McHenry County Blog

This is the final installment of my notes from last Wednesday’s Rockford Federal court hearing before Judge Frederick Kapala.

At issue in the wrongful termination action brought by McHenry County Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler against Sheriff Keith Nygren and various of his subordinates is whether the case should be dismissed because of the posting of court sealed disciplinary records of various deputies.

Previously, Zane testified that his wife Rose told him in August 2011 that she had posted the secret documents.

“The August, 2011, telephone conversation,” Judge Frederick Kapala referenced.

“Explain to me the conflict between you and your client and Mrs. Seipler.

“What prohibited you from asking her about that?”

Horwitz injected the following before Nelson could answer:

“Defendants had pulled out every single stop they could.

“We have uncovered a lot of information in this case that would be very embarrassing to the Sheriff’s Department.

“Based upon how horrible the press dealt with him because of the relationship of the Sheriff [Keith Nygren] and the Northwests Herald and based upon [what] Mr. Sotos was asking for my client to be sent to [jail, there] was concern for the reputation of Mrs. Seipler.”

“She wasn’t a party to the confidentiality order,” Judge Kapala noted.

“Indirect civil contempt” were the words out of Horwitz’ mouth.

He emphasized the “conflict between my client and the Sotos firm.”

Kapala commented again, but what I wrote down doesn’t make a lot of sense to me: “Her interests lie in that same one.”

“[They] might accuse her of aiding and abetting the violation of the court order

“Mr. Seipler has told me things against his self-interest and I trust him.”

Horwitz revealed that he had spent more time on this case than any other in his career–”over 1,000 hours.”

“There would be a conflict if she came right out and said, ‘I did it.’”

Horwitz then explained that he had asked lots of lawyers about “indirect contempt.” He said he had found no attorney had been able to point to anything relating to the subject either.

“No one knew the answer to that question back in August, 2011.

“That’s why John Nelson mentioned criminal sanctions.

“I haven’t yet researched that law because,frankly, she’s not my client.

“Sometimes I listen to my feeling–call it listening to your inner voice or whatever–and sit back and see what’s going on.

Horwitz said he didn’t want to be “creating a situation where I may be creating a divorce.”

After checking calendars, the Judge and the lawyers decided the next gathering would be August 27th

= = = = =
Articles explaining the dueling sanctions motions:

• Sheriff Seeks Sanctions for Privacy Violations, While Violating Privacy Order or “Do As I Say, Not As I Do”
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 1
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 2
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 3
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 4
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 5
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 6

Links to the articles containing the entire 10,000+ word transcript from December 15th, mainly about Sheriff Deputy Scott Milliman’s deposition, can be found at the links below:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
• Part 6
• Part 7
• Part 8
• Part 9
• Part 10

After Rose Seipler and her attorney Dennis Giovannini left the courtroom, Rose’s former attorney, John Nelson, continued his testimony in the sanctions part of her husband Zane Seipler’s case.

McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren’s attorneys James Sotos and Elizabeth Ekl are trying to get Federal Judge Frederick Kapala to dismiss Zane’s wrongful termination suit on the grounds that he disobeyed the court order to keep Sheriff’s Department disciplinary records secret.

Previously, Zane had testified that his wife Rose posted them.

The question to which Rose had not objected to former attorney John Nelson’s answering was “What did she tell you?”

“Mrs. Seipler came in and indicated there was an issue in her husband’s case which had to do with the posting of materials that have court restricts,” Nelson explained.

“Her husband was asking her to sign an affidavit to that effect.

“I said I didn’t want to know.

“I told the consequences [and] issues of knowledge of the court order.

“I discussed why it was anyone would do a foolish thing like that.

“At the end of the conversation, I advised her it would be best if she maintained a silence in the matter”

Zane Seipler’s attorney Blake Horwtiz asked why Nelson didn’t want to know whether Rose had posted the material.

Nelson replied  that there were “potential problems if she had told me she had done that.”

“Why not ask her to tell the truth?” Horwitz continued.

