To generate documentation regarding their own immigration status in the family’s extended defamation lawsuit filed from Esquire journalist and magazine Ryan Lizza. The court singled out lawyer Steven Biss–known for representing the Republican lawmaker in a string of unsuccessful defamation lawsuits against news organizations–to get his”puzzling and troubling” explanation about a residue of a milk farm worker.
Esquire’s filing whined through the residue of F.S.D., Biss”asserted argumentative objections which were tumultuous and made to intimidate or tutor the witness” when counsel attempted to query F.S.D. about legal documents that bore his trademark. Biss denied the accusation, saying he simply”meant to call the Defendants’ overt harassment of this NuStar employee” However, Judge Roberts called Biss’s justification”puzzling and troubling.”
“Mr. Biss created a lengthy talking objection asserting this was knock,” Roberts wrote. “Here, where the identity and immigration status of these workers is a central problem, it is not harassing or irrelevant to ask questions regarding these documents. In the context of the case, it is not conducive to obtaining truthful answers from a worker such as F.S.D. to have his employer’s attorney making lengthy, revived objections to all those questions”
Judge Roberts additionally stated that”the many puzzling and troubling facet” of Biss’s”behavior” concerned his choice to seek a sidebar with F.S.D.’s lawyer to determine”whether the witness needed to take the Fifth Amendment.”
The sidebar, which the judge noted lasted about two hoursoccurred immediately after F.S.D.’s lawyer Justin Allen explained that he’d advised F.S.D. to invoke the Fifth Amendment regarding questions regarding the legal documents that bore his trademark. When the attorneys returned to the deposition room, F.S.D.’s lawyer informed Esquire’s counsel that he was no longer representing F.S.D. and Biss said the residue was over pending rescheduling.
“Normally, an individual would expect the attorney for a deponent to be in the best place to ascertain if the deponent needs to assert a privilege,” Judge Roberts wrote. “Mr. Biss makes bald assurances that the workers want to answer all queries and not assert their Fifth Amendment rights. But Mr. Biss’s behavior–combined with the facts that (a) that the privilege has been increased, (b) that the privilege was possibly withdrawn after a lengthy sidebar, and (c) Mr. Allen was fired–gives me little confidence that F.S.D. could make a knowing waiver of his Fifth Amendment rights under these circumstances.”
Roberts ordered Biss and all the NuStar attorneys to see a court case to provide”education on appropriate behavior” regarding attorneys pressuring witnesses not to assert their faith, though the judge was clear that he made no finding on whether these pressure did occur.
In addition, Roberts arranged Biss and all other NuStar attorneys to”inform the [NuStar] workers of their obligation to search for the asked [citizenship] files and bring the documents to the deposit, should they still possess them,” including that the workers”may be asked regarding their efforts to comply at the rust.”
Read the order below.
[picture via Doug Mills/Pool/Getty Images]The post Judge Orders Employees at Devin Nunes Family’s Dairy Farm to Create Citizenship Records Following Attorney’s’Puzzling and Troubling’ Explanation About Deposition’Behavior’ first appeared on Law & Crime.