
$
" <
$ $ ( + $
$ ' + + &< + 7( + $ ! 1 $
" " $ $ $ $ + + $ $ G < $ +
< + $ ! + $ < $ 9 $
$
! "
# $ %
!! "
+ < ! G < + 9 $
+ $ < + $
+ ' " + + * + $ " $ ! %+ $ $
" G < / + &< 299' $$ +
$ ++ ' + + $$ < + 7(" ++
" G < $ $ ! # "
I + $ < + 7( $ $ 2 (B" '*BB $ + '(' , ! (>B! + $ + $ + '(( ,!J A++ < G < / .++ + / E ; 4IA++ <J5" &< " (! + + '(' '((
$ ! A++ <" &< #" 2! G < + $ &< + 7( />:? +
/ , $ + '*BB <+ ! + $ <+ + '((
9
$ + " + $ + $
+
/
! A++ <" &< ! &< " '*BB + $ " $ &< 299'! # "
/
+ $ + + + ' '*BB ++ < '*?) $ " 9 ! < + $ $ $ "
$
' +
! A++ <" &< " 7! + $ G < / $
+ <$ + $
/ '*BB <+ $$
&< + 7(! # $ $ + , $ + '*BB <+ + / $ + &< + 7(
$ + $ " G < $ $ $ $
$ ! = $
++ $ $ <+ &< + 7(" 8 " $ < +
<+ G < $ $ < ! A + G < , &< + 7(
+ $ <
&< 299' <
9 $ " + $ $
$ ! + + $ + "
9 $ $ G < / $ + ! * # & A
G < / $ - $ $
( $ - $
$
<+ $ '! $ " $
$
I + J" ( $ I $ + + $
+ $ $ $ $ $ $ !J : + +
$ $ $ $ ( I + J $ G < $ , ' + $ + ++ $ ! G < / +
$ $ $ $ $ * /87' ++ $ " , + + G < " $ />:? ++ $ ! " $ $ $ $
I + J $ +
+ ! # G < / +
/87' + &< + 7( />:? + , + + " /87' ++ $ !
# , ( + " + / $ I $ $
+ + $ M N
$ C $ ++ + , + $ + $
!J *% * & + # :8) !( '(': 48 !'*B>5! $
$ - G < I$ M N <+ !!! # $ <+ $ " + !J + ( & ?>( !( >((" >(: 4B !'*??5!
! "
# $ %
)
!! "
0 + + $ - G < + <+ " $ G < / <+ $ $ + + ! + &< / - " G < / + " G < $
$ ' '*?7" $ + + $ + $ &< + 7( ( ! + $ &< + 7( $
+ + &< + 7( + $ " + $ + $ $ $ ! $ $ $
$ ( + $ , + $ &< + 7( &< $
G < " , $ + ! # <+ $ $ $ "
$ +
$ $ $ (! 9 3
$ $ $ +
$ + $ $ $ + ! $ $ $ C $
+ " <+ $ + $ + + ' ( $ " !!! 4 (5
$ $ $ !!! 4 '5
$ ))'B*! +
+ (
$ $ $ $ + I J $ $ $ ' ! -. 89 G < / + $ + + + $ I
J $ + 6 $ ' (!
. $ " $ G < / <+ $ ! + $ $ $
$ + + &< + 7( + $ ! A
, $ I
J + , +
/ $
+ &< / $ $ " $ $ + ! $ + "
$ + + !
,,,- +1 (0 ,+1
" $
+
$ + $ " + +
$ $ <$ +
$ + ! % $
+
$ "
$
$ $ $ $
+ ! " .= &=&
3 * '! + / $ + G=A & + & #& + " G < $ + $
$ + $$ + + ! (! + / + & #& ! %. .= &=& ! '
'8? !=! ! :7:" (B !=!% !7 B?)
Footnotes
1
Of course, under the doctrine of comity, the privileged status of any communications between Glaxo and Elkington and Fife which relate solely to the prosecution of a British patent application should be governed by United Kingdom law. Duplan Corporation, 397 F.Supp. at 1170. In the United Kingdom, the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 ยง 280 and its predecessor statute, the Patents Act 1977 ยง 104 extend the privilege against disclosure to communications with registered patent agents concerning pending patent proceedings. Accordingly, any of the documents listed in Glaxo's
! "
# $ %
!! "
2
3
4
5
schedule which relate solely to British patent proceedings are protected, and the motion to compel is denied as to all such documents. Genpharm Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical manufacturer who filed an ANDA to market a generic version of Zantac several months before Novopharm filed its ANDA. In response, Glaxo filed an infringement action in this district against Genpharmâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;with issues and allegations similar to those in the instant caseâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;but that case has now been transferred to the District of Maryland. Glaxo has asserted, both in its response to Novopharm's motion and in the affidavit of its trial counsel, Janet B. Linn, that none of the documents listed contain exclusively technical or public information. Novopharm has urged the court not to accept these representations, and to require the documents to be produced in camera for further scrutiny. The court declines this invitation, adopting the court's admonition in Standard Chartered Bank, PLC v. Ayala International Holdings, Inc., 111 F.R.D. 76, 86 (S.D.N.Y.1986): If this court were to review each and every document withheld as privileged in litigation ... for no reason other than counsel's distrust of his adversary, this courthouse could hardly function. [Counsel from whom discovery is sought] has an ethical duty as well as a duty under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 to make a truthful, good faith determination of what documents are privileged and to present a proper listing. The court will depend upon Glaxo's counsel to abide by the courts' holdings with respect to privilege and to produce those documents which under the court's order are not protected. The variation, if any, between Example 32 and Collin's 1977 experiment will be the central question both in ruling on Novopharm's inherency defense and in deciding whether Glaxo's misstatement was materially misleading for purposes of ruling on Novopharm's inequitable conduct defense. Since the court finds no intent to deceive based on Novopharm's showing, however, the court expresses no opinion at this time on the ultimate question of whether Example 32 differs significantly from the Collin experiment. â&#x20AC;&#x153;The fact that Form 2 ranitidine hydrochloride can be prepared using concentrated hydrochloric acid is a very important and most significant factor since it avoids the need to use hydrogen chloride gas,â&#x20AC;? Collin asserts in his declaration. Hydrogen chloride is undesirable, he goes on to say, because it is â&#x20AC;&#x153;a corrosive substance which can only sensibly be obtained for commercial use in the form of a compressed gas and thus is not the easiest of materials to handle and contain under controlled conditions.â&#x20AC;? Collin Declaration at N00179.
End of Document
Š 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
! "
# $ %
!"#"$
! " # $ $ $ $ % " # $" $ $ $" & '" ())*
! " # ! $ % & ' ( ) *
%
" +
,$ " -$ . " + " / 0 1 "
2 " &. " 3 $ 3 " 4 . " % 0 ." . 2 4 5 " + $" 2 6 22$ 1$ 1 " 5" + 0 1 " . 2 . " #
$" 1$ % " ." 5 0 !
" 7 $" . 2 4 5 " + $" 2 2 $ , " - $ . 2 . 2 8 " 6 9:" 2 3 "
6 . 6 2 . 6 228 6 6 " 2 6 2 6 66 $ . 6 22 6 . 2 .
6 $ ! " # & - *" ():)" # . 6 22 . . 2 ; . 2 6 . . . 6 66
2 . $
" . . 2 " . 6 22 .
$ # . " # . . 6 < . 6 2 . . . 2 . 6 22 $ . 6 2 - *" ():)"
. 2 . 2 2 .
2 .
6 6 6 66 . 2 . 6 $ . 6 22 .
. 2 . 6 "
$ = " >(? $* @99" (@9 A!3B @:' C: . $ ()@)D$ # . = "
. 2 66 2 . . ; . . .
6 . 2 2 . 2 2
. 2 6 " . E . . 6 2 . 6 6 . 6 6 66 2 .
6 $ $ $ $F # $ @9@" (@9 A!3B @:: @:? C #
" >(G $* (?:" ()G )( C9 $ ()@)DH
$ / " 9)* $* @?@" @)(" (': A!3B (?9" (?@ (?: C(G . $ ()@?DD$ # ; " . 6 6 2 2 . .
2 I 6 .
6
. 6 $ # % " # $ $ , 8 " 9*G $* 9(>" 9*9 C: . $ ()@9D" $ " 9:' A$!$ )*) C()@>D" . < 2 +
. .
6 " . E 2
6 "F . E J 2
2 K 6 "F
$ # . . 6 6 2 66 . $ ! 6 6 $ 4
5 " # $" 9): $! 66$ ((>@" ((') @G" (?> A!3B ::'" :?G :?( C $!$ $ ():'D$ . 6 22 . . 2 . . . 6 . . 2 I 6 . < $ # 2 . . 6 6 . . 6 6 2 6 66 . 6 2
" $ $" , 3 2 3 $ $ A ! 3 6$" (? $ $ $ >@9" (G? A!3B *)> C!$ $ $ $ ()'@DH = . 6$ $ 6$ 2 " (*( $! 66$ :)*" (G( A!3B 9(@ C $ $ ()'>D" . $ ! !6 $ " 9:9 A$!$ 9:)" 9?9" (9: A!3B ':?" ':) '?G C()@9DH
$ = " 6 H
0 5 6 $ -$ 3$ ! 0 $" '( $ $ $ *()" (@) A!3B *)@ C $!$ $ ():(D$ $ / " . 2 . I 6 . 6 $ . " . . . .
. = . 6 6 2 2 . 6 "
- 5 + " # $ $ 6 " 'G $ $ $ **'" **?" (@@ A!3B *)'" *): *)? C $ $ $ ():GDL
! "#$% %&% $# ' ( )
!"#"$
E . . < 2
. . 66 2 6 2
2 22
I6 5
.
6 . $ . < 2 . 2
2 2 . 2 . 6 $ . " . 2 6 . 2 .$ & 2 2
2 $ $ $ $ F4 . 2 . 2 6 2
2 6 6 2 6 6 2 6
66 . 6 2 . 6 M 6 . 6 " I6 2 6 " 6 " 6 2 . 6 $ ! .
. I . 2 6 .. $ " .
I . 6 2 . 2 . 3 &22 $ / . 2 2 2
. 3
&22 6 9' A$!$ $ N((*" . . 6 . . . . 3 &22 $
.
. < 2 . 2
6 .
" 2 2 .
8 $ ? + " 1 N*9(( C()@(D$F . E . F . 66
" 2 . . . I6 .
. = . . 6
. 2 . $ ! . $ # $" # $" >@* $! 66$ :*?" *G9 A!3B 9'' C $ $ , $ ():?DH / # $ $ 1II 6$" >9> $! 66$ (9@" ()@ A!3B >G( C $ $ ()::DH ! 4 6$ $ O I 6$" :G $ $ $ 'G? C $ $ ():@DH 6 6$ $ 4
5 " # $" 6 H % # $ $ 1II 6$" @' $ $ $ *@" (?9 A!3B :*) C $ 4 $ ():>D$ . . . . . 6 . 8 .
$ % " # $ $ , 8 " 6 " 9*G $* 9*>$ . 6 2 . . 2 I 6 . 8 6 . - 5 + L % E . 2 .
2 6 6 6 2
6 6 66 L $ $ $F '> $ $ $ >>" >:" (:* A!3B *G(" *G* *G9 C $ $ $ ():(D$ 66 . . ; " # . . . 2
6 . 2 L C(D
! . 2 ! . " & *G" ()@'H C*D - % ! " - '" ()@@$ # . I 6 " . . 2 . . . 6 . 6 . . 2 6 6 L C D . 2 66 5 . 6 H C D % . . 6 5 H C D
5 2 6
" 2 < 2 . " 6
$ ! &6 6$ $ A ! " (?G A!3B (>9" (>' C $ $ ():9D C C DDH 6 6$ $ 4
5 " # $" 6 " 9): $! 66$ ((@?" (?> A!3B :?@ :?: C C D . . C DDH - 5 + " # $ $ $" 6 " '> $ $ $ >:" (:* A!3B
*G* *G9 C C D C DD$ 1 . 2 . 2
2
. 2 . 2 6 L C9D
! . % ! " - )" ()@'H C>D % !
! . " & ((" ()@>H C'D ! .
- " & (>" ()@'H C@D % ! ! . " - ((" ()@@H C:D ! . - " - (>" ()@@H C?D % !
! . " 4 . *" ()@@H C)D % ! ! . " - *'" ()@@H C(GD 7 1 - " (>" ()@:H C((D % ! 7 1 " *)" ()@?H C(*D $,$
. - " - ()" ():G$
" 66 . 2 . "
*" ()@)" 2 C(9D +
! . 1 . " . .
$ # 6
$ ! & ' ( )# ! *+
! "#$% %&% $# ' ( )
!"#"$
/ . . 6 66 . .. " #
. < . . . 2 . . 6 2 . 2 2 . 6 22 22
. 6 $
$ = " 6 " >(? $* @9@" (@9 A!3B @:: @:?$ 2 I 2 . ; " . 6 8 . " # . . 2 .
. < . $ +. . 2 . . . . 6 22
2 2 6 66 " . 2 .
. . . 2 " 2 66 " . 6 . 6
22 H . 2 . 5 6 2 $ &6 6$ $ A ! " 6 $ &2 " 2
< . 6 . 2
. . 6 2 " 6 2 . ..
$
$ = " 6 " >(? $* @9@" (@9 A!3B @:: @:?$
. 6 228 6 6 " 2 6 2 6 66 . . 6 . 6 2
( . . (9 . 6 $ . . 2 . 2
6 . 6 2 . 6 228 6 6 " 2 6 2 6 66 . . 6
. "
. 6 $ . . 6 22 6
. 2 . 6 2
(
. . (9 . 6 . 2 2 . 2 . $ --
6 $! 66$" ():) +7 *>)::" *G) A$!$3$B$ ('(
, . 2 " . . 2 . 2 6 . 6 2 End of Document
Š 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
! "#$% %&% $# ' ( )
*
! " # $ % & ' $ ( & $ ) " *'$+& , --& %(+. / $*'(# '& ( 0& $ - " 1 & , --& % - $ & ( & $ - " ' 2 %3 4 +#& ' 2 %3 4 +# 5 # 6 " 47 7
!! " # ##$ % & ' %$ ( ) )## " # # $ ! " # $ % " #
$ $ * # + ( , & ) & &'
# ) -) ) ,
.) /0 1 () - # ' - ' 2 3 2 $ 453 # ' # 6 2 '3 , # 0 2 $ 783$ 9 - ## # - & :
' # '$ ## &) & ' ;- ' - ' :
' - & $ # : ) ( $
## : - ## - ' ' '$ ' - ' # - ## $ < : &#) $ (- # ' - ## ' * 6 - & # * : & = # " : > 78 $?@ 2 ) "3 ' & &
& )& -) ) A? + ( ( 9@5B 2 ) ""3$ ## ' 0 6 - # : 2 ) " ""3 ) # - 2 ) """3$ ## ' # # ## - : - #
# < : & '
& & ' & & ) $ ' &
# - ## # ) )
) ) ) & # # < : $ ' # ) # C) 1) $ )& ' &
) '
' # & - # & ## ' # # & # ) $ 0 : - ## # ' # ( - A ?89B ) & ) ' D ?894$ * : - ## # ' # ?5 ?885 ) & ) ' 9A ?897$ : '6 , ' # ) ' ?89A ) ?89D ) ' ) #
, ' $ ! ) , ' ## ) ' 9 ?894$ < :
# # # - ?89D ) & ) ?B ?894$ E : - ' ( ## $ & '
' # '$ ) & ' - ## - , ' ! $ , ' ! & - ' & & - ## )- # '
' $ 2 $ 78 B 9A 9D3$ & & : *
F: & & G# H # & : -- I , ' ! # 6 $
: '
' ' & ' &J # & ' & ) # : &
)&
'$ "
$ #
! " # $ % &
" : : # G ' '
'H$ &) 2 $ 78 B ?B3$ , ' ! #
)- ) # '
' ) : & ) ' )
: ) ' # # # #
'
'$ 2 9A ?? ?BK 78 A ?3$ , ' ! ' # - ' 1) & # '
' & - ' & - ## $ 2 $ D? 9 9? 97 ?53$ # < : # -
'
' F: # &) & ) 1) # # # &I 0 $ 2 $ 7B 9 43$ ? ## - # ( ## : # F- ) I ' '
' : - * ) -
& ) ' & & - ## 6 - ' , ' 6 $ 2 $ 79 53$ - ' 1) &
# ( ## # ) ' - # & & - ' ) F : ) )& ' '
'$I 2 $ D? 9 BA3$ )
: - & & # ( ## #
F: ' ) & & , $ * 6 - ' ) )
)& ) # '$$$$I 2 3$ # ( ## #) #
: : # - # - - ' ' * '
' ) F ' & #) I - & ) # & & * $ 2 AA3$ , ' # - ' 1) &
: # * )
'
' ) ' ' - $ 2 9543$ & ' :
'
- & - ## '
' : # : ) - & - ) # & FG H ) : ' - ' & # ' # & & ' 0 ' * # 7 ?894 $$$$I 2 $ 78 B 53$
F% ' - ' ' ' & & ' - &
' # $I ?@5 $ $ $ A?5 ABB 2 $ $ " : ?89A3$ - ' : # #
' - & ) # &
& - $ D7? $? D@4 48@ 25 $ 9@753 2 3$ F L
' - & # - & # # ) : :$M I 4D7 $B 455 784 87 25 $ ?8993 2C) & !" #" AA@ +$($ B5B B5@ 29@5933$
'
- & - # ) :
' # -) - # # &
# & $ 787$ * ) :
' F- #
# # & G H
# : - & : &
'$I D7? $? 498$ F% ' : ) : # ) :
' - & ) 1 )
# $I $" 7B9 $? DD7 D4? 25 $ 9@5A3$ F+ # : B
#
' - & N 293 # ) K 2?3 :' ) K 2B3 # - ' -) - # ) & & - & & - &$I % &' #" ( " ?D5 $ $ $ B98 B9D 2 $ $ ;$ ?88@3 2# & 3$ &* - ) # < D8B : ' & ) < & ) - F ) #) & - # ; # # : #
' - & $I ) * + , " - 99? $B @9D 2 C)
3$ ) D8B - - - # : N + , - . ) ) N +', F I - -) ## - & O ' -) - :
! " # $ % &
- # & ' :' : ) :' : : & - # & # G H$ +), F :' I - ) O ' ' ) O - : ' $ +*, F - # :' I - '
:' # - # & $ +/, ) F # I #
- : ) #) # # - # & ' ' # # ) $ +0, 1 21 - 3 1 ( . - &
#) - ' - # & # ) #
-) - # # & # - # & 293 : G #H G H - G H :' G H :' 6 - 2?3 : G H :' :' 6 - 2B3 ' G H G H :' :' - &
# 2A3 : - # : - # 2D3 : :' - & $ +4, 56 41 6 3 1 ( . - & ' ' $$$$ - : : :' # ) '
- & ) ' # # $ E G H ) ' - ) # '$ - < $ $ <=" $ D8B$ * ) - ' - & &
' ' ) - ' $
" . . % / #" 58D $? 9?8 9?A 2B $ 9@543 2FG H ' - &
; - ## 6 #) : - & - ## $I3K " " $ 8A A85? ,* ?88D *! 984A@B P94 2 $ $ " : $ 9? ?88D3 2 &
' - & &
- ) ## #
- 3$ - & ) ' ' - ' : : - # ) : '
' # -) - # & & ' F I : & # - & $ $" 77B $? 9@4 @7$ '
' F
'I : & #
- & $ ' :
' - & ' ;- ' ' - $ " ( / #" + 45B $? 9?89 9?84 25 $ 9@5?3K - ,+ D8A $? BB? BB4 25 $ 9@7A3$ * : - : # & - #
' ) $ " 45B $?
9?84$ " $" 77B $? 9@4 2F* : - : # & - #
' ) $I3K & 0 " #" " " #" B9B $ ()--$? @D9 9895 ?B 2 $ $ " : ?88A3 2 ) & - ' :
' - & )
' & & ) : ) )
- & - ' : - # : : 3$ F
'/ - & : ' ) ' ) # - & ) ) '- ' -- ' ) :
) ) 1
$I 0 ,, ) 1 + - 0( 957 $B @55 @@? 25 $ 9@@@3$ - & ' : ' & # ) # $ " 2 9B5 $B 9?49 9?4B 25
$ 9@@53 2 & - ' F '
- & ) # # #) # ) & - # : G
'H # : # $I3$ - ' ' ' - ' :
'
- & ' F- G &H ) ) : & # '$I " # + "3 0 * + % #" ?A5 $ $ $ ?97 ??8 2($ $ " : ?8853$
&/ ## &) ;- - : #
' - & $ 0
;- : : - ## # ' ) - & ' ' ;-
! " # $ % &
'
: #
' - & ; : # 2 & 3 '
'$ #
) # ;- : #
- & $
& # ' - ## &)
F:
' --
& ) G H & & &
' - & -- '$I 2 $ 7B 9 993$ )
& : # :
) # -
) '
' : & & - ## 6 # & $ :
, ' : ) & # '
'$ '
' ' , ' : ) ' : , ' ) ) & ' : - ' ) # )
& '
' & - ' $ - # - )- : - ## ' - : - ) '
' : & ) : # $ ## &) - : # - & $ )& - ## 6 &) -- - ## & ' - ' : - & ' & # ) # / ' & # ) $ : - : ) ) ; : N F293 - 2?3 # '$I " 45B $? 9?84$ F: - $$$ : ) $$$ - ) - : # : ) ) # - # - & $I 2 & 5 $ *"%,0 < <=" < < > ?B55 5DD3$ - : # - & ' ## ' & # - '6 )-
'6 $ " 2 9B5 $B 9?4B$ "
' # ) # $ # ) # ' )
# ' - ' & ' )
' # & $ '
: 1) # & - ' & - ## ) ' & # )- # ) $ ' - ## 2 $ 7B 9 9D3 ) & # #
- & ) ' # $ , , ' ! ) ) & :
'
' ' - C) & ' - ## 6 ) K , ' ! # '
' 1) # # $ ## & , ' ! F - ' - ' ) ' , $ ' ' )- , $ 6 $I 2 3$ : )-- $ , ' ! #
) '
' #
'
' & # ## $ " ;- ' )
' & & : & ) ' - ' : - ' $
' $ ; - ## ' : ) ) : 1) ' ) # ' # ' & # ) # - ## ) ' # & $ &7 ## -- ' - ' :
' - & ' & # '
'6 ) ' - ' $ : ) & # ' ) ) #
' )
# : # ) # $ " 45B $? 9?84$ - ' ' - ' :
' - & : ) # - # ' # $ # "" - " #" # # 4/.# 54@ $? 99DD 994? 25 $ 9@5@3$ E & :
- # - - ' 1) & ) # - ' # ) :
'
' - ' $ - ' ' # ' #
'
' & & : ) ) : & ) ' $ " ) # ' ;- ' - ' :
' - & $
: : ) ) # - ## 6 # & ) # & , ' ! ' '
'$
! " # $ % &
' # 6 2 '3 , # 0 2 $ 783$ # # ) ( , .) /0 1 () - # ' - ' 2 3 2 $ 453 #
?@ ' # , ?895$ 11 "
( - -' ?895 *! 9DA799@
Footnotes
1 2 3
References to the docket in this order are to pleadings in Wendt v. City of Denison, 16-CV-4130-LTS. The parties have filed identical pleadings in the companion case of Ohl v. City of Denison, 16-CV-4131-LTS. Plaintiffs cite to depositions taken in this case, including that of former Chief Emswiler, but did not attach the depositions or excerpts as exhibits to their briefs. Therefore, the Court can only rely upon the representations made by plaintiffs in their brief as to the content of those depositions. In their briefs, both parties and Franck cite to Iowa law regarding application of the attorney-client privilege. In a case in federal court based on diversity, the Court applies â&#x20AC;&#x153;federal law to resolve work product claims and state law to resolve attorney-client privilege claims.â&#x20AC;? Baker v. Gen. Motors Corp., 209 F.3d 1051, 1053 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing Simon v. G.D. Searle & Co., 816 F.2d 397 (8th Cir. 1987)). See also Union Cty., Iowa v. Piper Jaffray & Co., Inc., 525 F.3d 643, 646 (8th Cir. 2008) (â&#x20AC;&#x153;Because this is a diversity case, the determination of whether attorney-client privilege applies is governed by state law.â&#x20AC;?). In this case, however, this Court has jurisdiction based on a federal question; therefore, federal law applies to resolve the attorney-client privilege claim here. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 112 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir. 1997); Hollins v. Powell, 773 F.2d 191, 196 (8th Cir. 1985). Federal Rule of Evidence 501 provides: The common lawâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;as interpreted by United States courts in the light of reason and experienceâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;governs a claim of privilege unless any of the following provides otherwise: the United States Constitution; a federal statute; or rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. But in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision. Federal law governs federal claims even if state law claims are asserted in the same action pursuant to the court's supplemental jurisdiction. Mem. Hosp. for McHenry Cty. v. Shadur, 664 F.2d 1058, 1061 n.3 (7th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, â&#x20AC;&#x153;state law is still relevant and should be considered by federal courts when determining whether a state privilege should be recognized as a matter of federal law.â&#x20AC;? Ray v. Winslow House, Inc., No. C97â&#x20AC;&#x201C;0226, 1999 WL 33655723, at *2 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 15, 1999).
End of Document
Š 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
! " # $ % &
!"#
! " # $ % & ' $ % ( ) " * ( % ( + ( " , - " . " + !/ 0 1 2 &
%& % (
0 " % / & 1 (( & 3 ! " # ( 40 + 5 # - & # ( $ / 0 ( . +
6 7& 4 # 8. " 4(( + 3 % ( * 0 "& % ( 2 / & $ ( " % ' 9 %: ; <;=)* >54 ? @ A " # / 0 &
!" #$% & ' ( ) ! *% + , - #" - ) ". / / 0 ' 1 23
" 1 4 23
5 23
* %* 6
7 !" #%+ ' " 8 7 - 5 8 7 */ 6 -
- 7 !" #%+*
-9 1 : ) ' ; 1 <- = ( 1 ) > - - ' ( / * ' >, 1 **$ , 4 '! % " - < 0 ? ? ! ; < ! " @ ) - 9 > 7 ' ( 7 5 6 % $
6 !" #%* $ ' ) '= =0" 'A>0 <: B * < A>C 'A ! D= B =CC= 3">'A " ,= C = : ) 4
<-)4
:; 1 ! EF:; 1GH
) 1; 4 ; )- 4 1 1 ) - ) 97 ! 7 1 )2 EF! 7GH
- ) - ) - E< I ' > */% *H C ! 7 4- 4 1 1 )
-9@ 7 ; ( 4 ) - ; ) 1 ) - E H :; 1
! 7 ( ) 7 ; ( 4 4 1 1 ) - 1 19 J- ) ; - ) ) ; 7 E H C ) ( 7 ) ;- ) - ) 4 ) E ) I ' > */+H " 4
1 ) ; 19 $ * 6 9 - ) 1 4 ; 4 1 1 ) -9@ 7 ; ( 4 ) - ; ) 1 ) -
! ! 7 ! - 1 19 C 1 3 - ' ;- 7 " 7 0 < ) 4 ) ' ; "4
1 EF '"GH 9
! 7 ) :; 1 E< = "H A ! - 1 19 - J- ) 4 1 1 ) ; ; ) 97 ! 72 - ) - )
- 4 ) 4
1 7 2 - )
4 ; ' ;- 7 " 7 0 ) ; 4 1 4
1 ;- ; ) 7 - ) ) E H A -) ) ; 1 )) ; 4 4 - 4 7 4 ) 4 '" * ; -1 9 7 )) ; 1 4 1 1 ) - E + H C ! 7 ! - )4 ) 4 9
! - 1 19 - ) ' ;- 7 " 7 0 ) )- 4 ; ! 7 ! - 1
4 1
! 7 ! - ) - ) '" ) ) - E< = H '- 4 ) ( 7 ! 7 ; )- ) ;7 ! - 1 19 - 2 E< H
" #$ ! ! 6 ) - ! ( )- /E9HE*H ; 1 F) ( 7 4 ) 4 7 ; ( 4 ) 1 ( 7 ; 72 1 ) G C 1 -4 F
) 9 )1 9 G 4
! " # $ % &
!"#
F ;; 9 7 - ) ) ) ( 7 )1 9 ( ) G 6 ) - =( ) $ * ; ( ) K F ( 4 ( ; ( 4 4 ) 4 1 ) -;; - ) G 8 ( FL M ) J- 1 ) ; ) 1 ; ) ; ( 4 ;; G % 6 ) / #&% E# ! $H E 1 )H
$ 6 ) / / # E# ! #H E ( 4 ) - 2 ) )- - ;; ) ; ( 4 H 6 ) 11 4 ? 7 ; ( 4
/* 6 ) **% **$/ E# ! * HI $ 6 ) / # C ; ( 4 FE*H L M 4 )( 7 ) -4 E H 1 ; 4 )( ; 7 - E H 11- 4 ;- ; E%H 1 )
) E$H 97 E/H
; 1 7 ; ) E+H 1 ) - 97 1 97 4 )( E H - ; 9
( ) G /* 6 ) **$/ FC ; 7 4 ; ( 4 9 9- ) ; ( 4
1 G E ) J- 1 )H F: ) ) 7 ; ( 4 7 - ) G $ 6 ) / #
! # ## % 7 1 ( -
< :; 1 ) 4 ( ) ( 7 ; ( 4 K E*H ! - 1 19 - 2 ) - ;
4 1 1 ) ' ;- 7 " 7 0 )I E H 97
! 7 ! - ! - 1 19 - 2 )- F
1 11- ) 4 7 * * G )- 4 -9 J- ; ! 7 ! - 1
4I ) E H ! 72 ! - 2 ; )- ! - 1 19 - 2 )- 4 ) ( 7 C ! 7 ( ) (
7 ; ( 4 % " 7 7 ; ( 4 !
%%# : # * * ! /++ // =) ) $ % E*# *H E 4
"
# $ / : * / $ ! / $#
=) $# E*#*$HHI %% &
' %%( ) * %+* : % % * $ ! *# / $ =) ) + E*# $H EFA 97 9 )
7 ; ( 4 ; ) ( )- GH E 1 )H " 7 1- ; 4 ? 1 7 ( ; ( 4
% % 6 ) $#/ / E/ ! $H EFL"M 1- ; 7 7 ; ( 4
( ;
) 4 GH
= C"C= =>C EC8A 'H 6 ", 0 D= >A>0 ",B= NN + +% E H FC ; ( 4 4 ( 1 1 7 9 ) ( ) 97 ; 9 ;-9 9 )7 C
) 7 ; 9 ; 9 )7 J- 4 ( 1 G N +% 1
% 6 ) / $ EFL0M 7 ( 9
1- ; ) 1- ; 72 -
1- ; 7 7 ) ( )- L M GHI + * / 6 ) * $ * E/ ! *# #H E 7 ) 7 - 1 7 ;- ; 7 ; ( 4 HI
, % / 6 ' / /$ E= ' D /H E -) 4 9 - ;; 1 ) 1 ( 7 7 1 ) ; - 7 - 7 - 7 72 ) - 7 7 - ) ( ; ( 4 HI
! C ) 5 = 1 ' %* . , , / %% % 0 ! / /% E*##%H EF, 4 )( ; ( ) ) 7 - )- 4 - (
1- ; 4 ? ) ) ( )- 7 - 1 19 C 7 7 1 7 (
; ( 4 H E 1 )H C " ; ( ) FL M ; 1 7 ) ) 1 9
J- ) 97 9 4 ; ) L -) 4 ) 4 ; ) 4 4 M ; ) ( -
4 ( 9 )7 - ? ) - ) 1 G !" 0 D2C ! '= N $%#/ E H " ) * 0 :; 12 4-1 ! - 1 19 - 97 ) 4 ' ;- 7 " 7 0 ) ( ) 7 ; ( 4
1 4 ; 4 1 1 ) J- ) < * A ; ! 7 F 7 - 7 - ? (
; ( 4 97 ( 1 ;; ( 97 -
! " # $ % &
!"#
O - - - ? ) 4
- 1 19 ) - ( G E 1; 4 H C - 4
" ! 7 ; - " ; 9 ) - F ) 1 9
J- ) 97 9 4 ; ) L -) 4 ) 4 ; ) 4 4 M ; ) ( -
4 ( 9 )7 - ? ) - ) 1 G !" 0 D2C ! '= N $%#/ E H C ; ( ) ; ( 1 7 ; ( 4 1
$ , "" , +% 6 -;; ) *** ** / % EFLCM 11- 1 )
- ) - ; " 7 ( )
1 ; ( 4 I ) ; ( ) - 2 ) 1 L M ;; ; ( 4 GH 8 ( ) ; ( - - 1 7 ! - 1 19 - 4 ) ( )- - 1 19 ) - ! 7 ! - 2 ;; ( ) - 7 ( ; ( 4
1 4 ; 4 1 1 ) J- ) C - -) ) )
% 0 " / 6 ' %/# %+# E H EFA 9 ) ; )
- ( 1 ) P ; ; 2 - 9 )2 ;; ( -) 9 ) ; ) ( 7O ; ( 4 1- 1
4 ) O 9 ) - 9 )2 ;; ( GHI 1 0 ' 2 2 %* 6 -;; * # * ##&*% E' ' *##%H E ;; 7 4 ; ( 4 ) 4 7 ; ; - - 1 19 2 1 )- 4 ) ; ( ( - 2 7 ; ( 4 H :; 12 4-1 ) * & ) :; 1 4- ! 7 ! - ) ! - 1 19 - 2 ( ) - ) ; ! 7 ! - 1
4 ! - 1 19 - 2 ' ;- 7 " 7 0 ) 2 ;
) ( ) J- ! 7 " 7 J- 4 ) 4 4 ; '" < * C 4-1 1
F ) 1 ) -4 4 ; 97 ; ; 4 2 G 3 2 * 6 -;; ) * %+ 1 7 9 ; 1; ) F9 ) )-
;- ; ) ; ; 1 ) ; 1 7 9 7 ) G * %+ E 1 )H A ; ; ! 7 ! - 1 19 - ) ) ' ;- 7 " 7 0 ) ! 7 ! - 9-
) ( ) 1 " 1 1-1 ! 7 ! - ! - 1 19 - 2 9- ; " 4 ) 1 1 )-1 - ) ! 7 ! - 1 19 ; 7 * * 1
4 -;;
7 * * "4 ) 1 1 7 -4 19 1 ) ! 7 ! - * C 1 1 ) K F! - 1 19 - ) ) ' 19 * # "02
4 "02 2 - ) ) 4 ! 72 9 4 - ) '" C ! - 1 19 - ( ) ; 7 1 "02 ) ) ' 19 *$ # ) G C ; 7 * * (
! 7 ! - J- 7 )) ! - 1 19 - 2 ' ;- 7 " 7 0 ) C ( ; ; ) K L M 7 ! - 1 19 - ) L 7 -4 M ( )
1 " 7 0 2 I ) 4 ) " ) O ) 7 ( ) 2 ;-9 1 A21 OA21 9 4 7 )
C ! 7OA21 4 4 ) 1 1 < L M ) 2 -; ( 4 ) ;- 7 7 4
" 7 0 2 L M 7 < = EC 7 * * ! 7 ! -
4 ##K %&* K+H " ( ) :; 12 ) 4-1 ; ) K FA - ) 1 ( ) ! 7 " 7 ;-9 7 1; J-
! " # $ % &
!"#
L M -9 ) 4
1 1 4 7 " 7 0 ; QG ** K*&$ " ( 97 ! 7 ! - ! 7 " 7 ; ) ) K FA2 7K C 2 4
1 O97 - ) - ( ) (
- ) ( " 7 0 G ***K* & * C - ) ( > 4 ) ! 7 ! - ) ( ) ! - 1 19 - 2
) )4 C 4 ) 1 1 ) 1
4 ; 9 9 ! 7 ! - ! - 1 19 - ) ' ;- 7 " 7 0 ) 4 ) 4 - ) ) 4 ! 72 9 4 - )
'" > 4 ) ) ! 7 ! - 1 ) J- 1 ; ( 4 ) 4 1 1 ) -) ) ! - 1 19 - 2 C - 9 ! 7 ! - ) ! - 1 19 - 2 )- 9 1 4 ! 7 ! - 1 1-1 ; ! - 1 19 - 2 3 2 * 6 -;; ) * %+ E) 7 4 -11 7 @-)41 ; 2 4 1 ) 1; 4 ) ) 4 4 2 )- - ) -;; 1 H 6 :; 12 ) 4-1 ! ) * , ' A - ) ;- ) ! 7 ; )- ) ! - 1 19 - 2 )- 4 ) ( 7 4 - ) :; 1 ( - -) ) 7 7 ; ( 4
- ) ( ) 1 ) 4 1 1 ) J- ) < * C - ) ) FD - 7 ) - ; ; ( 4 ) 11- ( 1 ) ; ( 4 ) 11- 9 - 1 -9@ G 1 + # + %* 6 -;; # / # # E> ' ! *#+/H
, #* 6 ) * +$ * +# E# ! *## HI ) 4
# % /%+ 6 ) * %& $ E# ! *# *HI 3 ' ( " + + 6 ' /* / $ E> ' ! /H
" ! 7 ; - ; )- ) ( 7 1 1 " 1 ; )- )
) ( 7 ) )7 9
) ) ; 7 ' ;- 7 " 7 0 ) ) # ! - 1 19 - 4 7
C ! 72 ; )- ) 4 ) -1 )7
) ' ;- 7 " 7 0 ) J- 7 ;-9 ) C 4 ! - 1 19 - 2 - 7 ( 7 ; ( 4 ( ! 7 1 ( 4 )
1 4 ; 4 1 1 ) -
) 4 ; )- ! - 1 19 - 2 8 ) ! - 1 19 - 9
19- ) - - 7 1 - - ) ( 9 ) A 4 - 1 19 4 - 7 ) - J- - 7
) ; ! 7 ! - 2 7 ; ( 4
!" 0 D2C ! '= N $%#/ E HI
% 6 ) $#/ / $I + * / 6 ) * I
/ 6 ' /$I % / 6 ' %+# C ! 7 ! - 1- 9 9 7 ; ;
( ; ( 4 1 7 7 9 ) 97 7 9 ) ;
! %%# : # C - 1; -; 1 ! - 2 4- )
- 7 ; ( 4 K LAM ;- ; 7 ; ( 4 9 ( )
7 ) 1- 9 9 ; ) 1 ) 4
7 ; - ) - 9 ; ) " - ; ( 4 ;- ; 9
9- - ) 7 ( 7 4 ;; 97 -
9 ; ( 4 " ) 4 7 :; 12 ) 4-1
( # 6 9 ( - )
1 4 ; 4 1 1 ) J- ) ! - 1 19 - 2 -9@ 7 ; ( 4 ) - ; ) 1 ) - AC A '= ='
! " # $ % &
!"#
))
> ; ) 6 -;; ) * , $ +%
Footnotes
1 2
3
Upstream included a copy of Counci l member Butt's letter, including the two-page attachment, as Exhibit A to the parties' joint letter, Dkt. No. 164. Upstream asserts that Counci l member Butt quoted at least two memoranda in that letter. The City has not established that the legal memoranda at issue were first transmitted to the City Council during a closed session of the type contemplated by the Brown Act. The court presumes this was the case. However, even if the legal memoranda were shared in some other context, the Brown Act helps define the contours of an individual council member's authority generally. When considered along with the case law on the issue, the Brown Act, even if only indirectly, bolsters the City's claim that Counci l member Butt lacked the authority to effect a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. In the joint letter, Upstream argues that ratification occurred â&#x20AC;&#x153;at the time of [Council member Butt's] communication and again on May 18, 2010.â&#x20AC;? Joint Ltr. at 2. By definition, ratification occurs â&#x20AC;&#x153;after the factâ&#x20AC;? and thus could not have occurred at the time of Council member Butt's communication. Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp., 312 F.Supp.2d. 1229, 1247 (N.D.Cal.2004).
End of Document
Š 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
! " # $ % &
!
! " # $ " % &'!& ( $# ()$& ! )* )&($ #" " * ++ " ,(),- ! )* )&($ #" + # ../01 2) '3 4 5 10"
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
$# 2 ! & ) ' !$ ? $ ' ' ) ! $ )$! !* ) & "' ! ! ) ! $ )$! !* & &$ ' +* ( " # ''* #$ % "* !' + ' % 554 57 4- -77 .78 .-6 86 : , -/8 ;-./7<= ( ' +* !' & ) ' $ #$ )$! !$ '$ $ 1 $+ '' ' $ !' ( $ #$ 1 & $ # & $# $ ' % $ $ " ! $ ( 5,4 6.- 576 .8 -48. -499 5/ : , 6. ;-.98< + !$ ? & &$ $# & ) ' $ " @ $ !$ !' $ % 1 # '' !'$ $ $ * A $ ' #$ & ) ' '$ " !$ ? "* $
!" # $%" -,/
585 597 . -,4 -,9 6, : 5// ;-///< ;& ) ' @ #$ &$ ! * % $ $# 2 ! $# $# & $ ) 1 $+' $# ' + 1 '' & ! ! + ! ! ! $ '* " # '* '* ) ' $# + # # $% !$ 3 ! $ && $ $# !'$ A< $ ' 3 % $# $ * !' & ) ' ) " "* $# $ B %$ #$''$+ = ;-< + ' ' ) ! $# * 1 $ ;,< # $% & $# $ ' ' ' ) $ ! & ! * ! ;6< !$%% ! $ ' $ & &$ ;5< % !$ # ! ;4< "* !' ;8< ! & % '* & $ ! ;9< # $% !'$ "* % '# $ "* ' ' ) $ ;/< 0! & & $ ! $ " + )
/ B C D > ,,., ; ! $ ) -.8-<
&" &
' $ ( 6.9 E && --58 --87F8- ; -.94<G ' ) /. E && 649 64/F4. ; -.47<G 5 ( E : H ,8 87I,JG B CK L ::: D : > ,7-9G -, E $! : > 66=-.4 ' $ ' % $# $ * !' & ) ' & ) ' +$ ' $ '* & ) !'$ $# !' ( !$%% ! $ $ $ *
! " # $
!
$+ + '' "' MI J & ) ' &&' ! "' $ !$%% ! $ # $% $ * $ !' + '' !$%% ! $ $ $ * # $% !' N *
( + 448 E && 9. /4 ; -./,<
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nd of Document
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
$ &$ E && -..- B: 55-.75 Š 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
! " # $
! " # # # # $ ! " #! #%# #! & '! ())*
- + +
+
+ , +
,
5 + + , - -
! - ! + + #
! "# $ %$ &' % (( ) **$# $ %$ &'"$# ( ) & # + , - . / +00
" + , , - +
+ , -- +
# - % ! .# / - ! % 0 ! - - 1(2 +
+ - 3 , + , 4 1*2 , + +
- 3 - + 5 + -
+ - + , 6 + + , + ++ 4 172 - + , , + , , , ! -
- + + , - - ,4 182
- , + , + , ! 1'2 + ,, 3 + + # & - + #
/ 9 18*2
/ 5 + + % - - - , ,
5 + + + ,
, , - , , + ,, , + - #
/ 5 + +
( - - -
/ 5 + + : 5
+
+ , + ,
+ 5 +
4 + , + + + , + , , 6
# * - - -
/ 5 + + : 5 % + , ,
- + + , +
+ ,
, 5 + ,, - + , + ,
+ 5 + , + , # ; - - -
- - -
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
.
4 :
: + , +
" -
+ !
- 3 , 6+ 4 5 +
++ , + - + 3 ,
- ,
5 + + + + + #
+ + ,
-
+ , ,
# 7 - - -
!
: + , +
+ , - , + + + , , , , ,
- - - - , ++ , + , #
*' - - -
$
- - -
"
> - - -
#
$
< 4 ,
+ ++ ,= - , + -
4 + - , , - - 4 , , - -
, -
- + , , + + , + - + ,
+ 4 , + + ,
4 + - #
: , - , < +
: , - , < +
+ 6
?
+ - - +
- - - , , ! , ! -
5 , + ,
! - +
- - , 3 , + # (' - - -
%
+ ! + - + ! ! - & - + + -
+ , + 3 , @ A , + + , 5
+ # - - -
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
+ ! + - + ! ! - + + ,
+ + - + + , 6 + - + - +
, + - 5 + ++ , + , + , - + - - -
+ + 5 , , + + , + + , ++
+ - +
+ , #
; - - -
+
+ + + , + 3 ,
- + , , , ,
+ - + +
, - + # * - - -
(8 - - -
+ ! + - + ! ! -
,
, + + ,
+ + + , + ++ + -
+ - -
+ ! - ! , + + #
- - - + ! + - + ! ! - /- ++ , ,, + - - , - - , , - + ! , + , + !
++ ,
+ , - - , , 6 + - + +
, #
+ ! + - + ! ! - : 5
: , ,
+ 3 + , , , - , - , , - + , + , + + , #
:
B - - -
!
: , - , < +
: 5 ", + + + , +
- - + ,
+ ! ,
!
- ! - +
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
+ + + , ! + + + 5 4 , + , + + , ! 3 , + #
* - - -
%
7; - - -
"
/ 5 + ,
+ , + + , + ,
- - + , -
! 6 +
! , , - , ++ #
: 5
+ +
- , -
, -! ! 6+
!
,
+ + !
+ , + +
++ ! , + + + , +
-
, - + ++ #
B - - -
: : 5
(* - - -
+
+ , + , - - 3 ,
! + ! 3 , , , + + ,
+ ,,
- 3 ,
+ , # *C - - -
$
& / 5 : : 4
: + . , 5 + + + , ,
+ - + - #
& / 5 : : 4
: + . ,
+ + 5 +
+ ++ , + + , , , + , -
- # # #: # *;1 2172! *B D# # # #
*B - - -
#
& / 5 : : 4
: + .
& / 5 : : 4
: + . ++ ++ , 5 + - - ! - , , + ! ,
- + + , + + , # (7 - - -
& / 5 : : 4
: + . / 5 + + , # - - -
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
% + + , - - 5 + + - - +
#
" , % + +
+ , + , $ , : " , - - ,
- + ! + ,
+
- 5 + + , 3 + , #
(; - - -
#
/- - - , + , - +
+ , -
, -
- , ! 5 + + ++ - + 6
- , #
( - - -
" , / 5 + + ++ + , 6 + + + ,, ! + , +
3
- + + - 4 , + ,
- - - , 5 + ++ ! ,
? + - - -
6 + + , ++ 5 + ++ #
- - -
$
( - - -
/ 5 + + , + +
- 3 + , - ,
+ , - 5 + +
, ! - + , - - 6 + + , +
++ + #
%
& / 5 : : 4
: + . - ,
4 , 6 +
! - + ! - - , - , ,
+
+ 5 + #
' - - -
"
/ 5 + + " , - ,
- - + 3 , + 5 + - ! + , - , + , #
** - - -
!
/ 5 + +
& / 5 : : 4
: + .
) - - -
&
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
+
/ 5 : : 4
: + .
- + + , - , -
, - - , , #
- ,
4 , 6 + & + , + -
+ 5 + ! + , - , + , , , ,,
++ + 5 , + , + , , ,
4 + - -
, - , , #
) - - -
/ , + E
! ! -
! , + +
+
# * - - -
*7 - - -
& / 5 : : 4
: + .
- - 5 + , + - - - + - 5 + #
- ,
4 , 6 + , - , , , ,
+ -
+ 5 + ! , - ,
+ #
8 - - -
!
/ 5 + + - ,
4 , 6 + < - , +
, ! 5 + , + ,, + -
+ 5 + ! - - + , , , + , + ! - - - - , , + !