“My approach is more oriented toward the criminal aspect.  I know from personal experience civil lawyers are more intimatedly involved with their clients than criminal attorneys.”

Ekl objected to the second part of Nelson’s answer, pointing out that he had not been qualified as an expert.

Kapala overruled the objection.

“Why?” Horwitz  then asked.

“If it were to be that Mrs. Seipler would need my services in the future I did not want to be pinned in.

“What could happen to me and my family if I had done this?” Rose apparently had asked Nelson.

“I attempted to answer as well as I could the potentially worst case scenario.

“I also want[ed] to make sure should it come to pass that she undertook a path that would have legal repercussions by myself or with another attorney.

“She [todl me] I have this problem and this problem and this is the nature of the problem.

“I indicated very early on that I didn’t need to know.

“It seemed to me that she wanted good, sound legal advise.  She’s a professional, a registered nurse.

“Your average criminal client [would] have learned that’s the way it is done,” Nelson said, continuing to explain how he handle criminal cases.

“As the conversation unfolded, early on [I figured out what the issue was].

“She was interested in the potential ramifications.

“You don’t need to tell me that you did or did not do it,” Nelson remembered telling Rose.

“We’ll find the issues.

“If she were going to sign an affidavit I would be prepared to prepare it and it would certainly cost her extra money.

“The cornerstone of a state and Federal practice is that your client is presumed not guilty.  In the early stages of a criminal case, I don’t necessarily have to know the culpability.

“We live in a fluid world and things can change,” concluded Nelson’s answer.

“[So you said] ‘Stop right there.  Don’t tell me anymore,” Horwitz said.

“I would do that because I would like to research spousal immunity.

“The Fifth Amendment privilege is certainly more than ethics,” Nelson asked in response to a question from Horwitz I did not catch, but probably related to Horwitz having advised Rose about self-incrimination at her deposition in this case.

I did write down the follow-up inquiry:  “Is it appropriate to say, ‘Stop right there because there might be Fifth Amendment problems?”

“Yes,” Nelson said.

It appears that the Sotos team now got in some questions.

“Her husband wanted her to sign an affidavit?”

“The way I recall it she had been asked to sign an affidavit and she wanted to know the consequences,” Nelson replied.

“If not by her husband, then who?”

“I presume it was the husband or the husband’s interest.”

At this point Judge Kapala asked Horwitz how many more witnesses he had.

Horwitz came up with the following six:

• Dennis Giovannini
• Jim Sotos
• Blake Horwitz
• Rose Seipler
• Zane Seipler
• Scott Milliman

“Obviously we need another day,” the Judge concluded and then asked some questions of his own.

The final installment is tomorrow.

= = = = =
Articles explaining the dueling sanctions motions:

• Sheriff Seeks Sanctions for Privacy Violations, While Violating Privacy Order or “Do As I Say, Not As I Do”
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 1
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 2
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 3
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 4
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 5
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 6

Links to the articles containing the entire 10,000+ word transcript from December 15th, mainly about Sheriff Deputy Scott Milliman’s deposition, can be found at the links below:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
• Part 6
• Part 7
• Part 8
• Part 9
• Part 10

The testimony of Rose Seipler attorney John Nelson moved next to his questioning by Keith Nygren attorney James Sotos’ associate Elizabeth Ekl.

She asked if it Zane Seipler attorney would have acted unethically, if he has represented both Zane and his wife in his wife’s deposition.

“I’m unsure,” Nelson replied. “It would be unethical if there were a known conflict.”

Nelson said his first representation was in October, 2010.

“[Would it have been] inappropriate for Mr. Horwitz to file a response in her behalf?

Judge Frederick Kapala’s ears picked up on the inference and he asked,

“Did he?”

“I believe he did,” Ekl replied.

“I have no interest,” Nelson said. “I have not interest in waiting hours to be called. I have no stake in this game.”

Ekl pointed to Document Exhibit 114, a filing on Rose Seipler’s behalf.

[At that point, I wrote, "Gotcha," on my legal paid.]

