From Judge Colleen McMahon in Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney (S.D.N.Y.) Monday:
My order needs no further clarification. It is utterly clear. Counsel for Ms. Freeman do not arbitrate the rules.
Ms. Freeman will respond to EVERY question directed at her—regardless of whether the same question has been asked before.
If Ms. Freeman asserts attorney-client privilege regarding a question that has not been asked previously, you are to contact my chambers immediately to obtain a ruling.
If I must decide on more than one meritless attorney-client privilege objection, consequences will follow in the form of sanctions, adverse inferences, referrals to the court’s Grievance Committee with potential revocation of pro hac vice admission to practice or permission to remain admitted to the Bar of this Court, and the possibility of civil contempt. Understand this is not an idle threat. I am exhausted by this. I do not believe Ms. Freeman’s counsel is acting in good faith, and I will not tolerate being manipulated—indeed, I am being manipulated—by any attorney who appears before me.
FYI: I will not be in chambers after 5 PM EDT on Wednesday. If privilege objections are asserted after that hour, you will have to come back on Thursday morning at noon (9 AM PDT) so that I can rule on them. There will not be any deferred procedures for resolving privilege issues. At that point the deposition will be completed in my (telephonic) presence. I do not care if this does not accord with your schedule. My schedule has not been of any particular interest to Ms. Freeman and her attorney up to now; my schedule controls now.
A related filing from Ms. Freeman’s lawyer defending his position is here.
Thanks to James Creigh for the pointer, and to Seamus Hughes for apparently first flagging the order.