& /
+ ? + ! - 5 + 5
! ,
+ 5 +
? #
' - - -
& /
(C - - -
"
& / / , + < , ,
! + ,,
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
#
+ 5 +
#
- ,
, + ,,#
) - - -
8 - - -
/ 5 + +
/ , + - + ,,? + , 7( ! + , + ! - , + +
, ! + , + - - - - - + - , - -
+ 5 +
, +
, + + - -
, + , + , , , +
+ # 8 - - -
$
& + ? 4 " + + 3 + ? # 8 - - -
%
+ % , ? + + + , + ,,? , +
- - ! !
, , + ,
- + !
,
, + , ! - ,,
, + ,,? + - ,
& 4 -
+ ,, ,, , + ,,? , ,
# ( - - -
" 4 D : *!)77!8BC! D : 7!CCC!B;;! D : 7!*((!>C)# # * - - -
' ( ) &
* % # /
# :
! , :
! F ! / ! % #! , ! + # - ! 0 #! , % ! 9 6 ! -, F 9 + ! 5 ! , + ,,# - E#
! 0 #! ,
! $ F G ! / ! % #! , ! - # ! 0 #! $ # H ! 0 - # . -
! I 0# I ! 0 # # $ 5 ! , : F < ! 5 ! G - ! G ! #0#! , , # + G<$ .# / "E9 ! % 0 # :
, - , , ! <66 +#! + + , + ,,? -- +
# - , - , - + , # % ,
- , ! , , # - + ! D# # : # 7!*((!>C) 5! # 1 - @ 5 + A2! + , , - - , H - # -
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
,
+ ,
+- , ( - - * - # - - 3 - - - ! , - - - # - , - ! , - ! + , # : ,, - - - - ! - - ! - , - - 7 , - - - # * -
, + , , - , -
! - 6 - # 8
- D# # ++ , - 5 + , ()'B % + #! G #! $ - + !
- + , ()'> $ - ++ # - - ++ 9 ! ();(# % - + , - ++ ! , - 5 ++ D# # : # 7!CCC!B;; - - <: , H - % :
- - # 5 + - , - $ - , # - + & (*! ();'# "# . + : # , , - + - ! + - - ! + 3 , + , # ' - + + + *'' - - + ,, +
+ 5 +
# % ,
- + - -
- - 3 , # " ++ ,
, , ! , - + - , 6- # - -- + - , + ! - ! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
- + , - , ++ , - 5 ++ + , + - - , , + # - + ! - + 9 + +
, - 9 + - + +
+
! % ! 9 6 !
-, 9 + # ; - 9 G % + # ,
+ 5 + ! , , - : % +
, # - ,
! - - , - ,
=
I. Documents relating to the prosecution of the application for the patent in suit. II. Documents relating to Adamek, et al. v. Tarney, Interference No. 93,018. III. Documents relating to Hercules v. Copolymer, Civil Action No. 76-25, in the Eastern District of Louisiana. IV. Documents relating to the present action. V. Licenses and agreements relating to the patent in suit. VI. Documents relating to the scope of the Adamek application. VII. Documents relating to infringement of the Adamek patent. VIII. Miscellaneous withheld documents. * : ,, -
- - , , - + ! - ++ - ,
+ 5 + #
- , + - +
! - + , , + +
# 0 5 / ! " # # + ! " #! '8 # #%# 88 1 #%# #()>(2# :
! + - + + +
+ ! , ,
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
#
-
, + + , - , - + 3 , -
# - , -
, ! -
! - - : &,, +
, 6 + + ++ # - + - - ++
- , ,
- : &,, - , - - ,
# "
! 8(C #* (B> 17 # ();)2# % , ?
, , , - + # % - - - , - ,
5 +
+ , , - , , - : &,, , - + - # - - ! - , ! 6 -
= ,
- - - ,
- - + , - + 4 ! ! - - - + - , #
- - ,
+ - 3 , - ++ ,
5 + + +
! - + ++
# - - - - + ! - - ! - , - + + +
+ ! , - - -
! @ - A + + # @ - + - , ?
- ,, - - + 1
+ 5 + 2! , 6
! + , , - + -
, - # - - + 0 - ? 1 2 J - +# # +# , ! (*( # ++# >)* 1%#% #()'82 E : , : # # D
: +#! (B # #%# 8;7 1 #%# # #()';2# - , - - - , - - +
H + +
- + - - + ! , ! +
-# , - - - , - + ! -
!
! - #
. - - - -
- , - # / 5 +
+ 6 - , , + + - #@
5 +# # 0# :# F #! '( # #%# *()! **C 1%# # #()>(2# @/ - - + -
5 +
- , + ? + # / - ++
# / -
, 6 -
6 #A "
! 8(C #* (B> 17 # ();)2# ! !
# 9 ! 7)* #* ;B; 1(C - # ();B24 0 5 / ! " # # #! " #! + 4
F 5 +# # 0# :# F #! '( # #%# *() 1%# # #()>(24 "
! (;7 D# #:#K# ;BC 1%#% #();)24 + : ! " # # #! *;* # ++# (8B 1%#% #();;24 ! @ - : :
* . = <6 , -
: / 5 : - :
- :
A! 8 9
G '7( 1()>724 ! D ! " # # D #! 7(8 # ++# '8; 1%#%# #()>C2#
+
+
+ 5 + # - + , + !
- + + , - + - , @, 6 A# - +
- , , -
- + + - , - + - + ,
, 5 - : &,, -
+ , - # ! @% + - G % A! >8 9 G )8C 1();(2# % , ? 3 , + ,,? , + - -
, - + #
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
5 + -
++ , + ! - + 3 , #
: #
- ! ,
! " -
+ 5 + - + + ,
- -
+ + + - , , + # $ " # <66 +#! ;'
- -
# & , - # #%# *; 1%#. #()>824 0 5 / ! " # #
- - , - , ! - 5 + ! " #! + # - + 6 -
!
,
-
? + - - + ,
, -
- - - , , - # $
# " # <66 +#! + 4 *
# 9 ! @" + + # & - - - ! - + 6 - , ! -
+ + ! 6+ # - 5 , +
! - - , - , - - ,
, - +
- - , , , + , + 3 # 3 , - + # 0 5 / ! 5 - ! - + " # # + ! " #! + 4 % + +# #
+ - % .
5 ! " #! 7)> # ++# ((8; 1%# # #()>'2# # - , - + + + , , - , , , - - - - - ++ , -
+
- , - ++ , - - +
+ , ,,
+ , #A : + ? $ 5 # $ ! 7 #! ((* # ;'*! + # " + - 3 D # D - . - +#! , +! - + B) # ++# 7'>! 7'B 1%#. #()'C2# , -
- , @ +A ! @ A , - + + - , 3 , 0 / H 5 D , - + L /- -
# D - . - +#! B) # ++# 7'>
+ - 1%#. #()'C2! - - - - + L /- , = - , 1 -
, -! @ - + ++ , 1(2 - - , - 6+ 2! - - -
! + - 4 1*2 - + + , - , ,
- - - 1 2 , : &,, L
- , ! - 1 2
% + - - - - 4 172 - + - - - , , - - -
+ - + , - + , 1 2 - 1 2 - - + , - - # & - , 3 , 1 2 , - + + , + - @ A , - + + , - + # " 5 -
1 2 + 1 2 1 2 ! - -
-
+ ! 1 2 , - + + , ! - , -
4 182 - + - ! - 6 , - - - 1 2 1 2 - #A B) # ++# + ! - - + , - + 7'B ')#
- - + ! - + + , -
+ # < +# # . ! " #! ;( # #%# 7' 1<#%# # #()>72#
# $ " - -
: ,, -
,,
+ # " ! - ! -
-
+ , - +
- 3 , 6+ # , 9 - , - + ! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
# ,, , < 9# % , ! 0 #! < 3 # - , -
, - + ,
- - + , -
+ # .
, - + ! , - G : % + ! > + + , 6 + - + % + , 9 # B - , -
- 5 + ++ ! ! , + , + - , - + ! - - - -
+ + 5 - , - # 3
!
- + * ! ,
- + @ +A# , :- +- # / - ! *(C # ++# 8B7 1<#%#: #();*2#
5 4 - ! -
- , - +# - 6 , -
+
- 4 - #A 7)> # ++# ((;'#
" ++ ! , - ,, + - - - - , -
- , , - - - - % + # 3
!
++ , - + , ! I ! - ! G 5 - -
" - I ! , , - + ,,# - - - % + ! - ! G 5 - ! - -
- - % + ! , -
/ - + -
-
+#
- - - , - - + ! - 3 /- !
- 5 + ! - - + - 9 :
+ , 6+ -
% + # - - , - + + , + 3
- :
- +
% + # - - + ! - !
-
+ # % +
- 6+ + , + +# # % .
5 ! " #! + 4
!
++ -
- - -
" # # 0 - & . , #! 8> # #%# '*8 , 6+ + 3 ,
1<#%#/ #();)24 0 -# # $ 5 E# # #9# - # # - - ! - +
# # 9 : # +#! *'7 # ++# )))
+
! , - + , 1%# #0#();;2# . , - ! - !
- + - 3 -
- +
, # - + , ,
- - +
+
-
+ 3 - + # " ! + + , - , , - , - - : % + , + 3 , - , , -
@ A ,
, - 5 - +! , - + + , # " % + , - + ,
# + # % .
5 ! " #! + ! -
! " ! " # # E# # # + ! - + - 6 , - 8) # #%# B* 1<#%#: #();)2# 5 , + =
& ! ;(! @ - ! - - - - + + , - ! - , - - ! , - 5 + + - - - # & - !
-
- , -
. # /- # - 3 , - + , - ! ,
- , , -
# - ,, - 3 , # " - ! - 5 + , - + , -
! - , # ! + )
* " % ;( - - + #
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
- , -
@ A + ,,
+
# - + + # , ! 7>7 D# # 7>)! B7 # # (7**! (C G#< #* 8*B 1();72 - - + + + , +
++ @ -
5 , A! -
- - ,
, - + + ,
+ + + , + ++ + ! - - -
+ ! - ! , - : % + # - - , - J - +# # +# , ! (*( # ++# >)* 1%#% #()'824 # # 9 : #! *(( # ++# B' 1%#% #();*2 -
- 5 ,, + + , + , + + + , 4 + + - ++ ,
+ - + + - , 3
,
- # !
F 5 +# # 0#:# F #! + 4 - <3 + ! " # # $ % - ! " #! *'' # ++# (C*C 1/#%#. -#();;24 G 6! " # # D# #! (>* D# #:#K# '7B 1 # #()>*2#
! - + ! - ! , +
, # + + , +
! +
- + + + + ! - + , - + ? + + # . ,
- - +
+ , - + - , + , ! - - + + , - + ! 5 !
+ ! # - H - , 6 # + + , - +
,
- - , ! - - # + 0 5 / ! " # # ! " #! + ! +
- ! - , + - , - + ,= @ , 3
- +
!
- + , , - +
-
, + ,
5 , ,
+ 5 # - - - , - + 5 , - , + -
- - - ,, ! - + , - , - - - 6 , -
? ! + 6 6 # - - - , - + ,
- ! , + - -
+ - , 6+
#A '8 # #%# 8># ", - + + + ,
! - - - + , -
+ # & , -
@ A - + - + , + + , - + + + 5 # " ! , + , - + + , ! 3
, -
+ #
" -
+ +
- , - -
, -!
! 6+ -
!
, + + !
+ , + + ++ # * # 0 5 / ! " # # + ! " #! + 4 % + +# # % .
5 ! " #! + # -
, , - : &,, # - , - - , ! - !
+ ++ , - + # ", - + + + , - - , ! - + ++ # - + + 0 % 0 5 / ! " # # #! " #! + ! = @ , - ,
- , -
+ # - - , ,
, - , - # - - + ,,
, + , # E
! - , , - -
+
5 ++ ! - + # & - - - ! - , , - -
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
- + -
- , + # " - ! - , , - + #A '8 # #%# 8;#
# & - , - , ! - ,
+ -
+ = (C * % $# / 5 : #
$ % : ,,? , 5 + + + , ,
+ ! - + = @/- - 5 + -
+ - 5 +
+ ,, 6+ -
- , -
- + 1
2! - + 3 ,,
! - , - ! +
+ , ,, + #A F 5 +# # E F G ! " #! *); # ++# )>) 1<#%#/ #();)2# ! $ ! " # # E #! 7*C #* 7(8 1> - # ();72# - # /# - E #! (' # #%# ''! 'B 1 #%#&- ()'72!
- ,, - + -
- = @ # # # - + + , -
+ ,
, ,
-
- , - ,
# - M 5 +
, -
N! - - - ! + , - + + , + ,
-
- + , -
! 6 +
! , , - - , ++ #A
- 5 + + , + # " 9 5 # ! 7*) D# # 8)'! ;> # # 7B'! )( G#< # 8'( 1()8>2! - + 6 + - + , - = @9 +
+ ! -
+ + , !
! + +
+ + , + ? - , -
# -! ,
- ,
- + + - + , ,
# -
, - , 3 - , - + ,
#A 7*) D# # '(C! ;> # # 7)7# - - , # #:# *;1 2172= @ - + , 1 2182 , - ! + , - - 1 2 1(2 , - + + + , ,
, - + ,
- - + ? + # # # + - - - + 5 - , - - + + , - - - - - - + - 3 , - - # " , - - - 3 - - ! - -
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
+ , -
+ ! ! + !
- ,
- + , +
- #A
" ! - + ! + ! + , ! , , ! #! + +
@ -
A! - , + # - 5 + -
, - + , ,
- - , @ - + - ,, , - ,
- + , ? , - + ,, , + A# % + - G % ! + ! >8 9 G (C*B# - + - - +
+ ! + ,
-
+ ! * + - , - + # @ - 5 + - , + - ? 5 + + , , - - + - 5 - - -
+ - -
, - 5 ++ #A % + +# # . - H! 8B> #* 8BC 18 - # ()>72#
! - , - + + , - + + , # B / - F .
! : : *C**# - - 5 + ++ + , , ! O ! 0 5 / ! " # # #! + 4 +
5 - + - + , + + ++ ! F / +# # " E +#! + 4 6 : ! " # # D . - F . , ! " #! + 4
? , + ? + - +
- + , ! "
! 8(C #* (B> 17 # ();)24 ,, , , , !
- - , ! + + + + +
- , #
# J H! 8(B #* ;77 1> - # ();)2#
- + , # "
! 8(C #* (B> 17 # ();)2# - 5 + ++ 3
+ + + , + ,
- $ , : " , #
# J H! 8(B #* ;77 1> - # ();)24 "
! 8(C #* (B> 17 # ();)24
# 9 ! 7)* #* ;B; 1(C - # ();B24 + # " $ . - +#! 8' # #%# *B> 1%#% #();B2# 3
! - "" - - + +
+ , - 5! # # " , - - , - + ! O + , -
+ #
- @ + , A
" - % ! 5 + - - - - -
- ++ + ,
1 6 + , 6 + + - : &,, !
2
+ 3 ! + + + , ,
- , - , ,
,
+ # 0 G ! "
! 8B # #%# 7()! 3 , - ? + #
- , -
7*( 1%#% #();)2! + - , - - "
! 8(C #* (B> 17 # ();)2! - - + + - ,
= - - + ++ ! , $ " , - - - - !
- + + , , , ,, ! , - ++ - + , - - #
- 6 + + / +# # " E +#! ;* # #%# 8'8 , + - 1 #%#"
#()>824 6 : ! " # # D . -
- - 6 + F . , ! " #! 8> # #%# 778 1 #%# # #();)2# ++ , + !
+ , - ++ - - ! - , - , + ! , + # 8
- - , - +
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
+
8 # # # " - , - - + ! - - - ! " , - M+ N
- + ++ , + # 8B # #%# 7*(# - + , - +
! - !
- 3 - - * + + @ - A# - + , ++ , - : &,, ! 6 + + #
- - - + + + , , 3 , ! - 5 , + # " ! +
- ++ ? , ,
- :
&,, -
? + 5 + , - , - ++ ? # 5 +
, 5 + + , +
+ - , +
, -
+ + - ++ ,
# & - - - ! + +
+ - + , , - + # " + - ! - 6 + + ! ! # + + -
, ,
- - + # ", - + , -
- - - +
, ! - 5 +
++ 4 , -
? + - - -
- 6 + + , - ++ ! - ! - 5 +
++ #
! % # **! , + +
- 3 @ -A! + , - , - , + # - ,
+
5 + - + ,
- - 6 + + ,
- 5 + ++ =
Document No. 17
Type of Document Memorandum to file reflecting information obtained from third party with respect to ex parte prosecution.
30
Internal Memorandum re scope of specification in patent application.
139
Attorney's handwritten notes on copy of foreign patent specification.
142, 146,
Drafts of affidavits to be presented to Patent
147, 148,
Examiner.
149, 150, 200 151, 152
Draft claims and manuscript notes re ex parte
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
11
153
prosecution.
197
Draft amendment with attorney's handwritten notes.
199
Draft amendment with attorney's handwritten notes.
201
Attorney's handwritten notes on copy of affidavit filed in Patent Office.
202
Attorney's handwritten notes on copy of Patent Office Action.
203
Draft amendment with attorney's handwritten notes.
211
Draft amendment with attorney's handwritten notes.
* " # , - - - + ,, + 5 + + + + , + ,, - + ! + F - + #
- - - - - + + , , ,, ! (*
- + - @ A - - + + , - - + - - +
# ! $ " # <66 + ! + 4 % + # % .
5 ! " #! + 4 + E # # $ / +#! 7B( #* ''( 1* # ();>24 B / - F .
! : : *C*8# : ,, - + ,, - 9 # + # -
- - - , 9 # + + , <: - 5 + # 3
! , - - - # D - ! - + ++
- + 6 - + #
$ % , - - ,
- - + -
3 , - - # -
H - ,,
, 5 - - -
- - - # 9 !
- - - ,
,
- - - - ! - + # ! +
# ! R 6 +# # " $ . - +#! ;8 # #%# 7;> 1 #%# # #()>824 . # $
9 + #! 7B' # ++# (C*)! (C7* 1%#E #()>82# # # " ++ + ,,? ! , + - ,
, + # % , - ! - + , - 5 + ! + , 9
+ -- , - + , + +
+ -
, 6 + ! - + -
+ #
! - + ,
@ A - - + - + - 6 - - , <66 # " - + , - 5! # ++ ! - 6 + + - - ! - % :# *! + # " ! ();8!
, 5 ,
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
,
- - + , - - - # (7 -
, +
- - ! !
- - + - - - - - - ! 1 # #! 6 2! -# - <6 5 - - + *
- + -
! - - -
- # ! &,, % (8! ();8! / ++ , 5 ++ ! # >8B!(;'! +# (;)# : ,, ! -
- + ! - - - + , + - - - - - -
- 6 - # " ++ , + , - : &,, ! + ,, +
- <6 , ,, + - + , , + - 6 # % , -
- ,, ! + ,, , + - - - <6 ? - 5 + # + ,
! , - + ,, ,
+ - , + !
- + ,, , , - : &,, , - + + = 1(2 D# # : # *!)77!8BC
E - ! - - <: - - - - 4 (8 1*2 $ : # '8;!('C! . ! - - , + (' , +- , 4 172 $ : # '87!*)*! E - E ,! - - - , (; , +- , # : ,, - + , - 5 + ! - 5 , - E - E - E , $ + ! + - , - + 3 - , - - - # + ,,! - E - E - E , , ,
- 5 + ! -
, - 5 - , - + ! - -
,
,, , - - - + - #
% , , -
- ,, , % # / - ! , - , - + ! - - + - : &,, - - ! ();8 ! + # - / - ? ,, ++
+ + + - <6 ? 6+
- - , + - 6 - + + + # - + , - 6 + , - 5 ++ ! - + ! ' * ! -
+ / - , # / - +
- - + + ! - ! - H - , # % ,
- - 3 - - + - : &,, ! - @+ A @ ,, A
! - + ,, + - : &,, - , -
- ,, -
+ + , ' * 5! # " + ! + ,, - * , -
6 + + ,, ,, + - : &,, # + ,,! - / - ? ,,
+ -
! -
- -
+ , !
- - - + - + +- + + # G + - ,
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
, - + % # + + , - , - , # (> . , - + ! - - 9 - & (*! ();'! - !
- , ! 6 5 , , - 5 + # % , 9 - ! E + ,, - 9 !
- - , - - # , - , ! - , -
%
# - , 6 + # ", ! - + ! - - , -
- + + 3 + , , +
, -
, ! - @ , - A + 5 + # 5 # D# #! *B) , - , # " ! , - ! D# # (! '7 # # 8;'! >> G#< # ))7 1()7724
# J H! - + + 3 - , 8(B #* ;77 1> - # ();)24 % + +# # %
- + ! -
, , .
5 ! " #! + # & ! - , , ! + * ! + - , - ! , ! + ,
- , # - 5 , - , , = + + - + - - @/ - - - - + ,
- 6 + + , - + ! (B , - - -
+ - +
- , -
, ! - - ++ + - + + # - 5 , + , - - + - -
- - 6 + +
, ,
#A 1,
2# , - - % + +# # % .
5 ! " #! '8C #* (*(' @, - A -
, # ! , - 18 - # ()>;2# + - , , # - -! - ! - , , ? - # ! , - - - , - , - , # /# # E F # # :# $
F ! " #! (>' D# #:#K# 8;8 1%# #0#()>C2# , - , , - , , + !
+
- - +
+ +
, - , , +
- , - - , , - # , - ,
+ ! - ! , - + + + , -
+
- , - , # $ " # <66 +#! + 4 % + +# # % .
5 ! " #! 7)> # ++# ((>*# " /# # E F # # :# $
F ! " #! + ! , ! - - -
- - , - , - + + - , , ! - + + , + , -
, #
- + ! - ,
- - + , , , - , # < -
, - - + , , , ! , - + -
%# / #
!
! , - + ,, - + - - # : ,, - + 7( ! + , + ! - , + # < - , - ++
+ @
A# " ! - ! - ! , + +
- - +
-
- - # % + # % .
5 ! " #! + ! - # !
- - 5 + + - - - + - 5 + # -
+ ? + ! - 5 + 5
! ,
+ 5 +
!
? - # ! % + +# # % .
5 ! " #! '8C #* (*(' 18 - # ()>;2#
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
" - 3 , - ,
5 + + ++ , - - , - + ,
- 3 , # " $ . - ! " # # + +#! 88 # #%# (C 1%#% #();B2# - , , # +
- , , , ! - , + ! ,
+ = @/-
- +
- - - + - - - ! - +
+ ,
++ # - - - , , #A % + +# # % .
5 ! " #! 7)> # ++#
((;( *# < , ,
! - + # % + +# # % .
5 ! " #! + 4 D
! " # # D# # #! 7(8 # ++# '8; 1%#%# #()>C2# % , ? - + - 6+ , - 6 + () , - # - 6 + - # " $ . - # + +#! + # - + - , , , + !
- - - , - - + ++ - , + -
# " " $ . - # + +#! + ! - -
- + @ - 6 -
- - , - $" - - + - + - 6 A# " * " " : + # # +#! ;7 # #%# BB 1%#% #()>82! , , ,,
- + + , - :
<6 , ? # - - +
+ ,, - ++ -
, + -
- - ,, # 0 G - ! G +# # % ! 7(7 # ++# **8 1%#% #()>C2! 3 , , - - + - - # "
- ! , - ,
- - +
- - + , # ,
! -
, 6 - + - #
# , , + , - + - - - - - + + ,,! - , - - - - , -
+ , 5 +
- + , - # - + ! -
, - + + - - , - + # , + 6 !
! - - + , - ++ ! + ! # - , - - , + ,
, , +
+ # ""# . + " # % , - , +
+ ,,?
- , - + # : ,, -
- + + - ! ! !
, ,
- + , - + #
$ - - , , - 3 # *C + + 3 + ? - = @ - - + 5 + - - +
,, , - #A . < # 6
% - #! *BB # ++# 8B;! 8B) 1%#% #();B2# " -
- -
+ - + + - , + # !