Nelson explained that the date of the Horwitz filing was “one or two days after I filed my motion. It should have been captioned, ‘Now comes Mr. Seipler,” not ‘Mrs. Seipler.’”

Ekl pointed out this was the second time Horwitz represented Mrs. Seipler [the first being the deposition].

“Anything unethical for him to serve you a subpoena for her deposition?” Ekl asked.

“No.”

My notes of who was asking questions at this point is a bit ambiguous, but I think the following identifications were put into the record by Ekl:

• October 17 memo filed by Nelson – Doc 103.
• October 18 memo filed by Horwitz – Doc 104.

Now, I have an “H” referring to Horwitz in the margin.

He asks about the facts in the two petitions.

“You incorporated very similar facts in your supplemental brief,” Nelson observed.

Horwitz points to page 45, line 6 [in the Rose Seipler deposition, I think], referring to Sotos associate Liz Barton mentioning the existence of a conflict.

Asking Nelson if he has a recollection after reading the reference elicited this comment from Judge Kapala:

“I don’t think he has any recollection of the deposition because he wasn’t there.”

One from the Sotos team objects suggesting, “Why not admit the deposition?”

Horwitz wasn’t ready to do that without reviewing the deposition with reference to what effect its being in the record might have on others parts of the case.

“He’s not going to testify to anything other than what he read in the deposition,” Judge Kapala observed.

At this point Horwitz went back to the hearsay objection that was upheld.  He referenced some “prior consistent statement” exception.

“I will do it up with her testimony,” he said.

“The defense is trying to allege collusion,” Horwitz said right before Sotos said, “They put this whole thing together after [the sanctions motion].”

“Did I ask you for information about what she (Rose Seipler) said?” Horwitz inquired.

“Yes,” Nelson replied.

“For my part I told you Mrs. Seipler wouldn’t be speaking to anyone.”

At this point, Nelson apparently realized he had misspoken on something, but my notes don’t indicate what.

He did, however, come up with two classics:

• “It was probably age and infirmity.
• “It’s much more difficult to be a witness than standing out there.”

At this point Rose Seipler and her current attorney Dennis Giovannnini re-entered the courtroom.

“Did it come time for Mrs. Seipler to have a conversation?”

The date referenced was October 26, 2011.

“What did she tell you?” Horwitz asked.

“No objection,” Giovannnini said.

“Step out, please,” Judge Kapala said.

More tomorrow.

= = = =
Articles explaining the dueling sanctions motions:

• Sheriff Seeks Sanctions for Privacy Violations, While Violating Privacy Order or “Do As I Say, Not As I Do”
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 1
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 2
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 3
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 4
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 5
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 6

Links to the articles containing the entire 10,000+ word transcript from December 15th, mainly about Sheriff Deputy Scott Milliman’s deposition, can be found at the links below:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
• Part 6
• Part 7
• Part 8
• Part 9
• Part 10

This is the third installment of how Zane Seipler’s attorney Blake Horwitz is defending against a motion for sanctions that, if granted, would end the wrongful termination suit that the now-reinstated Deputy has filed against McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren and others in the Department.

The subject moved from conflict of interest to spousal immunity.

Rose Seipler’s former attorney, John Nelson, is still on the stand.

Nelson won a motion previously in the case on that subject matter.

He there is “a certain immunity from disclosure.”

“It is an issue that attorney’s must tread very carefully with.”

“I represented Mrs. Seipler in a deposition. When did I stop [representing her]?” Horwitz asked.

“My memory was that you didn’t represent her in the deposition, just suggested to her she could assert her Fifth Amendment privilege.”

Nelson then explained that most clients think a lawyer who has previously represented them are their “attorney for life.

“You have to tell them when they may need other counsel.

“They don’t understand legal matt4ers.

“They trust you in matters of legal guidance.”

Horwitz pointed out that attorneys “also have to avoid the appearance of impropriety.”

“We have the responsibility to do the right thing,” Nelson said for the second time in the hearing.

“If I had called you, would you have told me what she (Rose Seipler) said?” Horwitz asked.

“No,” was Nelson’s immediate reply.

Horwitz asked when he and Nelson had met.

“Two or three court appearances ago” was the answer.

“Did she pay you?” Horwitz asked.

“She paid that day.”

“First time, too?”

“Yes. Retainer and paid a final bill.”

Horwitz then asked if there “came a time when Ms. Seipler told you about posting articles on the internet.”

An objection was made by Elizabeth Ekl, which Judge Frederick Kapala upheld.

At that point it was Nygren attorney James Sotos’ turn to question Nelson.

More tomorrow.

= = = = =
Articles explaining the dueling sanctions motions:

• Sheriff Seeks Sanctions for Privacy Violations, While Violating Privacy Order or “Do As I Say, Not As I Do”
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 1
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 2
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 3
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 4
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 5
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 6

Links to the articles containing the entire 10,000+ word transcript from December 15th, mainly about Sheriff Deputy Scott Milliman’s deposition, can be found at the links below:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
• Part 6
• Part 7
• Part 8
• Part 9
• Part 10

This is Part 2 of Rockford attorney John Nelson’s testimony in the Zane Seipler wrongful termination case against Sheriff Keith Nygren, et al.

It is from the santions motion part of the trial before Judge Frederick Kapala.

“Your question involves the essence for her [Rose Seipler's] visiting me for the second time,” Nelson replied.

“There were consequences to signing an affidavit for use in her husband’s case with regard to posting privileged materials in this case on the internet where there was some court restriction,” Nelson testified.

“Certainly there was not only tension, but there was a legal conflict [and] marital [conflict].

“The legal conflict was Mrs. Seipler needed legal representation to represent her interests.”

“Did you know of the allegations of perjury [in the James Sotos motion for sanctions (see below)]?” Horwitz asked.

“I did not know that,” Nelson relied.

“If I had gone and spoken to Mrs. Seipler and asked her everything that happened and she developed that and I had presented that [information] to the court [as Sotos had argued earlier in the day that Horwitz should have]?”

“The ethical problems always come after the fact,” Nelson commented.

“[You would have3] placed her in legal jeopardy.”

“What would you tell her?” Horwitz asked.

“I would have told her you shouldn’t have done that.  We would be a position to attack any [use of information in any further proceeding.  That would be the danger," was Nelson's reply.

An objection was made with regard to relevancy.

Judge Kapala dismissed the objection:

"The question has been raised why he didn't investigate this [whether Rose put the secret documents on the internet].  I think he’s trying to explain why he didn’t do it.

“I will allow the witness to continue to testify.”

Nelson continued: “I certainly would have written a letter to the ARDC [Attorney's Registration and Disciplinary Commission].

“You and I might also have had a talk.”

Another objection interrupted the proceedings to which Judge Kapala asked that “a firmer context” be laid out.

And another objection to Mrs. Seipler, a future witness, being in the courtroom was sustained:

“I agree she shouldn’t be here while you [lay out] your theory of the case.”

“I understand the issue,” Horwitz said.

Rose and her current attorney Dennis Giovannnini then left the room.

The objected to question was then read by the court reporter. I caught only a snippet about “Did you put this up on the internet?” [From the context below, I believe Horwitz was quoting what he heard Zane say to his wife over the phone during the two's heated August conversation.]

Horwitz then laid the following out hypothetical situation:

Blake Horwitz

“A couple of months before Mrs. Seipler came to you for the second time (in August), she overhears this and says, ‘I did it. I put the stuff up over the internet.’”She speaks to me and says she’ll testify and wants to get a lawyer. She’s upset, emotional.

“Then a motion for sanctions is filed with [asking for] dismissal and referral to the Federal prosecutor [for criminal charges].

“Should I have inquired, ‘What happened?’”

Nelson’s reply:

“No.

“Anytime you have the possibility of Federal criminal exposure all you can do is suggest counsel.

“She needed to be advised by an attorney.”

“Did I have her duty [best interest] at heart?” Horwitz continued.

