ILNews

Letter not covered by attorney-client privilege

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Southern District magistrate judge has decided a letter between the city of Madison's mayor and city attorney isn't protected by attorney-client privilege in a civil action seeking damages over strip searches of three women.

Magistrate Judge William Hussmann Jr. ruled today that a cover letter from city attorney Robert Barlow II to Madison Mayor Albert G. Huntington isn't protected because it doesn't contain information covered under attorney-client privilege. The ruling came from an order granting plaintiffs' third motion to compel discovery. The plaintiffs, Kristy L. Lessley, Kara J. Rhodehamel, and Kayla M. Messer, filed suit against the city of Madison, Board of Public Works and Safety, the police department, and fire department in Lessley, et al. v. City of Madison, et al., No. 4:07-CV-136, claiming they were improperly strip searched following a traffic stop in January 2007.

The plaintiffs' motion sought a July 2007 cover letter written by Barlow, who also is a member of the city's Board of Public Works and Safety, which operates and manages the police and fire departments.

The issue facing the magistrate was whether Barlow could protect his communications to the mayor concerning the Board of Public Works' business by virtue of the attorney-client privilege. Although the scenario presents a difficult and interesting case for analysis, Magistrate Hussmann declined to make the analysis because this particular letter doesn't have information in it protected by the privilege.

The cover letter doesn't discuss any facts underlying the claims of the instant case, doesn't have any type of legal analysis of cases or statutes, and doesn't give advice to the mayor. The only opinion found in the letter deals with Barlow's opinion about the "tenor" of the letter and his impressions about the plaintiffs' attorney's motive in filing the claims.

As a result, the magistrate ordered the letter be produced within 15 days.

In November 2008, Magistrate Hussmann ordered sanctions against Madison, its Board of Public Works, and police and fire departments following their lack of response to court orders and obstructing discovery in the civil action. The defendants were required to respond to all outstanding discovery requests by Dec. 5, 2008, and pay a $1,000 fine, as well as attorney's fees to plaintiffs' counsel for filing the motions to compel.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT