Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01208/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01208-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 375
Nature of Suit: False Claims Act
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Marc A. Wichansky, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

David T. Zowine, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01208-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 The Court has reviewed the matrix submitted by the parties pursuant to the Court’s 

direction. Doc. 279. The numbered paragraphs that follow correspond to the issues 

identified in the matrix. 

 1. Mr. Quinlan instructed Defendant Zowine not to answer questions about 

three subjects: an email produced in the litigation, Mr. Zowine’s alleged gambling, and 

Mr. Zowine’s mental health. Defendants do not dispute that these instructions were 

given, but argue that the first category of questions concerned a document Mr. Quinlan 

thought should be sequestered (Defendants do not say why). Defendants no longer claim 

the document should be sequestered. Defendants assert that the latter two categories of 

questions were irrelevant. 

 Rule 30(c)(2) is clear: 

An objection at the time of the examination – whether to evidence, to a 

party’s conduct, to the officer’s qualifications, to the manner of taking the 

deposition, or to any other aspect of the deposition – must be noted on the 

record, but the examination still proceeds; the testimony is taken subject to 

Case 2:13-cv-01208-DGC Document 281 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

any objection. . . . A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only 

when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by 

the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) (emphasis added). 

 Mr. Quinlan’s instructions were improper. Defendants do not contend that his 

instruction not to answer questions about the document was based on a privilege or was 

given to enforce a limitation ordered by the Court, and Defendants never presented a 

motion under Rule 30(d)(3) with respect to the document. And instructions not to answer 

based on irrelevancy are improper. See, e.g., Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dabney, 73 F.3d 

262, 266 (10th Cir. 1995) (“It is inappropriate to instruct a witness not to answer a 

question on the basis of relevance.”). 

 Plaintiff may resume the deposition of Mr. Zowine, to inquire into these three 

topics only, in connection with other litigation events that will require Plaintiff’s counsel 

to be in Phoenix. The resumed deposition will be limited to one hour. The Court makes 

no determination regarding the relevancy of these topics at trial. Mr. Quinlan shall pay 

the cost of the court reporter for this one-hour deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2). The 

Court will not require payment of travel expenses for Plaintiff’s counsel because the 

deposition will be held in connection with other Phoenix events, nor will the Court 

require payment of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees because those fees would have been 

incurred in completing the questioning if the instructions had not been given.1

 2. The Court has reviewed the portions of the Glassman transcript provided 

with the matrix (Doc. 279-2) and does not find that defense counsel engaged in improper 

conduct or coaching. Defense counsel called for a break in the deposition and, during the 

break, reminded the witness to be careful in responding to questions and seek 

clarification if she was confused. This was not improper coaching. The witness then told 

defense counsel that she had, in fact, been confused by questions asked before the break, 

and defense counsel suggested the witness mention this to the questioning attorney and 

 

1

 This resumed deposition is a limited exception to the Court’s order at Doc. 280. 

Case 2:13-cv-01208-DGC Document 281 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

clarify her answers when an appropriate opportunity arose. The witness did so after the 

break, and appears to have provided candid clarification consistent with her earlier 

testimony. 

 3. Plaintiff shall respond to the pending motions in limine on or before 

November 16, 2015. 

 4. Plaintiff, through his counsel, waived any privilege in the Plattner email by 

not objecting to use of and questions about the email in the deposition of Rick Nye. See 

Luna Gaming-San Diego, LLC v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, 2010 WL 275083, at *5 (S.D. 

Cal. 2010) (“Under both state and federal law, if a privileged document is used at a 

deposition, and the privilege holder fails to object immediately, the privilege is 

waived.”); Brandon v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 2008 WL 2096883, *3 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (Failure 

to assert the privilege at client’s deposition is clear proof that, even if there was a 

privilege, it was absolutely and irrevocably waived, regardless of whether disclosure was 

inadvertent); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Ernst & Whinney, 137 F.R.D. 14, 19 (E.D. 

Tenn. 1991) (Finding a waiver of privilege where a document was marked as an exhibit 

at a deposition without a claim of privilege or objection at the time); Perrignon v. Bergen 

Brunswig Corp., 77 F.R.D. 455, 459 (N.D. Cal. 1978) (Waiver of privilege found where 

information disclosed in deposition without objection). 

 5. By October 30, 2015, Plaintiff shall produce to the Court, in camera, copies 

of the documents that Darrin Jeffries and his counsel found subject to production but that 

Plaintiff instructed them not to produce. The Court will review the documents and 

determine whether they should have been produced under Doc. 247. 

 6. The Court’s order with respect to Defendants’ work product claim was not 

limited to “employee-to-employee” communications as Defendants suggest. Doc. 279-1 

at 6. It included “documents that were compiled by Defendants’ employees, under the 

direction of attorney Julie Nelson, for the purpose of responding to the AHCCS 

investigation.” Doc. 247 at 4. Defendants describe the document in question as having 

been “created exclusively for Julie Nelson, the Company’s lawyer, and was 

Case 2:13-cv-01208-DGC Document 281 Filed 10/27/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

communicated directly to her.” Doc. 279-1 at 6. The document thus was created by 

another in the company for use by Ms. Nelson, and Defendants do not dispute that it was 

created as part of the investigation that was the subject of the Court’s previous order. 

The Court declines Defendants’ request to sanction Plaintiff and hold the supplemental 

expert reports inadmissible on this basis. 

 Dated this 27th day of October, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-01208-DGC Document 281 Filed 10/27/15 Page 4 of 4