“No, you could not do justice for your client by having any interest in her interests.”

An objection was made to the hypothetical.

“These are things you can bring up on cross,” Judge Kapala replied.

“You certainly had the obligation to tell Ms. Seipler to get an attorney, [to] tell her you were not going to talk to her, to get a lawyer,” Nelson continued.

“I think the rules encompass that lawyers do the right thing.

“It would be improper to take advantage to advance your own case,” Nelson said.

Horwitz moved onto the subject of spousal immunity.

More tomorrow.

= = = = =
Articles explaining the dueling sanctions motions:

• Sheriff Seeks Sanctions for Privacy Violations, While Violating Privacy Order or “Do As I Say, Not As I Do”
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 1
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 2
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 3
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 4
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 5
• Point, Counter Point – Sotos, Horwitz Both Request Sanctions – Part 6

Links to the articles containing the entire 10,000+ word transcript from December 15th, mainly about Sheriff Deputy Scott Milliman’s deposition, can be found at the links below:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
• Part 6
• Part 7
• Part 8
• Part 9
• Part 10

Sheriff Keith Nygren, et al’s attorney James Sotos filed motions for sanctions, including dismissal of Zane Seipler’s wrongful termination suit because documents that had been sealed were posted to a blog from his home’s computer.

After Sotos completed his side of the case Tuesday, Seipler attorney Blake Horwitz put attorney John Nelson on the stand.

“I can’t answer any questions unless there is a waiver,” Nelson said in reply to Horwitz’ question about whether he has represented Rose Seipler.

A court filing showed Nelson had represented Zane’s wife Rose in a marital immunity motion.

It turns out she turned to him again when after the sanctions motions (see below) were filed.

In April, Rose was identified as the person who posted the confidential documents.

The first question was whether Rose would waive her attorney-client privilege.  She and her current attorney, Dennis Giovannini.

The privilege was waived and Rose left the courtroom.

Because Nelson’s testimony shows how a veteran defense attorney approaches criminal cases, I shall attempt detailed explanation of the questioning.

Previously, it had been pointed out by Sotos that Horwitz had represented Rose in a deposition.  Horwitz didn’t remember being at the deposition and it turns out he was not there in person, but did participation over the phone.

One of the key points that Sotos and his assistant Elizabeth Ekl made was that Horwitz had represented both Mr. and Mrs. Seipler.

Horwitz used Nelson to try to show Judge Frederick Kapala that what the did was proper.

In the deposition, Horwitz advised Rose to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify.

Nelson thought that appropriate.

During this line of questioning, which targeted the first time Rose went to Nelson, Sotos associate Elizabeth Ekl objected to Nelson’s being considered an “expert” on legal ethical questions.

“He’s a licensed attorney,” Judge Kapala pointed out, overruling the objection.  “What more does he need?”

“With regard to [a marital dispute], would it have been appropriate for me to represent Mr. and Mrs. Seipler?” Horwitz then asked.

“No, I don’t believe so,” Nelson replied, “because there’s an inherent conflict of interest.

“You could at your own peril.  By engaging in that type of conduct…[it] could result in problems for your client and then result in problems for you.

“It just leads to putting a barrier b3tween you and your client.?

The second call from Rose to Nelson was the next topic.

Horwitz asked if it would have been appropriate for him to represent both spouses in relationship to the blog postings of confidential material on the internet.

“If she said, ‘I have a lawyer,’ I think [Horwitz] would have been on dangerous ground trying to talk to her.  [An attorney] can’t talk to a represented client without her attorney’s consent,” Nelson said.

The question of the timing of the second representation came up.

October 26, 2011, was the date Nelson provided.

Previously, Soto has hammered Horwitz for not informing the Court of his suspicion that Rose had posted the documents.  He intimated that the two had cooked up the story that she had done it, arguing that the delay in Rose’s obtaining an attorney after the heated mid-August arguments between Zane and his wife was evidence of the falsity of the assertion that Zane had nothing to do with the posting.