. , # # +#! 7'> # ++# )87! )8B 1%#% #()>72! - #
% - + + ,, +
- -
- - + , <66 - + # 9 -
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
- - + + !
- 3 , - , , - + # 9 +
- - 3 @- + - , A - # 9 ? + , -
# <66 * # - - , - 5 + , ! ! - - 6 ! -
+ , - , # ++ , -
+ + - :
&,, - + , - 6 # " ++ , - ! <66 + 9 : + 0 >! ();' - -
, + , - # - 6 # - 3 5 - - 9 - ,
- - + # - - ! - - , !
3 ,
, + , - ! - , + # - + ,,? , - " '( , # /- - , + , ,, ! -
- , - 9 : + ! - + + 9 ? + # : ,, + , 5 6+ , -
, - ! - ! - , - 5 , , - + + #
" '( 3 + ,, , - , - - # : ,,
- , 3
+ , , !
+ - + # - , - - + ,,! - ! ,, , + ,,? , ,
- # < - - , - +- + , , - ! ,, , + ,,? + ! - + , - - , - - ! , ! +
- , 3 - , + ,,# " + - - 5 + ,, - - - + - - #
! + ,, - -
, , , - , - + - ! % + #! G # ! ,
% +! + # # #:# 77# - - , - ! - ! + 5 - + 9 % +# " - + ! 9 - ,, , , % + - - ! - ++
, ,, # ! " '( 3 9 5 , - ,, ! 5 + - + 6+ ! , , - % +# " ! - , - - 3 ! ,,
,
+ ,,# : ,,
3
+ - - , # # '
878 # ++# (7;! *8 # # #* (787! (); D# #:#K# 8C(
Footnotes
1
An alpha-olefin is a chemically active hydrocarbon containing one carbon-to-carbon double bond connecting the first carbon atom in the chain to the adjacent carbon atom. The two alpha-olefins used most commonly for artificial rubbers are: 1) ethylene 2) propylene
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
2
3 4 5 6 7
8
Artificial terpolymer rubbers using two alpha-olefins and a third monomer are often referred to as EPT rubbers. A diene (or diolefin) is a chemically active hydrocarbon containing two carbon-to-carbon double bonds. A bridged-ring (or bicyclic) diene is one in which the carbon atoms are arranged in a cyclic, or closed chain structure, and two non-adjacent carbon atoms in a ring are joined by a bridge of one or more carbon atoms. Generalized structure of a bridged-ring hydrocarbon from 1 McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology 278-279 (1971). The bridged-ring diene used most frequently in the examples in the Adamek patent is dicyclopentadiene (DCP), which has the following structure: I. e., DCP, illustrated supra, n. 2. The two accused products are: 1) methylene norbornene: 2) ethylidene norbornene: At oral argument, counsel for defendant represented that close to 40,000 documents have already been produced and depositions taken of 15 witnesses, involving 13,000 pages of transcript. This is the first discovery motion which either party has brought before the Court. See, Transcript of Hearing before Wright, J., February 8, 1977, p. 4. The firm of Kenyon, Kenyon, Reilly, Carr and Chapin was also involved as outside counsel with respect to a few documents. Members of the firm who either sent or received such documents were Mandelbaum and Parsell. House attorneys employed by Hercules in the Patent and Legal Departments acted as attorneys with respect to communications from non-legal employees of Hercules, and as representatives of the client when relaying information or requesting advice from outside counsel. The following were members of the two departments who either sent or received any of the disputed communications: Patent Department: Peterson (Head); Dafter, Miller, Farabow, Alexander (attorneys); Whitson (agent). Legal Department: Turk (Senior Counsel); Fulwiler (Assistant General Counsel); Maddock (General Counsel); Johnson, W.C. Brown, Long (Vice-Presidents). The following were members of the operating divisions and research department who received or sent any of the communications in question: Polymers Department: W.C. Brown (General Manager); Giacco (General Manager); Johnstone (Assistant General Manager); LeBlanc (Technical Director); Hendricks (Manager, Licensing); Grassie (Director of Development); B.F. Brown (Technical Development Representative; New Product Supervisor; Assistant Product Manager Plastics; Product Manager Polyolefins; Manager Advanced Planning). Pine & Paper Chemicals Department: Sheffield (General Manager); Jones (General Manager); George (Assistant General Manager); B.F. Brown (Supervisor Elastomer Department
9 10
4
/66 to
1
/68).
Research Department: VanWyck, McBurney (Directors, Research Center); Spurlin (Technical Assistant, Research Center); Scott (Manager, Polymers Research Division); Keim (Senior Chemist, Polymers Research Division); Christman, Lukach (Research Chemists, Polymers Research Division); Amberg (Research Chemist, Applications Division); Vandenberg (Senior Chemist, Central Research Division); Christman (Research Chemist, Explosives and Chemical Propulsion Research Division). In any event, since Document No. 61 was an intra-departmental communication between Whitson and Miller with respect to an interference proceeding, not reflecting information received from the client, the communication is most properly protected as attorney work product. See infra at 150-154. Plaintiff also claimed work product immunity as to most of these documents. After careful consideration of each document, the Court determined that, if any privilege would apply, attorney-client privilege would be applicable. Document No. 24
25
26
Identification of Documents and Recipients Memo February 2, 1965 From: Miller To: Christman Letter - February 23, 1966 From: Miller To: Hoxie Memo From:
March 10, 1965 Miller
Reason Request for information for purpose of submitting to Patent Office. Transmittal letter; no request for legal advice or privileged information. Information from client to be submitted to
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
To: Memo From: To:
File April 22, 1965 Miller Spurlin
47
Memo From: To:
March 28, 1963 Miller Peterson
83
Memo From: To: cc: Memo From: To: Memo From: To: cc: Memo From: To: Letter From: To:
August 15, 1966 Dafter Brown; Sheffield, Turk January 13, 1966 Dafter File December 20, 1966 Turk Brown Sheffield, Dafter June 24, 1966 Dafter File - May 2, 1963 Whiting Miller
113
Letter From: To:
- May 29, 1963 Hoxie Miller
123
Letter From: To:
- January 22, 1964 Hoxie Miller
155
Memo June 4, 1963 Notes by Hoxie
156
Manuscript Notes June 2, 1963 By: Hoxie
220
Letter From: To:
- October 26, 1966 Dafter Mandelbaum
225
Memo From: To:
228
Memo From: To:
239
Note From:
November 14, 1966 Miller Johnson, Sheffield, Brown, Dafter, Maddock, and Peterson. November 23, 1966 Miller Johnson, Sheffield, Brown and Dafter. February 10, 1970 Turk
27
89
92
99
109
Patent Office. Transmittal letter; no request for legal advice or privileged information. Request for meeting; no request for legal advice or privileged information. Primarily business advice.
Primarily business advice. Transmittal letter; no request for legal advice or privileged information. Primarily business advice. Transmittal letter; no request for legal advice or privileged information. Information obtained from client to be submitted to Patent Office. Transmittal letter; no request for legal advice or privileged information. Results of tests to be submitted to Patent Office (first four pages only). Results of tests to be submitted to Patent Office (first two pages, page 8 only). Transmittal letter; no request for legal advice or privileged information. Reminder to employees of meeting.
Reminder to employees of meeting.
Transmittal letter; no request for legal advice
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
11
12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20
To: Jones or privileged cc: Giacco and Dafter information. 241 Note October 21, 1970 Transmittal letter; no From: Dafter request for legal advice To: Brown or privileged cc: Turk information. 244 Note March 23, 1970 Primarily business From: Dafter advice. To: Schneider These documents appear to contain outside counsel's notes on certain scientific information relevant to the prosecution of the Adamek application. If the information was obtained from the client, and is confidential, the documents might be protected under the attorney-client privilege. However, the notes appear to be primarily jottings on different chemical structures, etc. That information could have been derived from independent research and in any event does not appear to be confidential in nature. Since plaintiff has made no showing as to the origin of the information, doubts have been resolved against the privilege. See, e. g., Honeywell, Inc. v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 50 F.R.D. 117 (M.D.Pa.1970); U. S. v. International Business Machines Corp., 66 F.R.D. 154 (S.D.N.Y.1974). The claims as originally filed specified only that the bridged-ring compound contain at least one double bond, but could contain more. The preferred embodiment contained two double bonds. The November, 1964 amendment specified â&#x20AC;&#x153;an ethylenically unsaturated bridged-ring hydrocarbon containing at least two ethylenic double bondsâ&#x20AC;?. A straight-chain hydrocarbon is one in which all the carbon atoms occur in a continuous, rather than cyclic, sequence, i. e., 1, 4 hexadiene: Cyclopentadiene is a cyclic diene with the following structure: Dicyclopentadiene (DCP) is a dimer of cyclopentadiene, formed by the union of two cyclopentadiene molecules. Cyclic dienes, such as cyclopentadiene (supra at n. 15) differ from bridged-ring dienes in that there is no bridge within the ring structure connecting two nonadjacent carbon atoms. See, supra, n. 2. Since counsel for defendant has not had an opportunity to see any of the disputed documents, it is obviously difficult for counsel to demonstrate that particular documents were generated in furtherance of fraud. Presumably, if the documents had been made available, counsel would have argued strenuously in favor of the discoverability of certain of those documents. In the absence of such an opportunity, the Court has examined with particular care all the documents which would otherwise be protected by attorney-client privilege or work product immunity for subject matter and content, in light of the documentary evidence presented by defendant. Only the documents in Categories I and VII deal contemporaneously with the ex parte prosecution. Some of the documents in Categories II, IV, V, VI, and VII reflect peripheral concerns with the prosecution of the application, mostly on a post hoc basis. At oral argument, counsel for defendant maintained that â&#x20AC;&#x153;as a rule of lawâ&#x20AC;?, if privilege is waived with respect to documents of one kind, it is waived as to all documents. Transcript of Hearing before Wright, J., February 8, 1977, p. 9. Interrogatory No. 50 states: Specify which of the substituted norbornenes referred to in the Hercules Progress Report dated July 7, 1965 (Defendant's B. Brown Exhibit 28; H4732-H4743) plaintiff contends is a bridged-ring hydrocarbon third monomer of the type disclosed and claimed by the Adamek, et al. patent in suit. Interrogatory No. 51 states: State whether or not plaintiff contends that cyclic-substituted norbornenes such as 5 (3-cyclohyxenyl)-2-norbornene referred to in the Hercules Progress Report dated July 7, 1965 . . . are bridged-ring hydrocarbon third monomers of the type disclosed and claimed by the Adamek, et al. patent in suit. The interrogatory further requests plaintiff to identify the portions of the claims and specifications which plaintiff interprets as encompassing the above monomers and to state in detail the basis for such interpretation, and to identify all documents in the possession, custody or control of or otherwise known to plaintiff or Dunlop with respect to the subject of the interrogatory.
End of Document
Š 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
! " #$%& ! &'& %$
( ! ) *
!"#$
- $ %+ + ! !/% !, +! % 4' )< =! ! !#!
! !"! ! " #$$ ! ! ! ! ! #% % &' &(()
) +
!"#$! !
# % & %''$! $ ($ )# $! )* +
,% $ *
+ $
+ % + $ + % * *
+ *% * >% + 2 + * + % +
+ + *
$% * $ % % * + !
& ) ! , -./.0- 1 $ . .2,0
* $ * + + $
+ ! , **
+ $ %+ $ ! + % . /! 0
. ! .! $$ $$ $$ + * $ **1 + * $
+ $ - $ %+ + $$ $ + 2 % $$
+% + + + + 2 + * + % * + %
* $ + 2 * % + %
+ $ !
( +
/ ?% + % +
+ % $ + * * + % + % * + + % + % + *
!
! ! 4'( ! %$$! '56!
7 8549
+
- $ %+ $ % : + 0 % ; +
+% + $ * $ ** % $ *
+ + % + * + $ ** +
+ $ % *
* + + * + % + + % + % , + 7 * 3 2 % + ,
3 ++ !
,% $ * $
- , %+ , 2
, $ 0 - $ %+ + %
$ *
+ * $ + + +% + * * % * $$ + % +% $ $ + $ *
+ %
1 $ %+
+ %$
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
* $
* % % % $ $$ + % ! !/% !, +! % )@8 9849 )< =! ! !#!
,
+ $ - $ %+ + % $ + + * + +% *
+ + $ + $ 1 * + % ! !/% !, +! % )@8 9849 )< =! ! !#!
@ +
!
- $ %+ $ 2 $ $ , * + * A $
+
$ * + $ $ $
-
+
$ - $ %+ ; $
+ + % + ! !/% !, +! % )@8 9849 )< =! ! !#!
) +
%
$ %+
+ $ +
* % *
+ % $ $ + *
+ % +
% ?% !
4 +
"
- $ %+ $ % , -
) +
&
B
+ $ - $ %+ + $$ + % $ $ + ?% * + $ + + % * * ! !/% !, +! % )@8 9 849 )< =! ! !#!
- $ %+ $ % #
1 - $ * % %+ * ! !/% !, +! % )@8 9849 )< =! ! !#! +
$
- $ %+ $ %
$ $ $ + #
+ $ $ + + * +% ; + $ % + $ -
- $ + % +
% + %
+ $ 1 + %$!
& +
#
* $
& +
$ $ $ + : ** + * + $ * + %$ %
+ $
+ $ $ + + ** +
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
+ $ 1 + %
** + % +
%
$ + $ + + - + * + % * * %$
%+ $ !
B + ?% + % +
+
$ + % + +
+ * + *
$% $ * + + !
& +
)& +
$ $ $ +
!
#
+ $ $$ + * + * + % + * + $ + %$
+ + $ + 2 %
+ $% *
+ $ %
+ +% + % + % ! @ +
#
+ $ ;
1 + $ + + $ % + * + *
+ ! 6 +
"
$ $ $ + : $ * % + % * + $ + % $ +
+ + % + + + % %
$ +
+ % + * + $ + %$ $ *
+ $ + - + * % + % $ +
+ % + + % + + + %
+ % + + + %
+ % + +
?% *
+ $ $ + + % ++% % % + % !
% + * +
*
+
A 2 * 0 * + $
$ * + 2
+
+ % + $ + * + * * $ ! &C +
#
% + % , + 7 * 3 2 % + , #
% ;$ ?% * + + + -
+ $ + % + + * *
$ + * $ $ *
+ !
6 +
& +
A 2 *
$
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
, * + * A $
+ + % + +
+ + $ %+ ?% + * + ;$ !
* $% $ * +% * + % ! /% * A + % 5C48 9 )< =! ! !#! ) +
< +
%
$ $ $ + +% + $ $ + * * + %$ * + $ + %
+ + $ ;$ $ ?% * + % + $ %
*
% + $ *
+
$ * + + %
+ $ + % + + $ ! /% * A + % 5C48 9869 )< =! ! !#!
#
+ $ * + + % +
$ + % + % + + + + * ! 4 +
, * + * A $
+
& +
+ $ * +
+ +%
+ % + $ %
+ + !
A** + * * $
2 $ ; +%
+ $ * +
+ +% +
, * + * A $
+ : -
+
$ * + $ - $ + % - +
+% + + +
+ % + + * + $ % !
B% + % +
@ +
, - #
+ $ * + $ + + % + % + + + + !
&5 +
&
, * + * A $
+
&4 +
!
, - + * + + + $ *
$ %+ $ + % $% + % * $
* $$ + ?% + * $
% +%
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
1 $ * + *
+ !
+ %+ * * +
$ $ $ $$ + + + $ *
+ $ * + ! 45 =! ! !#! DD &&& &&)! & +
"
& +
&
, -
#
+ $ $
%
$ + +
+ -
%+ + % + $ + !
+% $ * + + + + +
* + % * $ + $
$$ + $ + + - *
+ $ * + ! ' +
#
& +
, -
$
*% +
+ 2 + * % ;+ $
+ $ + % + + * % %
+ !
#
+ $ * +
+ %
+ %+ $ + *
, 3** + ! +
# $ *
+
+
,
*% +
+ 2 + * % ;+ $ + * + % +
+ + + + $ $ * + * + * % % + + % + *
+
$ * + !
/% * A + % 5C48 9 )< =! ! !#!
% + $ 1 % + % * $
+ $
% % * + ! 6 +
& +
%
# $ *
+
#
+ $ ; % *
%+
1 +
*% +
+ 2 + * % ;+ $ 0
* * % %** +
+ $ * + $ * + + *
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
* % ?% $ ! /% * A + % 5C48 9 )< =! ! !#!
#
& +
+% + $ + + % $ *
$ * $ $ $ + $ *
$ + * - $ %+
+ + % +% + % + + + $ + + % $
!
*% +
+ 2 + * % ;+ $ , %+ * $ +% $ $ + $
% $ + + % + * $ * + + * * % $ + +% +% ; ! /% * A + % 5C48 9 )< =! ! !#!
4 +
$
+
!
5 +
"
, %+ * +% % * $
%
* *
$ * * %+ % %
% + % $ + $% % + $ $ %+ * +% ! /% * A + % 5C48 9 )< =! ! !#!
- $ %+ $ % - $ %+ + + % $ + +% + ;$ + +
, 3** + * $$ + * $ + +%
+ % %
*
1 ** $ + $
$ + % %
*
% $ %+ * * , 3** + !
*% +
+ 2 + * % ;+ $ #
* % * +% %
+ %
* + * + % +
+ *% + * * % $ * + * % * %+ + % +
+ $
! /% * A + % 5C48 9 )< =! ! !#!
- , %+ , 2
, $ 0
+
%
- $ %+ $ % , - + %$ + + *
$ $ * $ +% * * * + $ + * , 3** +
+
+ $ + %
1 - $ %+ % > + + $$ $ % ?% % %$ $$ $ % /% *
, + % ! !/% !, +! % )@8 9849 )< =! ! !#!
+
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
$ * ;
+% $ $ 2 %
- ! !/% !, +! % )@8 9849 )< =! ! !#!
+
&
- , %+ , 2
, $ 0 - $ %+ + + % $ + + $ $
$ $ + $ * $ $ *
! !/% !, +! % )@8 9849 )< =! ! !#!
5 +
A * +% $ $ + $ * $ + ** - $ %+ + % +
%$ * %
* %
% % $! !/% !, +! % )@8 9849 )< =! ! !#!
+
- , %+ , 2
, $ 0 0 + % * % * $% $ % $ % - $ %+ + ! !/% !, +! % )@8 9849 )< =! ! !#!
5 +
!
- , %+ , 2
, $ 0 : * ?%
+% $ $ + $ *
% * + % - $ %+ + + +% $ $ * + + 2
- $ %+ + $$ $ $ + + ! !/% !, +! % )@8 9 849 )< =! ! !#! 5 +
- , %+ , 2
, $ 0 : * - $ %+ + $$
+% + % > + * * + %
- $ %+ $ % + + + + * + % * + +% % + + $ * % + - $ %+ + $ + * * % ** +%
+ $ - + % * + %
?% * * % + * + ! !/% !, +! % )@8 9849 )< =! ! !#!
& +
- , %+ , 2
, $ 0
6 +
"
- , %+ , 2
, $ 0 E% * % * +% - $ %+ +
% * + +% $ $ 2 $ + ** + + + % % ?% + $ + * - $ %+
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
,
!"#$
* $
% ! !/% !, +! % )@8 9849 )< =! ! !#! ) +
#
%
+ * + $
+ - $ %+
$ + % * $
* $$ + % $ * $$ + $ !
- , %+ , 2
, $ 0 =$ $ $ * ; + * >
+ $ +% $ $
+ $ * $ + ;+ + * +
$ > +
$ + * - $ %+ + ! !/% !, +! % )@8 9849 )< =! ! !#!2
/% * A + % 5C48 9 )< =! ! !#!
&4 +
!
* $
& +
$
# ?% * *
+
$ - $ %+ % %
% +
* $ + * * + %+
!
- $ %+ $ % * + % + + % * + $ + % $
* % $ * + $ $ + + $ > + * $ + % +
$ + * - $ %+ + % + + $ + % +
! !/% !, +! % )@8 9849 )< =! ! !#!2 /% * A + % 5C48 9 )< =! ! !#!
@ +
!
+ % * + * * %
+ % *
+ $ %+ $ $ + + * * 2
* + % !
% / ?% ,% + $ + ?% + % + % %
* + + ! 4 +
!&
* $
+
%
6 +
!
* $ , + + + %+ *
$%
$*% + 2 + $ +
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
+ * + % + * $% $ % + $ * $ $ *
+ % +
! 6 +
' ( )
* ; . ! $ ! " ** B F B
0 !
+ ! + . ! 0+ - .! B %
, % F , % / $ ! B * 0 0+ +- - F / , $ , ! * $ **! . ! #
) B
0 ! ! +- - ! ! * *
A;; $! 0 .! - B
0 ! * * # + : +! + 3,: :3 .#0A /! 0:""A/ . ! + .% ! * A;; $ 8A;; 9 + $ + $% % /% 4' !/! !,! A;; 1 * + * $ **
A;; * $ **1 $ ! , ** - * % % +% % A;; + +% $ % % * + ! ,% %
+ % * $ )6 &('4 $ ** + * $$ ; ')C +% +
+ $ &' + 8, $ ! 659! #++ $ ** + * $ $ A;; 1 )@( )'C )'& )') )'4 )'6 )'5 )'@ )'' 8, $ ! 659! + % * + %
$$ $$ $$ + * $ **1 + * $ % % +% ! + % - + + %
++ +
$ + $ * !
; %+ * + +%
+ ; $ * $ ! ; $$ $ % $ + $ * +
;+ * $ * +% + * $ $ * % + ! :
* +% + + $ %+ % $ %+ % > + $ + % /% )@8+9 !/! !,!
+ + % * %+ $ + ! :!
$% $ *
+ $ + % + $ + % * *
+ *% * >% + ! * + % +
+ + *
$% *
$ % % * + ! < A + D ))(& 80+ % / !&(@&92 F +- $! ! F " : +! )(@ ! %$$! ('( 8A! ! !&(@(92 + % ! ! # + + ! &5 !/! ! 55 8 ! !3 &(549! : = ! = 0 + $! <( ! %$$! 45' 8 !0 !&(5C9 .% G - *
?% * >% * + *
+
$ H I $ $$ * 8&9 * $ % + + 2 8)9 $ + % + 8 9 *
* + % % 8 9 + + + % + + 2 849 + % + * + * +
* 8 9 + 8 9 % $ + * 8+9 * $% $ * +% $ 8 9 $ 8 9 + 8 9 + $ + 8 9 * $% $ * +
+ 2 869 $ 8 9 + * 8 9 + !J 8<( ! %$$! 45<K45(9!
?% + % + I % $ + * 1 + % + % + * ! ! ! :
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
B% 0 + $! ! $ / $! 66 !/! ! &C 8 ! !&(@<92 = !
)55 !) 66& 8) ! &(5<9!
- $ %+ + %
$ *
+ * $ +
+ +% + * * % * $$ + % ! +% $ $ + $ *
+ %
1 I - $ %+ J
+ %$ * % % %
$ $$ + % ! 7 +- ! 4)( =! ! 6(5 5&& @' ! ! 4<5 (& "!A ! 65& 8&(6'92 )(@ ! %$$! (<&! !
%$ $! ! 0 % / G 6<' !) 6<C 86 ! &('492 /% )@8 9849 !/! !,! : % + - $ %+ +
+ % % - % I$ +
+ % * $ + + % $ *
$ * $ + + !J /% )@8 9849 !/! !,! ::!
" #
: % %$$ * A;; + $ ** $ $ + $ * + % + $% + +% ! + $ $% + +% A;; % + % + + $ * + * $ % + * + % ! 8, $ ! 6@ ' (2 , $ ! @) )69! %+ + % + % A;; 1 * % + % * $% + !
