E. Mr. Horwitz properly asserted a privilege in the September 14, 2011 deposition.
Defendants contend that Mr. Horwitz did not assert a valid privilege-objection in Mr. Seipler’s deposition, but was merely engaging in misdirection. (Dkt No. 384, pg. 8, allegations 14-15).
Oddly though, Mr. Sotos admits that the spousal privilege was available [FN10].
John Nelson, Mrs. Seipler’s attorney, testified that if Mr. Horwitz violated the privilege, he could have been subject to discipline (Nelson TR. at 865.)
Although Mr. Sotos asserts in writing that the privilege was vaguely asserted (Dkt No. 384 Id.), he admits that the spousal privilege could have been the privilege which Mr. Horwitz was invoking. (Sotos TR. at 981-982).
egardless, Defense counsel could have filed a motion to determine the nature of the privilege that Mr. Horwitz asserted, after complying with Local Rule 37.2’s meet and confer requirement, but chose not to.
= = = = =
FN10 Q. Okay. So, you accept that a privileged conversation could have taken place in August 2011, correct? Where an issue concerning spousal privileges could have arisen; is that correct?
(Sotos, Tr., 983)
= = = = =
Part 14 tomorrow.