What I would have like to have heard THJMW say yesterday to the piece of the transcription Fish provided (in red below):
JMW should have said: What do you mean this is the way you understood it --- You are a world-reknowned law firm. I have over 500 objections to your DS (because of you Mr. Rosen). The vast majority of those objections are not from attorneys, but common shareholders that care about their investment and justice. If they all can state that Weil, JPM and FDIC are not handing over documents even though you (JMW) told them to, so we need and examiner, it must be fairly obvious what I meant by handing over all the documents. Are yiou lying to me Mr. Rosen? Do you think I am that stupid, not to be able to see through your games?
Your Honor The reason not to do it, would be the same reason that your honor previously articulated I believe the words were “this has been investigated to death.” And your honor just like “cut-off again thjmw”
THJMW: If it has been investigated to death, my suggestion was the fruit of that investigation should be produced to the parties. “It hasn’t been!”
Your Honor let me just be clear about, I hear I hear what you’re saying about giving them the fruits and let me just explain what we understood it to mean and what I think is a reasonable understanding and proposal. What the court has said the supreme court all the cases that talked about work product, they all said hey look of course you could say it would be more convenient if you could get the analysis, but your honor what they , they will do their own analysis, I would love to think that Quinn Emanuel internal memos and research is such hot stuff that without it they can’t do their own analysis, but of course they’ll do their own analysis, they need to do their own analysis, so your honor what do they need, what are the fruits of the investigation that they need, what they need are the underlying facts and when they get the underlying facts of these investigations that have been investigated to death, they take all that factual info and they can draw and they will draw their own opinion. Now in their justification your honor even if garner did apply one of the prongs in garner is need and by the way under the work product doctrine which is nearly absolute you have to show a far stronger showing than just Need and substantial hardship, look at the part of their brief when they talk about what is their supposed need. Your honor what you see is they don’t say they really need to look through my files, my legal analysis. What they say is we can do, they say they can do these analysis, they never say they can’t this isn’t like a dead witness, that’s when the courts have found on rareability, they say they can do it, but it might cost more and take a little more time. That is a plea of convenience, it’s not a showing of need. Your honor is there were an order here where you were requiring us to turn over work product materials it would go against what the 3rd circuit has flatly said which is work product is not subject to the garner exception and it is a near absolute protection “cut-off thjmw”
THJMW: It’s a protection from 3rd parties, not from your client, your client
AI