! : %$$ * $ A;; L / $! ! / $! * # + &)& ! %$$! '() 8 ! !&(569! : $ * .% " $ * $ + % + I + + + + % + !J &)& ! %$$! '(6! :
I I + 1 $ + 2
+ + + + $ + * % + + ! ! ! + $ * $% + $ ! ! !!J &)& ! %$$! '(6! %
$ * + $ $ $
-
+
$ - $ %+ ; $
+ ! * .% " I! ! ! -
% ! ! ! % % + - ++% + * G !J &)& ! %$$! '(4!
" + % *%
+ G IM N $ * $ I % *
$% +!J1 , + : % 0 %* + % ! ! #% 0 + 0 + ! 4)6 =! ! <C@ <&5 @5 ! ! ((4 ((< <( "!A ! &4<& 8&(659 + 7 G #
! ! 7 * A $ ! 4)) =! ! )4< )6@ @6 ! ! ((' << "!A ! &)5C 8&(669! : % % H I# $ % ** + $% + ! # + G % $ + $ $% + $% $ * $ I, * + + % *% # !J #
$ ;+ $
% $ ++ * $ - ! * + + + + + ?% + * $ * $% + $ % * $
$ $ * +- % * * * % ?% + %+ %+ $ - $ + $ !1 84)6 =! ! <&@ @5 ! ! ((<9! &
% G $% +
$ + * $ + %
+ $ - $ %+ + $$ + % $ $ + $ + !
! L G 6&< !) @44 8' ! &(@(92 :
6&C !) &<' 84 ! &(@(92
! 7 4() !) @<@ 8&C ! &(@<92 . +- : +! ! ! 56 !/! ! 66 8 ! ! !&('&92
F # - $! ! .! ,! F ! 5& !/! ! )&( 8 ! ! !&('&92 ; , %+ : +! ! = 0 + F 0 %* + % : +! 6' !/! ! 446 8 ! ! ! !&(@(92 # : +! ! # / %+ $ 6@ !/! ! (@ 8 ! !:
!&(@<92 A?% $ : +! ! B % + : +! )55 ! %$$! &C)C 8 ! !0 + !&(@@9! % & + $ + % 45 =! ! ! D )6 +
$ + $ *
B * , : * + * = , 3** + ! + % $$
$ + + +% * $$
! #$$
% $ % * $ + * *%
+ % $ + $ $ + % *
+ $ - $ %+
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
% $$
++ * $ $ $ $$ + ! +% H I *%
+ G %+ % $% +
*%
+ % * + * ;$ + *
$ ! + + + % $ $ $$ + * - $ %+
+ $
$% + ** $ % * $ $ + $ + !J 86&C !)
&(CK&(&9! :
! 7 4() !) @<@ 8&C ! &(@<9
% $ %+ * +% + + * + $ + ,
3** + ! $ +
+ $ + % H I + G $ $ + $$ +
% * + * ! : % $ * + * + * $ $ $ + !
+ $ I * + * >% + J M+
N I $ * * + %
* + !J M+
N! $ + $ % * ! $$ $
+ ! $% + $ *
% ! ! !! % * *%
+ % ** * * * + %
! ! ! ! M#N % + * $ ++% $
+ $ !1 84() !) @(&K@()9!
# + % * % - $ %+ + $$ $ + ! I#
1 - $
* % %+ * !J 4() !) @(4! :
F # - $! ! .! ,! F ! $ + $ *
+ $ $ %+ % * % $$ + $
+ ! I + % $ * 1 %
** + $ ! ! ! $ * * + + $ % > + * + % + ! % %$ .% " 1 L / $! ! / $! * # + M+
N , + * + , ! ! = , $! &< !/! !
6@4 8 ! ! ! !&(5@9! * +
* + $
% G $ $ $ + $% + + * $ +
+ ! # + * + % * $
+
% + + ! I0 + + + + + % + %+ * ! - $ %+
+ $ ; * * $
% $ + + % % + ! ! ! ! $ + + + + *
$ $$ ?% * + * $
!J 85& !/! ! ))CK))&9! :::!
$ % : *
+ $
- $ %+ + $$ + $ + + % * $ **
% % + $ + $ * + % ! I M$ N %+
+ $ + %
* % *
+ %
$ $ + *
+ % +
% ?% !J 86 0 , + + O)@!@C8@99!
: =! ! : % : +! ! ! &'6 = ,E 5&6 8 ! ! ! !&(')9 7
: +! ! , $ # + *
$! 5C !/! ! &&' 80! !, !&('C9 + >% + $ ** + * $ + % % $%
* $ * % ! + %
?% ! :P! #!
&
+ $ ; + $ ! / B% : +! ! # + # + 4)C !) 4&6 8' ! &(@49! + $ - -
+ $
+ % +
% + % + $ 1 I+ %$!J
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
** + $ * + $ $ * %$
$ % + %
$ + $ + +
- + * + % * " * * %$ $ ! , $ ! % A + + $! )&C ! %$$! 6<4 8A! !, !&(@)92 ! 0 $! )&4 ! %$$! 5&5 8 ! ! !&(@492 3 G ! 7! "! 7! , %+ ! 4( !/! ! 6& 8 ! !&(@592 " ! 0 $! 64 !/! ! 5C< 8 ! ! ! !&(@'92 % : % : +! ! ! #! ! $! 6( !/! ! <) 8A! !, !&(@(92 /%+- ! /! ! 6&< !) &6@ 8' ! &(@(92 7
: +! ! , $ # + * $! ' #( 7 $ / ,% : +! ! +- 6)4 !) 6<' 8' ! &('C9 **1 6CC =! ! 46< (& ! ! 6'( )' "!A !) 644 8&('&9! B! )
+ $ $$ + *
+ % + * + $ + %$
+ + $ + ! I7 % J + $% *
+ $ % + +% + I % J + % !
! 7 4() !) @<@ 8&C ! &(@<92 # + 3$ + $ ! 0 + : +! 5@ !/! ! 6)@ 8 !0 !&(')92 # : +! ! # / %+ $ 6@ !/! ! (@ 8 ! !:
!&(@<92 = ! = 0 + $! %$ ! A;; + * $% $ *
+
$ $ +
+
* ** + % + ! 8, $ ! 6@ <9! I: % J + % ++ A;; + $ %
$ * + $ + + +
+ ! % A;; +% + $ **1 + : ::: :P $ $ + $ *
+ $ ! + % % A;; 1 $ $ ! :
! L G %$ * +% + * $ + * + $ + I % J I % J + % ! + $ + % + $ +
* + $ + ! + % * % %+
+ % + + *
+ $ ! I %+ + % +
+ $ %
*
?% * + * I % J + % ! ! ! ! M:N *
+ % +
1 + * + % $ + % + * + * %
* $ + * + % ! $ G
+ %
+ %
$ + * $% $ ! # %+ % - +- * $
* +% + !1 86&< !) @4' + % * 9! : % $ ! 0 %- 7 % + , %+ : +! 4' !/! ! 6'C 8A! ! !&(@59 * + * * $ %+ * +% $% % /% 46 !/! !,! *
$% + % + $ + $ **1 I % J + % I % J $ + % + + ! ?%
+ % * % + $ + +
+ $ ! * + $ + *
I % J $ + $ + * + % + % + + + % ! ; , %+ : +! ! = 0 + F 0 %* + % : +! 6' !/! ! 446 8 ! ! ! !&(@(92 7 ! 66 !/! ! 64& 8 ! !3- !&(@<9! ) * # : $ * I % J + % + % $ + + + % + + + % %
* + % + ! : $ * I % J + % * + $ +
%$ $ * + $ + -
+ * I % J + % ! + % + + + % + % + + + % + % + + $ ?% $ + + %
++% I % J I % J + % !
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
P! & # " *
#! # + , # -
! # + * + % +
+ $ + % + % +
+ * + * $% $ * + + ! , $ ! % A + + $! ! $ *% ;
1 + $ + + $ % + * + * + !
! 7 ' # + 3$ +
$! ! 0 + : +! 2 = ! = 0 + $! %$ !
" # IM N * + $
$ * + !J = ! B 6CC !) 65( 6@& 8@ ! &(@<9! 3
+ + % + $ + * + * * $ ! = !
)55 !) 66'! #
% ;$ ?% * + + + + % + + * * $ + * $ $ *
+ ! < A + D )4&& 80+ % / ! &(@&9! B! % + , # -
$ + % + +
+ + $ %+ ?% + * + ;$ ! : . +- : +! ! $ : +! 56 !/! ! 66 8 ! ! !&('&9 + % * % $
+% + + ?% * +
$ ! : + % + % 1 $ + * + +% * +
+ $ ?% * + % + + % + *
+
+ ! + % H I * $ +% + + % + - $
$$ * + % % $ $ ?% * + *
+ % + - $
+ $ $ $ + + % $ + * + + +
% +
?% * + * + * % !J 856 !/! ! 6@9! + + % + *
+ + $ + ?%
+ $ ; ! 0
% % - $ + * * $ $ $ +
* + + ! ?%
$ ?% * + *
+ % + $ $ $ + ! * $ ! % #
% $ + % + +
$ ;$ ?% *
+ ?% + % + + +
+ + *
$ ! : A% + + $ ! 0 + : +! @& !/! ! 45 8A! ! ! !&('49 $ ** +
* * 1 $ + $
* $ %+ + +% ! + % + ?% + * %
* $ H + * $ ?%
* + $ * + $ $
! +
* + % + + $ *
$ ** + +% + $ + % + % %
+ $ *
+ $ ! #
% + % * % $ ?% *
* * * +% ;+ + * I* $% $ * * +
1 ** $ + + !J @& !/! ! 6C! 0 * + +% +% +
! 4 % * % $ * + $ 1 + %$ * $% $ * -
+ $ + %
$ G + % + +
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
* % $ * + $ * $ $ $ $$ + * + ! % + % * % $ $ $ * + $ + ! + % /% 5C48 9869 * , $
/% * A + 6 $% $ *
+
$ * H I! ! ! $% $ * + % + * + * + + + % + * % + *
* * +
+ % + + $ + $ %+ % +
% +
* $ !J 8@& !/! !
4(9!
% + % % * % $ +% $ $ + $ $ + + % + + * + + %
% + + +
* $ * % * $% $ * + ! * % + %
% + * + % . ! +% + $ $ + * * + %$ + %
+ + $ ;$ $ ?% * + % + $ %
*
% + $ *
+ $ + % + $ + % + + $ !
+ % + % + + + + * ! <( ! %$$! 45(!
$ * * + + ! , * ?%
+
%$ $ + + % ;$ ; + + + * + !
+ $ $
+ + % + % + + + +
! A?% $ : +! ! B % + : +! )55 ! %$$! &C)C &C)4 8 ! !0 + !&(@@92
= ! = 0 + $! <( ! %$$! 45(K4@C!
: - $
$ - $ + % - + +% + + +
+ % + + * + $ % ! % * + +% * + ! . @& !/! ! 6&!
! " : * $ $$ + $$ +
?% + + * $
** + * $
% ! 45 =! ! ! DD &&& &&)! $$ + + * * $ ** +
+ * % $ $ $ $$ + + + %+ * * ! * ;$ + * + * + * $$ + *
+ $ $ %+ * ! ?%
* + + + $ * $ %+
& : % $ G $ + % $% + % * $
+ * +% $ * $$ + + + % + $ % + + !
+
$ $ $ $$ +
$
+ * + + $ ! . +- : +! ! + * +- ! % $
$ 5C !/! ! ))5 8 ! ! !&('C92 . +
+ +% +
* : +! ! $ : +! 56 !/! ! $% $ * +% * + % ! !
66 6@K6' 8 ! ! !&('&9! A
$ !
! L G 6&< !) @44 8' ! &(@(9! = F $ &5( ! %$$! (&' 8 ! !.!&(5<9! 7 +% $
* + + + + +
! & * + % * $ + +
: = ! = 0 + $! - * + $ ! .% G - $ G % * . +- : +! ! $ : +! 56 !/! ! + + + $ 6@K6'! $ + ! ?%
+ $ + %
# : % + A;; 1 + $ +
+ $
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
+ %
* & + %+ $ + * , 3** + ! . / &5( ! %$$! ()C! , + * + , ! ! = , $! &< !/! ! 6@4 8 ! ! ! !&(5@9! P:!
$ , ** + + % + % + % * $
+ $ 8, $ ! @6 &@9! + + % % !
: - ! = )<( =! ! & 54 ! ! 6@5 '' "!A ! ((4 8&(449 %$ % $ G $ * + % +
+
% % ! : H I $ $ + + % +
+ ! $ - * * % ! # + + %
* +
+ * * %
$ * !J 8)<( =! ! &5 54 ! ! 6@(9!
!
= ! B &C@ !) 4' 8) ! &(4(9
% &
+ $ ; + ! 4C< =! ! 5<( @C ! ! &&5 <6 "!A ! 6(4 8&(4(9! $ ;$ /%
% *
5C48 9 * , $ /% * A + ! /% %+
1 + ! < A + D 5C48 9 H )4C& 80+ % / ! &(@&9! *
I $ % % ! ! ! M N* + * $% $ * $ $ * % 1 $ * + * + ! < + $ + + - A + D )4C& 80+ % / ! &(@&9! : % - + * % !J L / $! ! / $! * # + 85@ !/! ! )4@9! * .% " + % ** + + - + - >%
% + $
* * % %$ *
% $ %** +
+ $ ! + $ * I % !J # + * * % % $ + * * % + % ++ $ * .% " ?% $ ! - ! =
+ % $
)<( =! ! &5 54 ! ! 6@52
! L G $
%
$ 2 = ! B 2 * . +- : +! + + + -
! $ 5C !/! ! ))5 8 ! ! !&('C9! %+ + % + $ + ! /
Q $ %+ * $ +% : +! ! . 3 0 %* + % ! 6' !/! ! $ $ + $
% $ + 5)6 8A! ! !&(@(9 8+ $ + $ **1
+ % + * # + * + % * * $ $ + * % ; !
! L G 6&< !) @4@! $ + % $
9! !
. ! #! B +- ! ! ! 7! + - ! 7 , %+ $! )54 ! %$$! ((( 8 ! !.!&(@@92 0+ +- A + D <<
&<CK&<& 8) ! &(')9! P::! / 0
+ $ + % + + * % % + ! 3 + * + % +
+ + + + $ $ * + * + * % % + + % + * $ ! < A + D ))(< 80+ % / ! &(@&9!
: , $ ! @) <C A;;
+ $ % ! H I8 9 I J I - J $ B% B% ! "
,% + = , + M* % , 3** + * % % N I8 9 % *% $ + + + $ + + + B% # + ! ! ! I8+9 * % % M
+ $ N *
$ % ++ $ + * % * + %+ $% + M ?% + %+ N!J
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
# $ 65 , $ ! @) A;;
* + $ ** % $ % ! + % &9 * + % $
** + I J * + * $ 2 )9 +
* * % $ $ %+ 2 49 * + * + $ 2 69 - $ $ * + $ 2 59 + $ + * !
! A;; *
+ ?%
* % ! % + + % * + + + + $ *
+ $ - $ %+ % + $ + ?% %
* A;; 1
* % * $ % ! #
* % %
* + * + % +
+ *% + * * % ! : # * % * %+ + % + $
!
" 0 % * $
%
* *
$ * !
* %+ % %
% + % ! : $ + $% % + $ $ %+ * +% ! A;; 1 % $ + % $$ ! : 0 + $! ! 0
: ! 4)C =! ! @@& @6 ! ! )@< << "!A ! 4'@ 8&(669 * ; $ %$ % *
% * $ $ + % $ * > * * $ ! % * + $ +
!
+ $
* * % $ ** + * % + % $$ #
%$$ * % ! :
%$ #
+ % +
+
% + * * % + ! P:::!
#!
"
: + P: P:: P::: :R R $ ** $ * + % - $ %+
+ ! # $ % , :: * $
- $ %+ + $$ $ + !
# $ +% + $ + + % $ *
$ * $ $ $ + $ * $ + * $ %+ + + % +% + % * + + + $ + + % $ ! $ %+ + + % $ +
+% + ;$ + + , 3** +
* $$ + * $ + +% + % %
*
1 **
$ + $
$ + % %
* % $ %+ * * , 3** + ! !
, + : % 0 %* + % ! ! #% 0 + 0 + ! 4)6 =! ! <C@ @5 ! ! ((4 <( "!A ! &4<& 8&(6592
! 7 4() !) @(42
! L G 6&< !) @44 @4' 8' ! &(@(9!
% + %$ + + *
$ $ * $ +% * * : * + , + * ,
3** + +
+ $
+ %
1 - $ %+ % > + + $$ $ % ?% % %$ $$ $ % /% * , + % !
! L G @4'K@4<! B! # -
& #++ #
&('C # /% /% )@8 9849 ;$ + *
- $ %+ * % 7 +- ! 4)( =! ! 6(5 @' ! ! 4<5 (& "!A ! 65& 8&(6'9 + % $ +
+ $ $
$ $ I + $ * $ $ * !J 6< !/! ! 6<' 5C) 8&('C9!
?% + * +%
+
+ $ + $ $ + $ * ! #
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
+ % * % * $% $
% $ % % + 8 9849! 6< !/! ! 6<' 5C&! %+ *
% - $ %+ + ; $ &('C ! #! % , : +! 4)C !) 65 86 ! &(@49 % /% )@ 6 0
, + + O )@!@6M)N! : 3 ! ! . - , 56 !/! ! 4@' 8 ! !:
!&(')9 + % * %
+% $ + $
*
S % + + $ * $ + * + ?% * ! A;+ % * $ + +% $ $ % + % * % ! + % H I! ! ! $ $ 1 8
+ * + %
9 + ?% $ $ *
+ * +
$ *
1 ;$ % + + % $ % + % * % % $% *
$ * /% )@8 9849 8 9869!J 856 !/! ! 4')9!
: * ?% +% $ $ + $ * +
+% $ $ * + + ! - $ %+ + $$ $ $ + + ! # + 3$ + $ ! 0 + : +! 5@ !/! ! 6)@ 8 !0 !&(')92 * ; , %+ : +! ! = 0 + F 0 %* + % : +! 6' !/! ! 446 8 ! ! ! !&(@(9! !
, %+ $! ! 0 + ! )@ !/! ! 5') 5'( 8 ! ! ! !&(@C92 P $! ! B &( !/! ! 5)) 8 ! ! ! !&(5@9!
: ! 1 + % * % - $ %+
+ $$ +
%
1 $ $ $ + % + % * ! / %+ * +
1 + ! + % H I:* $ $ + * * + % * $ + * + + * + +% $ $
+ + $ $$ + ! ! ! !J 86' !/! ! 44'9!
: % " *
; ! : ! 1 + % *
$ $ * +% - ! :
+ % 0 + % + $ % ! ! &
) .1
! A * +% $ $ + $ * $ + ** /% )@8 9849 % ! +
%$ * I % J I % % % $J * ! * + + + + * + % 8&9 $ + * * % 8)9 ** +%
$ - +
* + %
?% * * % + * + ! 6 0 , + + O)@!@6M4N! 7 +- ! 4)( =! ! 5&& @' ! ! 4<52
! 7 4() !) @(4! ! ! " , -
" ?% * % * +% - $ %+ + %
* + +% $ $ ! : %$ $! ! 0 % / G 6<' !) 6<C 86 ! &('49 % +% * % * ) $$ + + + $ + ! + % ;$ $ + ** - $ %+ + + + % % ?% + $ + * - $ %+ % ! :R! # 2 *
3 & * * # % : $ **1 + P R::: RP: RP:: $ ** $ * + * + % + ;+ $ **1 + % $ * + $ $ $ + ! , ** + $ ; + % * + % + $ ** + % * $ + $ % ! , **
* + % + ?% $ ** 3 $ 8: 9
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
,
!"#$
> + * $ ! $ + + + % > + $ ! ?%
> + % %
%++ * $ ! /% 5C48 9 * , $ /% * A + ++ $ **1 $ ! : $ H I# + $ *% + $ $ * + + *
+ % + * $% $ * * * + * $ * +
+ ! ! ! 849 $
* + ! ! !!J 85@ !/! ! )4@9! : - ! 7 ,
: +! 45 !/! ! 55& 8 ! !:
!&(@69 $ ** > + %
* ! % * + *
+ $ + $ ** $ > + $ * ;$ * $ + ! #
% $ $ + + $ + $ $ * ! + % * % %
* > + $ $ * 1 + + *
% + * 2 $ * $ *! #
% + % ?% + % + *
- $ %+ % ?%
$ %+ ! I
* $ % % ;+ - $ %+ $ + ?% * $ !J 45 !/! !
555! : , %+ $! ! 0 +
$ )@ !/! ! 5') 8 ! ! ! !&(@C9 $ ** %
% *
+ * $ $ % + $ ** $ + * * $ % ! $ ** + + % + $
+ $ + * ! # * + % +
* * * + % * % 0 * + $ % $ **! ?%
+ % * % + % + $ $ I !J :
* + % * - 0 * + % + G *
+ % + H I3 + % * + * ;+ $ * *
$ $ %+ + + % $ $ + !J 8)@ !/! ! 5'(9! %
+ % + $ + * + % - $ %+ + ! : ; , %+ : +! ! = 0 + F 0 %* + % : +! + * $ + + * * ! = 0 + 0 %* + % 8=009 * % $ %+ * $ + + $ $ * ! $ % ?%
+ + % * $ ** $ ! #
% $ $
+ + % * % $ $ $ + $ * + % $ %+ ! 0 + % $ + ** - $ %+ + + * + % * $
* $ **! # +% * $ ** * * * =00
$ + + - % + * ! : + %
+ * $ **! %+ + % * $ ** $ >% * + % * - $ %+
$ + + * *
* $ + ! : P $! ! B &( !/! ! 5)) 8 ! ! ! !&(5@9 $ ** * $ %+ * % +
* % ! +% * ! +
$ $ * ! / $ $
* $ $ **
*
! : % + $ + * + % * $ + *
% + % * * ! + % > + $ **1 + % - $ %+ $ +
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
* +
*
* ! + % * % - $ %+
+ $$ ;+ * + *
%
* $ + $ $ $ $ + $ * !
# $ = - $ + 3 8: 9 % $ + %
* $ ?% ! + 3 + $
+ $ + * 0 * + $ ! 1! > + % % %++ * > + $ ! %+ % %
+ + % + % +
* > + ! =$ $ $ * ; + * %+ > + $ +% $ $
+ $ * + ;+ + * +
$ > +
$ + * - $ %+ + ! = $ $ * $ ;+ $ ;+ * $ %+
* $ ** 3
8: 9
% * + !
+ * $ + * * + %+
! : : B% 0 + $! ! $ / $ + + * * * + + $% + $ ;+% ! + % * %
+ $ %+ + % ! / + % * %
% > + * * + + $% +
+ * + % + !
: # + 3$ + $ ! 0 + : +! 5@ !/! ! 6)@ 8 !0 !&(')9 $ + $ + $
% # + 3$ + 8#39! : + $ $ * +
$ * " #3 % +
* 0 +1
1 *
+ ! #3 +
0 + $
%+
+% + $ % * + ! + % ;$ > + #31 $ ! : B% 0 + $! ! $ / $! + % H I! ! ! : > + $ $ * * + % R! # * * + 1 ! # - * $ $ % ! ! !! B - : + R:P RP:: $ ** $ * $ - * $ + % ! * + * + % +
+ % $ + % *
* + ; % $ + %+
! ! 3 $ ** $ $
% * $ % - %
+ $ + !
% !& ! ,% + $ + ?% + % $ $ $ * + % %
* + +
* + + + !J 85( !/! !
#% ! / &4@ =! !#$$! ! ! )&@ 6&( !) 64&9! &&(' 8&(@(92 ,
! #++! F " * # % !
! ! + % $! 4@5 !) 6&( 84 ! &(@@92 $ + $!
+ * * + %
! . + : +! 6@6 !) &&<6 8&C ! &(')9! % + % *
+ * +
+ - $ %+ $ ! :
$
+ * + % $ %+ $ + % * $
* $$ + % + %$ ! + % % *% *
* + $ + % ! : B% 0 + $! ! ! # $ + + + $ / $! 66 !/! ! &C 8 ! !&(@<9! # %+ *
$
$*% ?% * *
+ $ + ! < A + D )4)' 80+ % / ! $ %+ % %
% &(@&9! 3 + $ + + *
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
!"#$
+ % + * $% $ % + $ * $ $ *
+ % +
!
#
$$ * $% $ * ! '
@5 !/! ! )@ &( !/! !) 544 &<6 =! !,!E! @5&
Footnotes
1
2 3 4
In Precision Instrument, the Patent Office had declared an interference between certain claims in two pending patent applications, one filed by Automotive's predecessor and one filed by Precision Instrument's predecessor. The two applicants later settled the interference proceedings by entering into three contracts which, in part, conceded Automotive's priority. The settlement agreements allowed the interference proceedings to be terminated in favor of Automotive's predecessor without disclosing to the Patent Office the perjured statements of which it had knowledge and upon which the patent application by Precision Instrument's predecessor had been based. Such failure to disclose was held to be a violation of the duty which all parties to Patent Office proceedings have to report all facts concerning fraud underlying patent applications then pending. When Automotive later sought to sue Precision Instrument for patent infringement, the Court refused to enforce the settlement agreements on the ground that Automotive had violated its duty to disclose and was therefore without â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;clean hands.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; While standing in part for the admitted proposition of the great public interest in patent proceedings, Precision factually involved collusion among patent applicants to prevent certain information from reaching the Patent Office, and no questions of work product doctrine and attorney-client privilege were involved in that case. In Dura, however, communications between â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;outsideâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; co-counsel were afforded protection only on the basis of the work product doctrine, and not the attorney-client privilege. For example, documents 10 and 143â&#x20AC;&#x201C;148 were memoranda exchanged between one co-inventor and the vice-president, resulting from a meeting both men had with the attorney. At that meeting, the attorney had requested certain information needed to draft the patent application. The Proposed Federal Rules of Evidence have set forth the following general rule of privilege: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client, (1) between himself or his representative and his lawyer or his lawyer's representative, or (2) between his lawyer and the lawyer's representative, or (3) by him or his lawyer to a lawyer representing another in a matter of common interest, or (4) between representatives of the client or between the client and a representative of the client, or (5) between lawyers representing the client.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Proposed Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 503(b), 56 F.R.D. 236 (1973)).
End of Document
Š 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
!" # $%&' " '(' &%
) " * +
= + + +
! " ! # ! $
%&! '&&(
! " # $%# #$ & %'# () " * + & ,, - './% # 0 + ,
8 . ;
+ * + $ . *
! + > + *
! + $ +
$ ! ! +* ! $ .. * +
$ $ * + 3' ,- < ':&'! *
12 3245 2&678 9 : ) 1;
) $* + * +
* ,- + . + . ! * . ! + . $ . . +
* +
$ $ * . * +
* ! / ! 0 # /* ! + + 1 234 $* + 5 $ * .
$ . .
+ $ $* + $ * 6 2'4 $ *
- $ * ! $* + $ + $ * ! $ * 6 2%4 $* +
$ * . $
*
3 + + +
* " . 6 " $
6 , #
" $ * . + + *
+ > . +
+ $ $
$ * ,- + 3' ,- < ':&'! * = + + +
7
8 9 23:4
* " . 6 " $
6 , #
" $
; * $ * . ; . ; - $ * *
+ * . $ . * ,- + +
+
$ $$ ! +
* $ . $ * 3' ,- < ':&'! *
* " . 6 " $
6 , #
" $ 0 ,- + ! . * . ?$ @ * *
* .
* * .
3' ,- < ':&'! * ' + + +
!
; * $
$ ! * ! * + + + $
* + + * *
A.. . . $ #
6 ; > *
# . $
*
$ * +
. $* $ .
$
3 + + +
%
; ..5 $ * .
$ - $ . + $ *
* . .
+ $ $ .. $ * 3' ,- < ':&'! *
+ + +
!
* " . 6 " $
6 , #
" $ *
! + $ * . *
. ! $
$
+ + +
&
# ; 8+ $ # - * " . 6 " $
6 , #
" $
' + + +
* . * +
+ ! * *
$ $ B* * . *
+ ! *
$ $ .
# ;
;
# 8 $ *
- $ *
. + $ *
! $ ..
$ .
$ * . ! * $ + $ * ! $ * C* ; C* 'D2 42%4! 'E 0
+ + +
$
# 8 - ; * ; 6
; $ #
> +
+
* !
*
5 $ . * * . + ! ?
- $ * @ C* ; C* 'D2 42%4! 'E 0
' + + +
"
8 . ;
E + + +
#
!
8 - ; * ; 6
; $ #
?,
- $ * @
. + +
B* .
$ .
! + $ . - $ *
$ + $ $ * C* ; C* 'D2 42%4! 'E 0
' ( ) #
( + + + # 8 - ; * ; 6
; $ #
7 8 ! $+ ) 7 * ! F * ! ,- + ! , ! / . - + $! F * ! * ! , ! . .
3& + + + # 8 " $* + 5
! $* + $ * . $ * . $* $ . .
- $ * $ - . .
+
. + 3 + + +
3 + + +
* & * ) 7 ! 9 + ) *$$! 9
! A
! 9 -! 7 ! 7 F ! * ! , ! . $ ..
$* $ . . $ * $ ! ? $ - $ * @
+ $ .
C* ; C* 'D2 42%4! 'E 0
$$ $ .
+ $$ $ .
8 . ; + .
$$ * + + $ + + $$ $ + * + .. 1 234 + + . $ *
. .. ! * + . * .. . $ 6 2'4 + + $ ! + * + .. ! $* $ . * - 6 2%4 . $ $$ ! *
+ /, AC! 0 # /* *
. + * . + # $ ; * . * . + ; .. . . ! > ! " .
+ ; .. + * $ * * + + ; .. $ +
+
- $ * $ . + + * + * $ * * ; .. + + $$ $ * ; .. + $ + * ? * @
+ + * + + . $ + $ ! + ! + * .
+ $ . 5 # $ + ,-'./01 G - 3:H3I + * . +
; .. + +
$ - $ * + * * + $ * + * * + ; .. + $ + * ? * @ + . ; .. . +
* * 23 -+ 014-'( '.1 #' /4'( 5' 6,-+4.1 " 3J((! + . $ $ + . * . :& ; .. . ! 3JE%! $* + ; .. $* +
!
"
. . . + $* + * + $ $ + + $ * + ! + $* + * K + " 3JEJ! ; .. $ + . *
+ * + + $ $ 3JJ3! * $ .
+
! + . + . * * * + $ $
+ + * + *$ .
+ ! 7 # ! K* , 3! 3JJ3 " 3JJ%! 7 # * ; .. . * * * + * *
* * K* . . > 2 + . + 4 # + *
$ + # 5 2 + ; .. + 4 # *
+ *
+
. + *
! ; .. * . . * ; .. * + . !
* . ! + . $
. . + ; ..
B* K* . . + # $ B* +
+ * ; .. $ * * + + ; .. $ + +
$ + - $ * .
+ ; .. + + $ +
+ ; .. + $ + * ? * @ 223 7'280- 2 40 .
+ ; .. + +
$ + - $ * * ; ..5 * . * . + ; .. $ * $ - $ * * . +
+ $ * . *
*
$ . +
$ + - $ * ; .. -
+ * $ * ; .. + + + . . ; ..5
+ *
! C $+ / ; .. + ! + L
+ * + + $ * . . * . ; ..
+ . + * $ * + + $ +
$ + $ * ! + . + * $ * $ + * ; ..5 $ + +
$ + - $ * . ++ $ * . * .
+ ; .. + + +
+ - $ * $ + *
+ . + * $ /90 '//+-.0: (20./ -282(0,0 + $ + ,- + + * . $ C A :&3 2?G"I $ ! + $ . . + + *$$ + * . ! + $ . ! $ ! ! $ * + . +
+ @4 ,- + + * *
+
$ + $ .* $ + $ . .
* . + $* $ . .
+ . $ . + 1 3 + . + $ +
+
5 $ 3' , '&&3! < ':&'2 4
; .. * *
+ + * . $ . + + $ $$ ! + *
$ . $ * 0 + * B* * + + . $ + * ! * ; .. + + * + + + $ * ; .. * K + $ + * . + $ + + ,- + $ $$ + * + + $ * ; .. ,- +
* * + . + + * . + + + * + + $ * + * %&% ; ' =(D 2,- $$ 3J:D4 ! * * + $ * . + $ *
!
#
; .. + - * ; .. * +
$ * * + + + $
+ $ + + . ; ..5 *
* $ * $ * + + + . + . $ * + K* ! * + * + + + * . + $ * *
. + $
" + ! + $ + .*
+ * + + $ + * $ * ! ; .. + + * + + $ * $ $ ; .. * + + * !
+ * + +
. ! . * * + + ! !
+
+ ; ..
+ + *
$ . * + * . *
. ; .. + *
+ + $
+
$ *
; .. + . + * + + ; ..5 $
; .. *
+ + * $* ?. * . @
* + * + * * ! $ $ ! + + + ; ..5 *
$ ! $ ! + * $$ * ; ..5 * 5 ..
$ $ * + . * .
. $ 9 ! . *
. + + *
+ + > . +
+ $ $ +
$
+
+ ! + + $ * . * . ! $
+
$ + . * . * +
+ ! * + *
$ $ B* + * . + * +
+ ! + *
$ + $ . +
" ! + $ * $
$ 2 * + 4! * + + + + $ +
* + + * + * +
+
% ; .. - + . + *
$ * . * + +
; ..5
; .. + > + + * !
+ * + $ . * ! *
+
+ + * . + + $ +
$ ; .. +
+ . * +
$ + * *
! + ! * ; ..5 - $ . +
$ + * + * 5 * . + * . + * + + $ * ; ..! * + + *
+ . .
C $+ / ! + $ ; .. + $ * * " ! + * . +
$ * ? * K
@ + * + . .
+ ; .. + +
$ + $
* + $
* *
/90 7+-6 -+14 / -282(0,0
! " $ * . " . * ! - $ * * ! ?$ @ * *
! * . . * + . + * +
C* 'D2 42%4 $ " # %" * + . +
> $ ! 3%D % DJ:! (&' 3& 23& + 3JJE4 + $ $ > *
C* . ; * . ? - $ * @
+ + * $ +
$ + + .
* 1 $ E': ' D(D 2' 3JE(4 + G I $ . $
* . * +
$ + * + +
$ $ $ . ! " # E:' *$$ 3:D! . + . + 3D& 2A 3JJ=4 9 ! * $ . + +
!
$
$ 5 $ 2 * + + $ 5
! *
! * ! ! * ! 4 *$ + +
+ $ - + * . +
+ $ $ . + $ 5 + + $ * + * * * + + $
+ * B* . + + " . * +
+ + B* + + ! + * +
$
* . +
$ ! * ! $ ! + .
+ $ . $ + C ; 'D2 42%4
*
. .. $ . - $ * ? - $ * @ $ - $ *
, - $ *
.
+ + + B* .
$ . + $ . - $ * $ + $ - $ * ,$ - $ * !
! + $ . +
+ *$ *
L + . $ +
$ & ' ( %'J 0 =J:! :3&M:3%! D( %E:! J3 ) A =:3 23J=(4 8 G
5 N ! ! $ ! . ! $ ! $
. 5I $ $$ * ! * + . + $* * *
5 + * + + . ! * + " .. ! * . + $ $ * $ + .
+ $ $ . . 8 +
$ $ 5 * +
. .
8+ $ . +
5 . + $ * . + .
+ $ $ . 5 ! $ $ +
& ; .. . + * * + .. +
- $ * $ ; .. * +
* $ * +
. * . ! * + $ . + + ; .. ; ..5
+ + ; ..5
5
$ ++ ; .. + ; .. O O O O O O + . * . *
- $ * + * ; .. *
+ *
C $+ / 5 * +! + + $
+ . . + . + + + $ ! $ ! * . $ $ + > +
+ + . * +
+ *
. + K* . $ *
* ! +
* 0 ! .
+
5 $ . *
$ *
+ + + * . + + + + $ . + * + *
- $ * 3
. * * * + $* $ * + $ * + * + . K ; ..5 * + + + $ . +
. +
. $ *
- $ * + + + . . + $ *
5 - * + *
- $ * . ; .. + B* . 6 * . $ + $ . $* $ * - +
* + $ * . + K . + *
.. . + * * + . $ . +
+ . + $ . * + $ ' * ! * + - $ *
*..
!
%
. $ * . + *
+ ! $ . + . + $ + 9 * * + + $ $ . + ! + . . + $ . + $$ 5 $ + * +
+ * ! $ * .
*
*$ $ $ + + + +
+ . * +5 $ + .*
$ > + $* $
& %'J 0 :3&M:3%! D( %E: ! + * + + ; .. $ *
.
- $ *
* + * + . + + ; .. + - $ * +
* + $ * . * ; .. + ; .. + $ * .
* + . *
. M . + * . + . *
. + . ! . ; ..5
. !
+ . !
+ * + ?
@ ; ..5
$ * . ; .. B* + + - $ * > $ +
$ + + * $ . ; ..5 + + * % + * . + * ! + . ! + + $ * * . + * ; .. . * . +
- $ * $ + + *
+ * + + $ +
* + + + - $ * $ $$ + * + + $ * !
* +
* $ . + - $ * ; .. $$ + . * . +
5 . + + . +
. !
+ * ! ; .. + $ * *$$ . + - $ *
$ A . + *
$ $ - $ * - $ * ! * ! ; .. + $ * $ - $ * . ,. + *
+ * !
! + * + . *
+ $ + $ * - $ * *
+ - $ * + + * K
. + * $ * = ; .. + $ * - $ * * + $
+ * + * + . .
+ ; .. + + - $ * + $ * $ * * + * + ; ..5 $ +
+ ; .. $ * * + + $ + +
$ +
$ * ; .. + * * + + * * . . +
- $ * + +
+ * K
. + * ". ; ..
* + *$$ + . + ; ..5 *
* . + $$ $ ! ; .. . 2223 ;'/ 2 40<
.
+ ; .. + $ + * + + . - ? * @ ; ..5 . . ; ..5 + . . + + * + . * + ; .. + + $$ $ + + *
+ * ! + . + * + + . -
$ * * ; .. + + $ 9 ! + * . +
; .. + $ + * ? * @
+ .
$$ + *
* + + $ + + $$ $ + * + .. 3 8+ + + . + $ + *
. .. ! * + . * .. . ! + $ ' 8+ + + $ ! + * + + .. ! $* + $ . * -
+
!
&
% ". + $ $$ ! * + $$ $ . +
+ $$ $ .
2A 8 + 3J(:4
" (
DE
C
:(=!
:E&
:
+ ; ..5 $ . . ; ..5 $ . . . + B* + $ * . + * + * " . . . ; ..5 + . 5 . . . +
* + + + $
- $ * $ 9 ! + . * + *
$ + . + $ * $ $ $
* ! $ + . + * . " " , ,C ACA
'
'&E C %'J
Footnotes
1
2
3
4 5
See also Fed R. Civ P. 26(b)(3) Advisory Committee Note, 48 F.R.D. 487, 502 (1970). â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Hickman opinion drew special attention to the need for protecting an attorney against discovery of memoranda prepared from recollection of oral interviews. The courts have steadfastly safeguarded against disclosure of lawyers' mental impressions and legal theories, as well as mental impressions and subjective evaluations of investigators and claim-agents.â&#x20AC;? Defendant does refer the Court to one unpublished Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals case. Quark, Inc. v. Harley, 141 F.3d 1185, 1998 WL 161035 (10th Cir.1998). â&#x20AC;&#x153;At issue are interview notes and memoranda prepared in connection with Quark attorneys' interviews of Quark employees in the Zues case, as well as the trial testimony of Quark attorneys regarding these materials.â&#x20AC;? Id. at *2. The Court reviewed the trial court's finding that the privilege and doctrine had been waived based on an abuse of discretion standard. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court's decision could be affirmed because selective disclosure occurred when the opposing party was allowed access to the file â&#x20AC;&#x153;without restrictions.â&#x20AC;? Id. at *2. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Quark fails to adequately address the district court's finding that Quark had previously allowed Harley unrestricted access to the Zeus litigation file. This unchallenged finding, standing alone, is sufficient to support the district court's conclusion that Quark had waived the attorney client privilege and the protections of the work product doctrine.â&#x20AC;? Id. * 3. Advice by an attorney to a client is also protected by the attorney client privilege. As discussed above, the Court has found that Plaintiff has waived the attorney client privilege. However, Plaintiff has separately asserted the work product doctrine. The work product doctrine applies to the specific advice and mental impressions communicated to Plaintiff's client made in anticipation of litigation. The advice and mental impressions were communicated to Plaintiff's client in anticipation of the then pending state court litigation. See, e.g., United States v. Martin Marietta Corp., 886 F.Supp. 1243, 1252 (D.Md.1995). In Frontier Ref., Inc. v. Gorman Rupp Co., 136 F.3d 695, 699 (10th Cir.1998), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals favorably discussed Hearn in attempting to construe applicable Wyoming privilege laws.
End of Document
Š 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
!
! " # $ %
(
# /
! " # $ % & % '( )*% )+,-
) (
! "!#$%&' ( ) *) ++ , - *. / $ !# ' # + # &0 1 2 ) * ' 3
< ( = & > ( ?
. ( / ( % (
( // # ( ( ( / ( /
# ( # /
, 4 5% 67
, 8 5% 67 9 / ' : : 9 6 :
. / % # (
/ ##0 #
( / 1 " / ( / ( # # ( ( % 2 % 2 % 3 4,5 6 // ( ( # 6 ( / ##0 (
( 7 4)5 # ( ( /
/ ( / ( # ( 7 4-5 // ( # / 8 ( # ( / ( # ( 9 (
( % (
( // / (
, (
= # / % ( # % /
( ( % #
(
- (
$ 6
/ ( (
" / ( # ( #
/ ( % (
( # # (
/ (
( /
( ( ( # % # ( / ( / ( # #
: 4);5
( # ( # # 9// . (
< ( = & > ( ?
# / (
( # ( # # 9// . (
< ( = & > ( ?
&
( # ( # # 9// . (
,@ (
!" "#" ! $ % & '
! " # $ %
$ 6 ( ( // 6 ( ( # 6 ( / ##0 ( ( % ( 6 ( /
( / (
(
$
B 6 % ( / # ( #
( ( & / ##0 ( # / & # ( / # / ( / ##0 6 (
# / / # ( % / (
( /
) (
!
$ 6 ( ( ( # ( / / ( / ( # ( % #
( ( / ##0 / ( (
, (
%
$ 6 B & // # ( % / ( ( ( / ##0 / % ( ( % / ##0 9 ( ( / ##0 ( # / ##0 / / ( # / // ( ( ( #
B &
) (
$ 6 // ( # / 8 ( # ( / ( # ( 9 (
(
% 9 ( / // ( %
( ( ( /
/ ( D ( E B &
) (
#
$ 6 C # < ( %
# ( % // ( / / ( / ( # ( % ( ( ( / ( % ( ( # // (
A (
"
( C ( 6
$
/ ( B 6 %
/ ##0 ( # 6 (
/ / (
( / (
(
/
F (
!" "#" ! $ % & '
! " # $ %
< / # <
( # 9
# 9
( /
( ( # ( (
## (
# / (
. / (
( / % ( (
# (
% ( # ( ( #
( % ( ( # # ( # (
(
G 6 7 #
- (
"
( / // 3 4,5
( # " 4)5 # / # ( / ( ( % 4-5 ( (
/ / % 4A5 ( # ( 4*5
( % 4@5 ( /
/ ( 4H5 # ( #
% 4;5 I( / / ( (
C # 9
/ / #
( / % 8 # ( # ( I/ 8 / (
#
(
G## ( # # / ? 9
7 < I ( 9
( ( % ( % #
#
(
/ ( ( /
( ( (
( / (
( # / / / (
(
( . # 7 . /
7 ' ?
. /
$
6
% " / (
/ ( % 3 4,5 ( % 4)5 / / ( / # % 4-5 / / # / % # / C < ( C )@4 54-5% ); B & 9
( / / ( ( # ( ( 7
/ ( ( # # (
( (
, (
!
& " < ( < 7
< / ?
(
%
&
!" "#" ! $ % & '
! " # $ %
" < ( < 7
< / ? ( / / D ( / # %E
( / # " / ( % #
# # ( # ( / ( ( % ( ( # / / ( # / / (
# C < ( C )@4 5 4-5% ); B & 9
/ C < ( C )@4 54-5% ); B & 9 (
9
( / / ( ( # ( ( ( #
( ( ( 0 / % ( % ( ( ( ( /
/ (
(
& " < ( < 7
< / ? 9
( " / ( / ( ( ( ( %
" / ( ( I ( / / ( # (
# / ( # C < ( C )@4 54-5% ); B & 9
(
& " < ( < 7
< / ?
, (
!
6
% " / ( (
/ ( ( ( / C < ( C )@4 5 4-5% ); B & 9
& " < ( < 7
< / ? G // ( # " / ( ( % # (
/ ( / #
8
< " 9
( / / ( ( ( ( ( # ( # % ( / % % ( # ( ( ( ( 0 ( # ( ( ( % / 8 / ( # ( # # / / # / ( /
/ (
(
( C ( 6
9
( / / ( ( # " / ( ( ( (
(
# ( ( 8 #
(
(
( C ( 6
) (
"
!" "#" ! $ % & '
! " # $ %
< " 9
( / / ( ( # ( ( / ##0 / / ##0
/ % ( % / ##0 ( B & % ( ( ( / ## / (
B & % / ( # / // ( % ( # % ( # # , (
#
( C ( 6
9
( / / (
( / 8 #
# / ( # (
' ( ) &
*$ G ! % (" ? J
% C $ ! ( % < ! " % 6 ! & / % 2 % / ("%
% : / K &( % " % # < ## *$ $ ? & % ? 9 % 9 B % & % J % G
% ( K & /% " % 2 L % ? < G % : K % < % " % # #
+ 2' G&% ( 2 . . C' B .' 9 I (
9 0 #
(
/ 1 " / ( / ( # #
( # < .L # 4 $
# 9 ( # *1)F1+)7 $
# 9 I (
# *1)A1+) 5 9 I (
#
( % ( ## / 3 ( *F% --A% -@H% AA)% AA)M,% *),% *)@% *)H% *-+% *-,% *-,M,% *--% *--M,% *--M)% *-*% *-*M,% *A-% *H;% *H;M,% *;+% *;+M,% *;H% *;;% @,@% @,@M,% @)- ? ,*% )++)% & // 0);, < $ 7 ( ,,@M ,% ,FHM,% )++M)% ),,M)% ),H% ))-% ))-M,% )-*M,% )-HM,% )A*M,% )@-M,M,% A-+M,% A;AM,% *;*% , ;)H% ;-@M,
9/ )A $ 7 ) ( )-*% )A@% ,*)A% ,*)*% ,*AA% ,*A@% ,**+% ),--% ),-A% ),A)% )A),% )*-A% )*;*% )*;H% )*;;% - )@+* 9 ? ) ( $ ? H & // 7 ( H,)M ,% H,)M)% H-,M,% HH*M) 9/ -+% )++)% & // < $ 7 ( F;A9% FF+% ,@)H% ));F% ))F)% A )A,)% )A,-% )A,A ? ) & // ,FFF ( $ 7 ( -+*F% -+*F9% -+*F!% -+*F % -+*F ? ,+ & // ,FFF ( $ * 4 5 ! ( # ( / I # ( % ( (
/ ( # ( ( ( / / 9 I0 (
9
(
(
( # # #
( ( # (
9# ( ( ( /
#
# (
( % (
/ ( # # (
( // / ( 4 ' # *1)H1+) 5 (
/ 9 I ( ( / #
( ( # ( ? -+% )++) (
( # 9 I0 (
9 0 # ( ( ,,@M,% ,FHM,% )++M)% ),,M)% ),H% ))-% ))-M)% )-*M,% )-HM,% )A*M,% )@-M,M,% A-+M,% A;AM,% ;)H% ;-@M, 9
# ( # # # / ( % ( 9 4C (
# A1)F1+)% N ) 5 ( # ( # 3 4,5 ( ( / # 9 & % ( 9 0 ( % 9 0 (
/
!" "#" ! $ % & '
(
! " # $ %
( # .