At a previous hearing, Zane had pointed out that the family’s financial status was precarious with his not being back on the Sheriff’s Department payroll as Sheriff Nygren strung out his firing loss as long as possible (including a futile appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court).

More questions on conflict problems had Horwitz represented Rose as well as Zane.

“I would [suspect] a cautious, competent and good lawyer wouldn’t have done that,” Nelson opined.  “It could place you in an ethical conflict.”

Asked a similar question, Nelson replied, “Absolutely there was a conflict between Ms. Seipler’s and her husband’s interests.  It had to do with the potential of litigating the husband’s case effectively and the potential for Mrs. Seipler to have legal difficulties.”

Moving onto the second visit, Horwitz asked if Nelson needed to ask for a waiver.

= = = = =

More tomorrow.

This is Part 2 of former Deputy Sheriff Zane Seipler’s lawyer Blake Horwitz’ request for sanctions against Sheriff Keith Nygren.

This motion was filed in response to a request for sanctions against Seipler by Nygren attorney James Sotos in Seipler’s Federal wrongful termination case.

Most of the post consists of direct quotes from the Seipler motion for sanctions.

“Plaintiff asks that his Court entertain a dispositive disposition in connection with this motion in the form of default and/or the striking of affirmative defenses,” the introduction of the filing reads.

Circumstances of the three instances of Defendants’ alleged violation of the Court’s Protective Order are then discussed. (Paragraphing and formatting has been added to make the text easier to read on a computer screen.)

“Milliman Transcript

“The Defendants submitted confidential and/or sensitive materials to third parties. Scott Milliman testified that Sheriff Nygren and Jose Rivera committed serious crimes, as this Court may remember. The transcript was tendered to

• non-party civilian Jose Rivera,
• Sgt. Ellis and
• Undersheriff Zinke (Exhibit A) and
• a reporter for the Northwest Herald.

“In the Herald’s expose, a scathing editorial was drafted, comparing Scott Milliman to a Sesame Street character (Exhibit B). The Herald’s attack is now available for all to see since December of 2010.

“A quick review of the article demonstrates its chilling effect on any other officer who could and/or would testify in this matter.

“Five officers have come forward and testified, under oath, that they were fearful of testifying in this cause due to the repercussions of testifying against Sheriff Nygren [Foot Note 1].

= = = = =
Foot Note 1 – “Deputies Gerald Bodden, Cynthia Matteson, Timothy Matteson, Scott Milliman and Jill Tutt. Scott Milliman was terrified during his deposition. He was afraid that he too was going to be killed for his testimony. His eyes watered and had difficulty answering certain questions. If Defendants contradict this representation, Plaintiff’s counsel shall order the transcripts and demonstrate same to the Court. Plaintiff seeks to limit public dissemination of this information due to the fear these officers experienced in the depositions.”
= = = = =

“Their fears were justified.

“The transcript was tendered to three nonparties and the Northwest Herald. Milliman was fired for his comments.

“Further, there can be no justification for tendering a transcript concerning alleged criminal activity to a purported coconspirator in crime (Jose Rivera). This is particularly true and obvious as applied to a Sheriff’s Department. To be clear, the Court’s Confidentiality Order required non-dissemination:

“’Confidential Matter [includes] … information that is of a sensitive or non public-public nature regarding …. Defendants, non party witnesses…’ (Exhibit C). This Court now has direct evidence of a willful disregard for this Court’s authority. The affidavits (Exhibit A) speak for themselves…

“Blake Horwitz certifies that he received the Milliman transcript on January 20, 2011, via e-mail and did not disseminate the transcript to anyone. Jensen Court reporters, via Laura Davis, state that the transcript was tendered to Defense Counsel on December 7, 2010.

“Circumstantial evidence demonstrates that Defendants tendered the transcript to the Northwest Herald. Just as it published a scathing review of Deputy Milliman, the Herald is a weekly mouthpiece for the Sheriff, espousing his point of view on a variety matters, including this litigation.”

= = = = =

More tomorrow.