( < / '## ( 4D .<'E5 4)5 ( ( 9 / &
9 0 ( 9 0 ( ( ( )-*% )A@% --A% -@H% AA)% AA)M,% *),% *)@% *)H% *A-% *H;% *H;M,% *;+% *;+M,% *;*% *;H% *;;% @,@% @,@M,% @)-% ,*)A% ,*)*% ,*AA% ,*A@% ,**+% ),--% ),-A% ),A)% )A),% *$! )*-A% )*;*% )*;H% )*;;% )@+*
I( / # ( *;*% ( # # % ( 9 0 / % 9 0 / / % ## ( # 9 0 ( # ( ( )-*% )A@% *;*% ,*)A% ,*)*% ,*AA% ,*A@% ,**+% ),--% ),-A% ),A)% )A),% )*-A% )*;*% )*;H% )*;;% )@+* 4,5 ( ( 9 / & 4)5 ( ( 9 / % ( % % < # C 9
# ( 9 ( AA)% AA)M,% @,@% @,@M, 4,5 ( ( 9 / & 4)5 ( ( 9 / % ( % 9 0 6 ( # ( 9 0 / / // ( ( --A% *),% *)@% *)H% *A-% *H;% *H;M,% *;+% *;+M,% *;H% *;;% @)- ( ( 9 / ( 4)5 ( ( 9 / % ( % 9 0 B & (
( # 9 0 B & /
// ( < & / // ( ( -@H # / // (
# 9 0 ( ( *+-% *-,% *-,M,% *--% *--M,% *--M)% *-*% *-*M, 9
# (
# # !
$ % 9 / / # / ( % ( 9 0 (
/ ( % / // ( 4$ ( # *1,*1+)% NN ,M) 5 G ( # ( ( ( $ 9 ( ( # 9 9 0 # ( ( *F% H,)M,% H,)M)% H-,M,% HH*M)% F;A9% FF+% ));F% ))F)%
)A,)% )A,-% )A,A% -+*F% -+*F9% -+*F!% -+*F % -+*F ( 9 0
/ % 9 0 / / % ## ( # 9 0 ( # ( # #
# 4C ( # *1)-1+)% N ) 5 9 0 # # ( # ( ,@)H% 4 $
# 9 ( # *1)F1+)5% ( 8 # ( ? )H% )++)% 8 9 / ( # (
(
.. CG$GL9 G
9 % ( ( ( # ( # (
( # /
( (
# /
)@* - ,)FA% ,-+H 4 )++,57
,H* - ,-*@% ,-*F 4 ,FFF5 4( ! "#" ;,- ) ,)+H% ,),) 4 ,F;H55 9// ( % (
# 9 I0 (
( *F% -@H% )A,)% )A,-% )A,A% -+*F% -+*F9% -+*F!% -+*F % -+*F ( (
( # < .L #
... :'. G ' $9 9 CG6.' 9$ 'C G GC9$ .C B.
. ( / ( % (
( // # ( ( ( / ( / # ( # / $ % " & ' ,;@ - ,-*@% ,-*; 4 ,FFF5 9 D # /
( # / / % # /
(
O I( ( # ( P % # ( / ( > / /
!" "#" ! $ % & '
! " # $ %
# O ( P # I( > ( E
,H* - ,-*@% ,-*F 4 ,FFF5 4 %
*$" / 5 4 ( 8 "
57 () )
* )@* - ,)@;% ,)H) 4 )++,5 B % 8 # / % ( # %
( ( () )@* -
,)H) 4 ( # / 57
$ & # )-; - ,-H+% ,-HA 4 )++,5 4/ 57 + * ( ,+F - H),% H)- 4 ,FFH5 4( # 57 , " . - ,+, - ,-;@% ,-F+ ) 4 ,FF@5 4/ 57 / - 0
& ,++ - F,F% F))M)- 4 ,FF@5 4 ( 57 1 2 ,; 9//I ;),% ;)- 4 )++,5 4 / 5 4 /
( 57 " ' , )-) - F+*% )+++ $ )F+-A@% Q) 4 )+++5 4 % I G& $9 5 4
/ ( 5 / % ( D //
( / // ( / /
(
/ E " 3 )+- - ;++% ;+- 4 )+++5 . "
( // ( #
(
/ &/ 0 ( / ( / # 8 ( ( )+ - ;+-M+A B " ( " # ( ( ( ( / ( % ( # #
%
(
# ( # / / # ( ( ( # & ( 8 # ( ( (
( / " / ( / ( / ( 8 / % ( // # & ( (
// ( #
(
/ " / ( / ( " # (
( @ " )+- - ;+A7
, " - ' . - - ,+, - ,-;@% ,-F+ ) 4 ,FF@5
! 'CG.6 $9 ? % #
% # (
( # ( 7 # % # // ( #
( / " / ( / ( # (
( / ( # # C *+, # C # G ( / 8 # / # 8 ( D / ( / # (
/ ( # B & # I/ ( E D( E // C *+, ( D( ( # E 8 ( 4 4 ,A- C *,A% *,F 4& ,FF)5 *$# (
# # ( ( 8 # (
5 ' " , ' 4 )*H - ,-)A% ,-); 4 )++,5 4 ## I # ( ( > & ( ( 5 G ( // % / ( / # ( '
" . . ,+) - ,))A% ,))F 4 ,FF@5 4 // D / ( / # ( E // ( # # > 5 9(( % ( # ( ( # ( ( ( # & ( (
( // . ( 4 4 ,A- C *,A% *,;M,F 4& ,FF)5% ( / ( D ( E // ( //
( ( # D( ( E
// ( # / # ( 3 . / # # / ( ( /
% ( # #
( ( # D( ( E " ( ( # % # /
" # /
## B & / " ( #
3 D ( (
( B &
# ( ( (
O
!" "#" ! $ % & '
)
! " # $ %
# ( P
// ( # E O P ( # ( # / D ( / ( / // ( B & E 9 ( / ( ( D ( / ( / // ( # ( E D ( / # ( E %
# ( % / D # # ( ( /
// ( # %E # ( / 9 (
,A- C *)+ 4 (
57 14 . ,FA C ;% ,*M,H 4 ? )+++5 4 / I/ D ( E 57 * 6 ' ,A* C )F;% -+* 4G ,FF)57 /
$ F@ C ,*)% ,*@ 4 ,F;)57 & ( 0 & 4 % F) +-;,% ,FFA $ H+*--, 4& ( ,@% ,FFA5
% %
/ ( (
" / ( # ( #
/ ( % ( # # ( D/ E D ( ( /
E ( ( ( # %
# ( / ( / ( # # ( ,A- C *))7 & ,FFA $ H+*--,% QA7 4 ;, C -HH% -F, 4 ,FH;57 * 4 4 ,F) C )A)% )*@ 4 .
)+++5 > (
D/ E D / (
/ / E D / ( ( / (
( ( E ( ,A- C *),M))7 & ,FFA $ H+*--,% QA B
% ( (
( / ( # ## (
( 0 # ( AA)% AA)M,% @,@% @,@M, / ( # 6 ( AA)M, @,@M, ( / #
9 0 ( # 9 0 6 ( /
/ ( ( ( AA) @,@ ( / # ( # ( ( & 9 0 ( 9 / & # ( / #
/ ( 9 0 6 (
# / / #
( ( # 6 ( /
( / ( *$$ # ( 7 # % (
// 6 # #
( 3 AA)% AA)M,% @,@% @,@M,
! ? # (
( # / ( 9 B & 9 % # / ( # ( < **A)@R / 9 B & 9 4: ( # *1@1+)% N *% GI ) 5 #
/ ( % / > ( ( 1 # ( % ( ( ( 4: ( # *1@1+)% N * 5 / ( % ( # # ( / % ( ( .<' / ( / ( #
( # 9 B & 9 0 <
**A)@ 4 5 # / ( % // / ( .<'% 9 B & 9 0 < 9// ( F*M,*+*F / ( / ( % 9 0 / ( ( ( ( % # # % # # 9 B & 9 4 5 D
/ # ( / ( %
( / # /
//
0 ( ( ( " / (
( # / ( E 4& ( # *1A1+)% N F 5 B // ( / ( / # ( % (
// # 9 I0 (
#
( %
# ( # / ( 3 ,,@M,% ,FHM,% )++M)% ),,M)% ),H% ))-% ))-M,% )-*% )-*M,% )-HM,% )A*M,% )@-M,M,% A-+M,% A;AM,% H,)M,% H,)M)% H-,M,% HH*M)% ;)H% ;-@M,% F;A9% FF+% ,*)A% ,*AA% ,*A@% ,**+% ,@)H% ),--% ),-A% ));F% )A),% )*-A% )*;*% )*;H% )@+* H
" ( # #
( D ( E B & 3 --A% *),% *)@% *)H% *-+% *-,% *-,M,% *--% *--M,% *--M)% *-*% *-*M,% *A-% *H;% *H;M,% *;+% *;+M,% *;H% *;;% @)- 9
# ( ( ( 9 / % ( ( % 9 0 9 ( ( 9 0 ( 9 / / ( # /
// ( ( ( # B
!" "#" ! $ % & '
! " # $ %
& ( % ( *-*% ( ( 9 0 ( 9 0 ( % ( (
/ ( # / // ( B & 9 #
/ ( # / # % B &
// ( 0 # ( 6 $4 F*+ & // ,+% ,4 ,FFH5 4# ( (
B & / # / // ( # B & / D ( E B & 5
.L CGL.G . 6 :G ' B?G & ; 9 9<<$ . 6 6GC?9 $9
# . // # ( #
( / " / ( / ( 6 % 9 // ( ( # ? C (" % < 9
/ 6
# ( C (" / 6 / ( # ( ( /
( 4C (" (
# *1,@1+)% N - 5 6 ( ( / ( /
( / (
( ( %
4 5
## ( ( * %% 8 / ( 6 ( ,A- C *)A7 & ,FFA $ H+*--,% QH @ 4 ( 8 ( 57 - $ ' )+++ $ -*,A,,% Q,, 4& )+++5 4D6 / ( ( ( /
( E5 4( ( 57 * ,F) C )*H 4DB 6 %
( / / ( S
( ( 6 /
( ( (( # ( # ( T E5 48
4 ( ! ,*+ C *-F% *AH 4G ,FF-55
$ ( AA)% AA)M,% @,@% @,@M, / ( # (
( / # ( 9(( % ( #
/ ( # # ( 6
D / # (
/ ( # # E ( ,A- C *)) # % ( 9 0 ( #
( / # ( AA)% AA)M,% @,@% @,@M, 6
! 9<<$ . 6 'CG9 $9
% . // # ( #
( / " / ( / ( % 9 // ( ( ( ( ( 4& ( # *1A1+)% N ,+ 5 2 ( ( " ( ( 7 % / ( # ( 7 5 4 ;@ ,HAF% ,FF) $ *,*-A% Q- 4& ? ,+% ,FF)5 4 ## ? 2 0 # / / 2 / ( ( ( ( 5 F % / ( / # ( ( 0 8 # / # ( 9
/ ( # ( .# / / # # # # % / ( / 7 ,FF) $ *,*-A% Q)7 & ,FFA $ H+*--,%
Q*7 & 8 %% ,' $ , F* ;;--% ,FF; $ ,*;F*;% Q- 4,FF;5% - ,;; C ,;F 4& ,FFF5 4 ( # ( / ( ( D
( 8 E # 5 / # # / ( ( ( / #
( / " ( I / % / I(
# # ( 0 ( # ( 4& ( # *1A1+)% N ,- 5 ,+
% * % % ( " / # % ( 4& ( # *1A1+)% N ,A 5 ( # # % ' ( ( #
( 4& ( # *1A1+)% NN @% ,)% ,A% ,@7 : ( # *1)1+)% NN -M* 5
0 ( ( ( #
( ( /
( ( / ( I # / 4 & ( # *1A1+)% NN ,-M,F 5 ? %
( " / ( (
!" "#" ! $ % & '
*
! " # $ %
B & 7 ( # % % ( ( % (
/ /
# (
/ / ( / # 4& ( # *1A1+)% N ,, 5 ( ( D# (
O# P 8 / " / ( 0 ## ( / I %E % B & % ( # 8 D ( / 8
1( / E & ,FF; $ ,*;F*;% Q -7 & ,FFA $ H+*--,% Q* 4# ( ( / # (
/ # D / ( E / # # / # D # # ( # E57 7 ,FF) $ *,*-A% Q)7
,*+ C *AH 4#
7 5 / ( ( ( % 4 : ( # *1)1+)% N -7 : ( # *1@1+)% N )5% 9
9 % 0 ( % "
( / " / ( / ( / ( ( # % ( # / ( : % # # (" #
( / " / ( / ( / / 8 # / ( ( ( ( ( # ( ( ( ( # ( / % # ( % 9 ## (
# / / # ( 0 / (
( > ( / ( % ( / ( ( % ( B % ( ( / ( / ( / ( # ( ( ( ( ,, (
( / ( # ( ( ( ( 9 ( -,@ # #
< ( 4: ( # *1)1+)% NN @M,+7 : ( # *1@1+)% NN ,+M,, 5 % # (
( ( 9 0 / ( % 9 I / ( % # ( (
/ * % 9 I 9
9 I / ( 4: ( # *1)1+)% NN HMF7 : ( # *1@1+)% N ,+ 5 % # ( //
8 # ( / ( ( % ( 8 / ( # # ( 4 : ( # *1)1+)% N ,+ 5 9 I ( (
/ % % (
// # ( % (
( ( / ( 4 $
# 9 I ( # *1,F1+)% - 5 ( ( # // # 0 / (
/ " " *,+ B & AA-% A*-M**% ,,A & F;,% ,)H $ G ) );* 4,FFA5 / ( / # C )@ # C # < ( ( // ( ( ( ( # ( - 5
. / - ' / A;) B & *))% *A+% ,+H & )*A)% F@ $ G ) A@, 4,F;H57 + * ( ,+F - H),% H)- 4 ,FFH57 / ' & F* H+*,% )+++ $ ,,H,,-)%
Q)% Q* 4& 9 ,@% )+++5 4 > ( (
# ( 5 4DO9P (
( / / (
C # < ( / > ( # / E5
9(( % ( 9 I
( # ( C # < ( . % % ( #
(
/ " / ( / 8 (
/ ( #
# ( / ( / # ( ## / ( / ( # # # (
## ( / ( ( % ( / ( % // ( ( ( ( . % # ( ( ( B ( ( ( %
( ( / % / /
( / " / (
( I . (
// / % (" #% ( " (( #
!" "#" ! $ % & '
! " # $ %
( / ( ( ## / ( / # ( ( ( # / ( . ) 5
&
* -F@ ) ;FH% F+, 4) ,F@;5 4DO P ( " ( / / / / # / ( ( #
I ( # # ## ? ( ( # #
7 8 ( # ( #
/ ( # # ( ( ( ( # / ( ( E5 4
(
5 % ( / ( ## / ( / ( # # % ( / #
( % % / ( # / ( .# (
" 0 ( / ( ( (( % (
8 ( / ( #
#
( % # ( / (
( / " / (
( // > ( / ( # / I/ / / (
( / ( ( % ( ,A- C *)+M)4# ( 0 D 8
( ( (
( / 9 ( E ( # 5% // ( # # / ( 8 ( # ( 4,5 / ( # ( 9 ( 4)5 ( # % (
// / ( % ( ( D ( E B &
4,5 ( # " 4)5 # / #
( / ( ( % 4-5 ( (
/ / % 4A5 ( # ( 4*5 ( % 4@5 ( /
/ ( 4H5 # ( #
% 4;5 I( / / ( (
+ %
/ / :; :<=> H-, ) ,+-)% ,+-@ 4) ,F;A57 . )F@ ) F,;% F), 4) ,F@,5
(
/ D (
( #
/ / / E . ( % " 0 / % $ F-* ) *+,% *+A 4) ,FF,5 4(
5 / ( # #
( / #
& & ;,, ) ,-@% ,AA 4) 5% A;, B & ,+,*% ,+H & ,;F,% F* $ G ) AF; 4,F;H57 " ? A;) ) H)% ;) 4) 5% A,A B & ;@H% FA & @A% -; $ G ) ;@ 4,FH-5 ( 0 ( D ( ( ( / I E & ;,, ) ,A@ 48 &
-AA ) ;-+% ;-- 4) ,F@*55
! " D / / ( ( # ( ( 7 / ( ( # # ( ( (
E . 9 ' AAF B & -F@% ,+, & @HH7 7 (
+ 3 FHF ) F-F% FAA 4) ,FF)5% *+F B & F+*% ,,- & )FFH% ,)* $ G ) @F, 4,FF-5 . / % ( ( # (
% ( # ( ( #
( % ( ( # # ( * % 9<<$ . 6 9?GC. 9 $9
# ( DO P ( 8
( ( %
# / / # ( , 9 'C G M $.G <C.L.$G6G ( E " )+- - ;+* 4(
5
( / 8 # ( # ( I/ 8 / "
( ( # ( ( )+- - ;+@ 4( H-H ) FA% ,+)
## (
4 ,F;A55 # / ( . 9 ' . AAF B & -;-% -;F% ,+, & @HH% @@ $ G )
# D9
( ( % ( % #
*;A 4,F;,5 & ( ( / #
# / ( ( / # #
( / 3 !" "#" ! $ % & '
! " # $ %
( ( (
E % * F, C ,% A 4 .
,F;+5 : % # ( (
( / ( ( # # ( " ( ( " . ),- B & < = F-@% FA,% ,F;+ $ -F+;- 4,F;+5 4D.#
( ( ( ( ( # ( # " %
( ( / ( % % ( # ( (
E5 & %
( # ( ( # # ( / ( ( " )+- - ;+@ 4( " ),- B & < = FA,5 4DOCP 8 # ( / ( 8 # ( ( # ( / E5
) 'C <C' B <C' G .'
( % 4)5 / / ( / # % 4-5 / / # / % # / E (
+ %
/ / := :<=: 0 +
@ :<=A *@, & // ,)AH% ,)*H 4G ,F;)57 3 ' 3 4 - F+ )+F@% ,FFA $ ,-)-F)% Q) 4& 9/ ,,% ,FFA5 . .
,-A - ,,FA% ,)+) 4) ,FF;5% & ( (
D ( / / S ( / # %T ( / # C % # S # # ( # ( / ( ( % ( ( # / / ( # / / ( # T E 9
(
/ ( D ( ( ( %E " / (
( I D ( / / ( # (
# / ( #
E
$ % ( / # " / ( ( 6
% " / ( ( / ( ( ( / # C # < ( )@4 54-5% . $- ? *@+ ) -)@% --A 4; ( / 3 ,FHH5 4D % # # # O9P / (
( / ( # *
B -)F B & # ( AF*% @H & -;*% F, $ G A*, 4,FAH5P / /
( / ( # " / ( % I / / ( / #
# ( ( # # / / E57 ' *@+ ) -)@% --AM-* 4; / # ,FHH57 /
" , / 0 / / '
? A;H ) A;+% A;-M;A 4A ,FH-5 : % / " DO P I # / ( # " ( # / ( # # % # (
/ / # ( # (
/ 0 ( /
" / ( E ) ( A@) B & / ,F% -,% ,+- & ))+F% H@ $ G ) -;H 4,F;-5 4! %
8
2 % ( ( 5 4 / 57 . # * % & @@ C ,*A% ,H; 4& ,FHA5 . ( # ( 8
G // ( # " / (
% (
( % # (
/ ( ( # / ( D / #
/ % ( ( % 8 / % # / E . 9 ' AAF B & A++% ,+, & @HH
/ # & ( ( # ( %
/ ( ( % # / % ( ( %
# / 0
/ 6
% DO P ( 9 ( % D # 8 " / ( / ( 4,5 !" "#" ! $ % & '
! " # $ %
/ ( ( 0 / ( % / ( ## ( / " / ( E - )+++ $ -*,A,,%
QA 4(
5
- ' B?G & <C' G G ! 9 'C G $.G <C.L.$G6G ( " #
# ( ( ( / ( # (
( / 3
# ( # ( ( # ( )A*M, ( ( #
( ( 9 / % ( % K (
( ( 9 9 0 / ( . ( ( 8 # ( (
/ ( % .<' / ( % ( # / ( % ( # # 9 0 ( #
(
/ (
( ( # ( ( # ( )@-M,M,% A-+M,% A;AM,% ,**+% )*-A% )*;* ( " / ( (
# ( 0 % ( # / % # # % # ( / /
? # ( * % (
( # (
( 8 # ( & # ( / / 9 0
% / / ( (
% # / / # /
( 9 0 / ( 9 0 ( #
( / (
! ( # ( ( # ( ,,@M,% ,FHM,% )++M)% ),,M)% ))-% ))-M,% ;-@M, ( ( ( # ( # % ( / % % ( # ( ( ( 9 ( 9 #
9 ( ( / / / 8
% 9 # #
% ( ( ( # ( # 0 / ( / ( # ( # # / / # ( ( 9 0
/ ( 9
% ( )A), )*;H ( ( 9 / 9 0 (
I/ ,) ( ( # ( # / / # / ( # # 9 0 ( (
( 9 0 / ( 9 0 ( #
( /
(
" # ( # ( ( # ( *),% *)@% *)H% *A-% *;+% *;H% *;; ( ( # ( ( 9 / 9 0 9 / % ( % 9 0 ( B & ( ( ( 9 9 0 / ( B & %
/ ( # / // ( < '% ( # % ( #
# 9 0 ( #
( /
(
A ' B?G & <C' G G ! :G 'C <C' B ' C. G ( " #
# ( ( ( / ( # ( " / ( ( 3 ( ),H% )-*% )-*M,% )-HM,% H,)M,% H,)M)% H-,M ,% HH*M)% F;A9% FF+% ,*AA% ),-A% ( ( 9 G ( #
( / / ( # / / ( #
9 0 ( # " / ( / ( #
(
* ' B?G & <C' B G . :G.C G .CG 9 ( ( )A@ ),A) ( / #
# 9 0 ( . :> ( ( C 0
!" "#" ! $ % & '
! " # $ %
9 0 / > ( (
4C ( # *1,H1+)% N F 5 ( ,*)* //
/ #
4 5 ( / 9 0 DB C' ( / ( * %! 9 I E 4 5 9
9 / ( # # ( # % ( ( ( #
( / (
#
( ( # # G
( (
9 I% 9
/ ( (
% ( % ( (
( ( ( ( ,*)* / # B ( ( ( % 9 # % ( 9 I0 (
( 9
/ ( ( )A@% ,*)*% ),A)% #
# / ( / 4 ' # *1)H1+)% , 5
# 9
( / %
" / ( / ( % # ( *-,% *-,M,% *--M,% *--M)% *-*% ;)H% ));F ( #
( ( ( # # (
? #
( / 8 #
# / ( # ( 9 0 ( #
( / # ( & ( 9 ( " / (
/ ( # ( % / (
4 ' # *1)H1+)% ,M) 5 9
( / %
" / ( / ( # ( --A (
--A ( ( & 9 / & (
! ( 9 # / # ( % ,- (
( ( ( # ( ( 9 / # ( --A & "' 3 & 4 % ,A- C @,,% @)) 4G ,FF)57 - 7' /
,@A C --, 4G ,FF@5 ( / ( 4 ' # *1)H1+)% ) 5 $ " ( --A% 9 # / # (
)@+* 9 ( ## #
( %
&
/ ( )@+*% / ( 9 I & ( ## ( (
/ ( (
( % 9 #
// (
( / " / ( / ( ( )@+* / ( 4 ' # *1)H1+)% , 5 ( *H;M,% *;+M,% ,*)A% ,*A@% ),--% ( 9 I0 (
9 0 ( #
( / " / ( / ( ( / ( 4 ' # *1)H1+)% ,M) 5
@ ' B?G & <C' B G . CG 9 G 'C? 9 0 # # ( # ( ,@)H% 4 $
# 9 ( # *1)F1+)5% ( 8 # ( ? )H% )++)% 8 9
/ ( # (
( ( % # (
#
. :> ( 0 ,FF) /
// ( ,FF* / ( % ( # I # / " # 0);, /
( 9 I
# / 8 ( // / ( ( # " # / ( / / " )+- - ;+@ % DO P /
( (
( ( % / % ( # % ( 8 " # / ( # ( % / / * %" # #
/ " / ( ( # / # # E 2 7 & @A C -@H% -;,M;) 4& ,FHA5 9 % ( / ( ( # D / # - 5 , ,+* - A-A% A-@ 4; ,FFH5 . % DO P# (
( / E D ( # ( / ( E 2 7 @A C -;, 6 #
!" "#" ! $ % & '
! " # $ %
# ( ( ( ( 9 I0 # / % ( / ( ( ( / 9 I ( # ( ? -+% )++) ,A ! ( ( % (
(
( / / ( " / ( ( . ' # ? )H% )++)% ( / ( # # ( ( # 4 ' # *1)H1+)% ) 5 9
(
/ " / ( / ( # ( *H; @)-% 9
(
/ # ( *-+% *--% *-*M, ( #
3 ( *-+% ( / / 4D< E57 ( *--% ( / / 4D< E5 ( ( # 7 ( *-*M,% / ( / +,AFHM+,*+A 4
5% / +,AF@7 ( *H;% ( / / 4 # ( / ( D! E57 ( @)-% ( / / 4 # ( / ( D! E5
' ( ( % ( #
( / // ( # # ( ? % / # ( *H;M, @)- # / ( " / ( ( 9
# ( / ( ( #
L ' $B&.' # % 9 ( / (
#
( 3 )A@% --A% *-,% *-,M,% *--M,% *--M)% *-*% *H;M,% *;+% ;)H% ,*)A% ,*)*% ,*A@% ),--% ),A)% ));F% )@+* 9 # ( / ( #
( ( # 3 *-+% *--% *-*M,% *H;% @)-% ,@)H ( ( ( 9 ( 9 ( # ( / # ( # # "0 '## (
&' 'C GCG 3 '
)+; C F)% @A B & < = ) ,--,
Footnotes
1 2 3 4 5 6
Document 585 has already been produced to Andrx. That production by Astra eliminates the need for in camera review. Documents 217, 223, and 827 were also listed on the April 8, 2002, Kim and Chang Privilege Log. Document 2588 has already been produced to Andrx. That production by Astra eliminates the need for in camera review. Document 2292 has already been produced to Andrx with a single handwritten note appropriately redacted. That production by Astra eliminates the need for further in camera consideration of the document. Since none of the numbers assigned to the seventy-five challenged documents repeat, the court will refer to the documents by number, without reference to the privilege log on which the document was listed. The court respectfully disagrees with the conclusion reached in Softview Computer Products Corp. v. Haworth, Inc., 97 Civ. 8815, 2000 WL 351411, at *2 n. 5 (â&#x20AC;&#x153;[I]t now appears that the scope of the attorney-client privilege in patent cases is governed by Federal Circuit standards and not the standards ordinarily applied by the regional circuit.â&#x20AC;?) (citing Spalding, 203 F.3d at 803). The conclusion reached in Softview and ascribed to Spalding is simply too broad in light of other Federal Circuit precedent concerning attorney-client privilege and related issues. Ultimately, this court's decision to apply the law of either the Federal Circuit or the Second Circuit when ruling on Andrx's challenges does not affect the substance of the court's decisions. The court finds that the outcome with respect to each document is the same regardless of which law applies. The Federal Circuit recognizes the same principles of comity that this court relies upon in determining the choice-of-law issues in this case. Moreover, the law of attorney-client privilege and work product protection, as recognized by the Second Circuit and the Federal Circuit, is not substantively different. See Softview Computer Products Corp. v. Haworth, Inc., 97 Civ. 8815, 2000 WL 351411, at *2, n. 5 (â&#x20AC;&#x153;[T]here
!" "#" ! $ % & '
(
! " # $ %
7
8
9
10
11
12
does not appear to be a material difference between the [Second Circuit] definition and the definition applied by the Federal Circuit.â&#x20AC;?) (citing Shearing v. Iolab Corp., 975 F.2d 1541, 1546 (Fed.Cir.1992); American Standard, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 828 F.2d 734, 745 (Fed.Cir.1987)). As the Federal Circuit stated with respect to the attorney-client privilege in Spalding, â&#x20AC;&#x153;the central inquiry is whether the communication is one that was made by a client to an attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or services.â&#x20AC;? 203 F.3d at 805 (citing Genentech, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 122 F.3d 1409, 1415 (Fed.Cir.1997)). As discussed in detail below, even if this court were to find that any of the subject communications have more than an â&#x20AC;&#x153;incidental connectionâ&#x20AC;? to the United States or that the United States has the â&#x20AC;&#x153;most direct and compelling interestâ&#x20AC;? in them because Astra U.S.A. was a party to all four Korean proceedings, the outcome of the court's in camera review of the documents would remain unchanged. Astra has asserted that both the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine protect many of the challenged documents from disclosure. If the court has found that the attorney-client privilege applies to a particular document for which attorney work product protection was also asserted, the court has not addressed the work product doctrine with respect to that document. The Japanese code provision at issue in Alpex stated: A witness may refuse to testify: 2. In cases where the witness is questioned as to the knowledge of facts which, he, being or having been, a doctor, dentist, pharmacist, mid-wife, attorney, patent agent, advocate, notary or an occupant of a post connected with religion or worship, has obtained in the exercise of professional duties and which facts should remain secret; or 3. in cases where the witness is questioned with respect to matters relating to technical or professional secrets. Alpex, 1992 WL 51534, at *2 (quoting Article 281 of the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure). Article 286 of the Korean Code of Civil Procedure provides: Article 286 (Right to Refuse to Testify) (1) A witness may refuse to testify in the following cases: <Amended Jan. 13, 1990> 1. Where a lawyer, patent attorney, notary public, ... or a person who was in such profession is questioned on secret matters which came to his knowledge in the course of performing his professional duties; and 2. Where he is questioned on matters relating to a technical or professional secret. (2) The provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply where the witness has been released from his duty to keep secret. <Amended Jan. 13, 1990> (Shin Decl. Of 5/4/02, Âś 13.) See also Article 26 of the Attorney-at-law Act (Duty to Maintain Confidentiality) (quoted in Shin Decl. of 5/4/02, Âś 15), which states that â&#x20AC;&#x153;[a]ny attorney-at-law or any former attorney-at-law shall not disclose any confidential matters that he learned in the course of performing his duties: Provided, That this shall not apply to the case where such disclosure of confidential matters is especially prescribed otherwise by Acts. Such â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Acts' might include Article 288 and 289 of the Civil Procedure Act, which require the attorney to testify after court order or to face penalties.â&#x20AC;? (Shin Decl. of 5/4/02, Âś 16.) Article 316 of the Korean Code of Civil Procedure sets out the three specific circumstances when documents must be produced: Article 316 (Obligation to Produce Documents) The holder of a document shall not refuse to produce it in the following cases: 1) When the party himself possesses the document which he has cited in the lawsuit; 2) When the applicant is entitled to request the holder of the document to deliver it or to make it available for inspection; and 3) When the document has been prepared for the benefit of the applicant, or prepared with regard to a legal relation between the applicant and the holder thereof. Han Decl. of 5/2/02, Âś 6. Notably, these same statutory limitations existed under Japanese law as considered by the court in Alpex. â&#x20AC;&#x153;[P]rior to January 1, 1998, documents held by parties in litigation were not generally subject to mandatory production under Article 312 of the Japanese Code, except in three instances not applicable here.â&#x20AC;? VLT Corp. v. Unitrode Corp., 194 F.R.D. 8, 17 (D.Mass.2000) (upholding claims of privilege as to communications with Japanese patent agents). On January 1, 1998 the Japanese Code was amended to allow for liberal discovery similar to the practices in the United States. Id. Even under those new discovery rules, documents reflecting communications with patent attorneys and patent agents in Japan are not subject to production. Id. Some of the challenged documents referred to in this and other sections of this Opinion include communications sent to or from C.T. Rhodes. Dr. Rhodes was, and still is, a technical consultant for Astra in its worldwide litigations relating
!" "#" ! $ % & '
! " # $ %
13 14
to omeprazole. Andrx has argued that all communications involving Dr. Rhodes must be disclosed because Dr. Rhodes testified as an expert during Astra's Korean proceedings. However, only some of Dr. Rhodes' work related to actual testimony. (See, e.g., Ryberg Decl. of 5/17/02, œœ 7, 8, 10, 12.) Dr. Rhodes submitted an affidavit in connection with an Astra/CKD litigation on June 3, 1994, and subsequently testified on June 10, 1994. (Ryberg Decl. of 5/17/02, Âś 2.) Dr. Rhodes did not testify in the Korean matters after that date. Accordingly, some communications with Dr. Rhodes relate to his work as a non-testifying expert. Andrx is only entitled to documents that formed the basis for his testimony. Some of the documents Andrx seeks, however, were created after Dr. Rhodes testified in the Korean proceedings. Id. Those documents could not form the basis for his opinions. Thus, documents dated after Dr. Rhodes testified in Korea on June 10, 1994, are not discoverable because Dr. Rhodes was a consulting expert at that time. In her Declaration dated May 17, 2002, Ms. Ryberg indicates that she has included a translation she prepared of document 334. (Ryberg Decl. Of 5/17/02, Âś 27.) However, the translation is not actually included in the submissions. On page one of document 1627, the court redacted the last sentence of the first paragraph and the second and third paragraphs in their entirety. On the second page of document 1627, the court redacted the second full paragraph, which appeared between the claim language and the closing, â&#x20AC;&#x153;With best regards.â&#x20AC;?
End of Document
Š 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
!" "#" ! $ % & '
)
! " # $ % " & ' "'%( ") *! +&,%-(%).'-%$ /%-/ )0.'-%$ "%1/%-/ )0.'-%2 &) " #(! '03' '(4 '('*0(' - - 5 6 $
! "# $ % & ' % ( ) % % * +% !)*+"# % * , ' % ( % - $&& % . & ' % ( % - $&& ) -/ - & % % & 0 1 & & % 234 % - % )*+ % 5 % 5 & & 5 %6 & 5 $ % & )*+ % * ! & "# 2 #
% 5 7 - % & % ) % 0 + !)$0+"#/ 8 ' ( 9 884 24:23 ; < % 7 % - )*+ - & % & % % % && % 5 % % %6 % % & & % & - 5 %/ 5 5 & % % $ % = > #
0 2???/ < )*+ % @ + % + !@+ +"# - % % )*+ && 5 % % / )*+/ % % 5 - & % - 5 5 & & < + # $ % % / + % & !+ "#/ % !)*+ % "#/ % % & % % & 5 3 ( 1 )*+ % /
& % % & @+ + / )*+ % 7 5 ' % ( - $&& ! $&& "# 4 # 0 @ A/ 2??? 7 % & / % % % - 5 + 2??B/ % C % % % < / % < < % - % 2D8 & 5 5 & 5 % % & B: E # % + - % )*+ E )*+ & % % @ 42/ 2??? - @+ + - & %/ 1 - % / )*+ - & E ; < * - - % & % / @ ( / * / % % - - - - - ? $ + 3/ 2???/ )*+ 5 % + / F G % / % + % & 5 % % )*+ - & % 2D % < H + 5 - % / )*+ - $ 8/ 2??? - & & % % & % 2D:22 & % % $ 24/ 2??? % % - - 7 C 2# - - @+ + - I, 4# - 5 % % )*+ 1 @ 42/ 2??? - - I, 3# % % + && & )*+ I, A# / % % 5 & % @+ +
! " # $
% 8# / - % % % I 22: 24 ; < 7 % % 5 / % & % % % @ A/ 2???, )*+ @ 42 % $ 8/ 2??? % F G % + 3/ 2??? )*+
)*+/ + / & 5 % % % &
7 - 5 % 234 - % % J 23:28 ; < 0, $&& 4 00 ! " )*+ % & % 234 % & 5 5 - % % ! % & " % % +% 5 % + !+ +"#/ 8 ' ( 9 BD> $&& 3 # 5 / % 5 7 - % & % )$0+/ )*+ & 5 5 - % % < & 8 )$0+ ) % . 5 % A8 2 . & $&& >: B, # & < 3 7 % & % % & )$0+ % & #
)$0+ < & % / ! % - - % 5 - & - " 8 ' ( 9 884 # 8# < & < % % % & 5 % % 5 / % !% 5 & " & 5 % & 5 &* ) % # BD4 ) 4% 433/ 43B * 2?E3# )$0+ < & % - % % & % < & 8 5 % % 5 8>> ) 4% 484 ! & & 5 - 5 % & % % )$0+ " $ # # # $ ' % '( $) ./ >2B ) 4% E8A/ E>2 * 2?ED# . / & 5 % ! 5 % % J / & % - & < & 5 % - & & - % % - && " 8>> ) 4% 482 %#, # #$ /# # $ ' ) # . = * ?>?/ 2??A F >EE3/ K4 * @ >/ 2??A# $0 % +1 # $ ' 28D ) . * A>8 ( * = L 2??3## % % / / %% / & % / 1 % & J % & 5 % - % 7 5 1 & 5 #
- / % - 5 - $%$ )*+ % )$0+ 7 4 5 - 7 )*+ % 1 - % - <& / && % % )*+ % %/ % % % % 5 0 % && )$0+ < & / ! & - " & & % '( $) * $ & 8>> ) 4% 4A4/ 484 * 2?BB# % ! % % 5 / % < % " 8 ' ( 9 884 # A# #, + % # '( $) ,-# & >8A ) 4% ?2B/ ?42 3% 2?E2#, % # '( $) ,-# & E34 ) ( && E>>/ EBD * = @ 2??3# % J % 8 ' ( 9 884 # A# #, + >8A ) 4% ?42 00
5 % )*+ & % 234 % & 5 && < & 8 % % % 5 % % $ # # )$0+ $ # # >2B ) 4% E>2 0 / & 5 % % % / & - - %% % % % & % 3 ( / )*+ & 5 % / & - - %% %/ % / & % / # % % & % !)*+ & % " & < 0 # 1 $ # # % /# # % ! % < & % 7 & % % - < & - & & % " $ # # >2B ) 4% E>2, /# # 2??A F >EE3/ K4: 3 + % / % % & + 5 - % % % % & && % 5
! " # $
& & 5 % / & 5 && % - - 5 1 % + * 1 % $& ## % .
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
& % % 5 & 5 & @+ + / % & 5 && % !& % " )*+ & % G % % % 5 & & 5 && % - % )*+ % % % % 5 & . / % - % % 5 & & 5 - )*+ & % % / - % - % - - - A ) / % ( %/ )*+ / & )$0+ 7 % & & & % 5 & & 5 %/ )*+ % % - & + % % % & & & % 5 & & 5 % & & )*+ & $ ! % 5 & & 5 - % % & " $&& B:E % )*+ @ 42 % $ 8/ 2??? & 5 %# % )*+ % % && & 5 + % / < 1 & & % % - % % 5 & & 5 / - % * $ /3 % .
& 5 & % - - % % & & 5 %5 . / *$ 3 $ & *$ & % 4$+ + $ 34 ) 3% E82/ E>4:>3 3% 2??A# & 5 && - - C 2# % % & 5 , 4# & - - % # / % / % # -
! " # $
%
- , 3# - - % # # - & # & & & # & - # 5 # & % / % %# & & , % A# & 5 # % % # - 5 % E>4 & 5 < % - O % & 1 % J 8>> ) 4% 483 F % && & 5 / & - ! % 5 % % 5 / - - & 5 " - # & . 23D ) . * 8>D/ 8BD * 2?E?# - )*+ % )*+ % - & & % / % + / & 5 % + % - % % )*+ & 5 - )*+ % )*+ 0 && - % % % / 5 % % 1 % - !( 5 C % " - && & - - - % )*+ 1 & / - % F % % % & 5 %/ 5 & 5 % 8 )
& 7 % 5 % % )*+ )*+ 5 1 % & 5 / % % & 5 - 5 % + % / - % % - % % - % & 5 > 0G ) 5 / - % & % % % & + && & % -
+=* =$F/ $ F0 / PPPPPP % $ / 4DDD/ & % $ % & ' % ( ) % % * +% % * , ' % ( % $&& % . & ' % ( % - $&& / 0 0( $.* . * % H.+= * % - % % 5 & & 5 / % * =0 * % - % & 5 = . & % ) ( && 4%/ 4DDD F 28A8D4E
Footnotes
1
There is a split of authority as to whether a non-party federal agency's decision not to comply with federal subpoenas is reviewed pursuant to the APA's â&#x20AC;&#x153;arbitrary and capriciousâ&#x20AC;? standard or de novo under the court's discretionary right to limit burdensome discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Compare Comsat Corp. v. Nat'l Sci. Found., 190 F.3d th
269, 277 (4 Cir.1999) (stating that â&#x20AC;&#x153;[w]hen the government is not a party, the APA provides the sole avenue for review of an agency's refusal ... to comply with subpoenas.â&#x20AC;?) and Davis Enters. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 877 F.2d 1181, 1186 (3d Cir.1989) (reviewing EPA's refusal to comply with subpoena under arbitrary and capricious standard) with th
2
Cir.1994) (holding that federal rules of Exxon Shipping Co. v. United States Dept. of Interior, 34 F.3d 774, 778â&#x20AC;&#x201C;79 (9 discovery apply to discovery request made against federal agency, whether or not United States is party); see generally 5 U.S.C. § 706 (setting out standard of review under APA); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26 & 45 (delineating court's power to limit discovery). These cases do not address requests for production under FOIA. At a status conference held February 10, 2000, counsel for the FDA argued that FOIA was inapplicable because the PMC had not formally instituted suit against the FDA under FOIA. (Tr. 2/10/00 at 87â&#x20AC;&#x201C;88.) The FDA did not raise this argument in its Response to the PMC's motion. Neither party has cited authority indicating whether such a formal suit is necessary or whether a request alone is adequate, or whether enforcement of a subpoena requesting documents under
! " # $
3 4 5 6
FOIA constitutes a formal proceeding sufficient for the court to decide the issue. The court believes that the subpoena is sufficient to bring the issue before the court for decision. To require a formal suit under FOIA would create needless delay and expense only to bring the same issue before the court at a later time. The following is an example of a description given in the Coastal States log: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Advice on audit of reseller whether product costs can include imported freight charges, discounts, or rental fees. Sections 212.93 and 212.92.â&#x20AC;? Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 861. Representative of the documents withheld on the basis of deliberative process privilege is an e-mail from one FDA official requesting that another official check for certain document numbers and provide copies of those documents if they are found. As noted in its Opposition, the FDA has disclosed the underlying facts regarding what knowledge was in the possession of FDA officials at the time of the JAMA article's publication. (Mem. in Opp'n at 11.) Some of the documents and communications which are entitled to protection under the attorney-client privilege have also been reproduced in communications between FDA officials who are not attorneys. When reproduced in such communications, they are not privileged because they were not communicated to an attorney. Furthermore, even if the FDA officials were communicating with each other under the direction of their attorneys, the attorney-client privilege was not invoked to protect those documents. As discussed above, such documents are not protected under the deliberative process privilege because responding to requests for documents is not an agency action to which that privilege applies.
End of Document
Š 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
! " # $
RECEIVED
Knuteson, Hinkston & Quinn, S.C. - a limited liability organization -
Attorneys at Law John W. Knuteson, J.D., C.P.A. Mark R. Hinkston, J.D. Andrew J. Rosenberg
500 College Avenue Racine, WI 53403-1058 Telephone: 262-633-2000 Facsimile: 262-633-9900
04-11-2018 Clerk of Circuit Court Racine County 2017CV001644 Of Counsel: Mark Lukoff, S.C. Circuit Court Commissioner Matthew H. Quinn, Retired Leander R. Valent, Retired
April 11, 2018 Hon. Eugene A. Gasiorkiewicz Racine County Circuit Court 730 Wisconsin Avenue Racine, WI 53403 Re: Case No. 17-CV-1644 Dear Judge Gasiorkiewicz: Late yesterday afternoon, Respondent City of Racine filed a Motion for Leave to file an Instanter Reply Brief. Per the prior Court order, the City filed its initial Brief/Log on March 23, 2018. Petitioner timely responded on March 30, 2018. Via letter of April 4, 2018, the Court requested certain specific information. Then, late yesterday afternoon – 10 days after Petitioner’s brief – the City for the first time asserted that it needed to file an “instanter reply brief” because “Petitioner’s Brief in Reply sets forth several arguments that are misstatements and/or incomplete statements of the law governing the attorneyclient privilege.” I disagree with the City’s characterization of the content of Petitioner’s brief, especially as it relates to “misstatements.” Regardless, nothing contained in Petitioner’s brief justified the City waiting ten days after Petitioner’s submission (and 6 days after the Court’s letter) to first broach the need for an “instanter reply brief.” I respect the Court’s absolute discretion to control its docket and receipt of information it deems necessary to administer and resolve the cases before it. I pose objection to the City’s submission of its request on the premise that Petitioner made mischaracterizations or misstatements. Respectfully submitted,
Atty. Mark R. Hinkston cc: Attys. Michael Cohen & Dieter Juedes
FILED 04-11-2018 Clerk of Circuit Court Racine County 2017CV001644
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT RACINE COUNTY ______________________________________________________________________________ SANDRA J. WEIDNER, Petitioner, v.
Case No. 17-CV-1644
CITY OF RACINE, a Wisconsin municipal corporation,
Case Code: 30952
Respondent. ______________________________________________________________________________
D E
ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________
L A
On April 10, 2018, Respondent City of Racine (the “City”) filed a Motion for Leave to file an Instanter Reply Brief Regarding the Privileged Nature of the Communications Submitted
E S
to the Board of Ethics (the “Motion”). The Court, having review the Motion and finding that the relief requested therein is for good case and will result in the just administration of the case, Orders that it has accepted the City’s Instanter Reply Brief Regarding the Privileged Nature of the Communications Submitted to the Board of Ethics.
Dated this 11th day of April, 2018 BY THE COURT: Electronically signed by Eugene A Gasiorkiewicz Circuit Court Judge
1993533.1
:
Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court
ft--.
Samuel A. Christensen 730 Wisconsin Avenue Racine, Wl 53403 262-636-3333 fax: 262-636-3341 www.racinecountv.com/clerkofcourts Wisconsin Circuit Court Access: www.WiCourts.aov
vi Racine County I S C O N S I N'
April 11,2018
Mark R. Hinkston Knuteson, Hinkston & Quinn SC 500 College Avenue Racine Wl 53403 Michael J. Cohen Meissner Tierney Fisher & Nichols SC 111 East Kilbourn Ave Milwaukee Wl 53202
Dieter J. Juedes Meissner Tierney Fisher & Nichols SC 111 East Kilbourn Ave Milwaukee Wl 53202
RE: Sandra J. Weidner vs. City of Racine Case No. 17CV1644 Gentlemen: In response to Atty Hinkstonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s letter of April 11,2018, Judge Gasiorkiewicz has advised that he has already received the Instanter Reply Brief of the respondent. Accordingly, he indicated that if Atty Hinkston wishes to file a sur-reply brief in this matter, he has until Friday, April 13th, at 5:00 p.m. to do so. Sincerely,
Beverly Westphal Clerk, Branch 2
Management Staff Brian Graziano Administrative Deputy
Diane Hanson Case Manager
Laurie Hardy Case Manager
Ashley Robash Jury Coordinator
Kaleigh Strickland Accounting Manager
Amy Vanderhoef Case Manager