201529466.1 14893/136778

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE EASTERN DISTRICT FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, U.S. District Court 

Case No. 2:12-cr-20030-NGE-MKM-1, 4, 5

v. JUDGE: NANCY G. EMONDS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE: MONA J. MAJZOUB

JEFFREY BEASLEY et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________________/

David A. Gardey (P48990)

Robert P. Cares (P28888)

Stephanie D. Davis (P47265)

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Attorneys for Plaintiff

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 226-9100 / (313) 226-3265 (fax)

David.Gardey@usdoj.gov

Robert.Cares@usdoj.gov

Stephanie.davis@usdoj.gov

Walter J. Piszczatowski (P27158)

Michael J. Rex (P35753)

HERTZ, SCHRAM PC

Attorneys for Defendant

1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0183

(248) 335-5000 / (248) 335-3346 (fax)

wallyp@hertzschram.com

mrex@hertzschram.com

Elliott S. Hall (P14546)

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC

Attorney for Defendant Paul Stewart

400 Renaissance Center

38th Floor

Detroit, MI 48243-1668

(313) 568-6516 / (313) 568-6893 (fax)

Elliotthall19@yahoo.com

Christopher A. Andreoff (P10193)

JAFFE, RAITT HEUER & WEISS PC

Attorney for Defendant Ronald Zajac

27777 Franklin Road

Suite 2500

Southfield, MI 48034-8214

(248) 351-3000 / (248) 351-3082 (fax)

candreoff@jafferaitt.com

Eric A. Ladasz (P65354)

ERIC A. LADASZ PC

Attorney for Defendant Ronald Zajac

25121 Ford Road

Dearborn, MI 48128

(313) 274-2890 / (313) 586-0078 (fax)

eladasz@yahoo.com

_____________________________________________________________________________/

Case 2:14-mc-51472-NGE-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 10/29/14 PageID.1 Page 1 of 5
2

201529466.1 14893/136778

MISCELLANEOUS ACTION FOR AN ORDER IN LIMINE CONCERNING 

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS AND REQUEST FOR 

EXPEDITED DECISION ON SAME

Non-parties, Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit (“PFRS”) and 

General Retirement System of the City of Detroit (“GRS”)(collectively, “the Retirement 

Systems”), through their counsel, Clark Hill PLC, bring this miscellaneous action for an order in 

limine concerning attorney-client privileged communications. The Retirement Systems further 

request that the Court address this action on an expedited basis. In support of this action, the 

Retirement Systems state as follows:

Introduction

1. On certain occasions during the (ongoing) trial in the matter of the United States 

of America v. Jeffrey Beasley et al., 2:12-cr-20030-NGE-MKM (as lead Defendant, referred to 

herein as “the Beasley Trial”), certain witnesses have been asked to provide testimony 

concerning or related to potentially private attorney-client communications between 

representatives of PFRS and/or GRS and their common or respective attorneys. As the Beasley

Trial continues over the next several weeks, it is anticipated that other witnesses will be asked to 

provide testimony concerning or related to such communications. As more fully discussed 

below, (a) such communications are protected from disclosure under the attorney-client 

privilege, and (b) the witnesses who have testified, or may testify in the Beasley Trial, do not 

own the attorney-client privilege belonging to the Retirement Systems, and thus, do not have 

authority to waive the privilege. 

2. As non-parties, and without any practical real-time means to do so, the Retirement 

Systems have not been able to object to or otherwise address the potentially privileged nature of 

Case 2:14-mc-51472-NGE-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 10/29/14 PageID.2 Page 2 of 5
3

201529466.1 14893/136778

certain testimony provided to date in the Beasley Trial. Accordingly, so as to ensure the 

protection and preservation of their attorney-client privileged communications, the Retirement 

Systems bring this miscellaneous action for an order in limine, (a) precluding parties to the 

Beasley Trial and/or their counsel from seeking to discover the Retirement Systems’ respective 

and/or common attorney-client privileged communications, (b) precluding parties to the Beasley 

Trial and/or their counsel from otherwise obtaining the Retirement Systems’ respective and/or 

common attorney-client privileged communications, (c) precluding parties to the Beasley Trial 

and/or their counsel from disclosing the Retirement Systems’ respective and/or common 

attorney-client privileged communications, (d) precluding any witnesses testifying in the Beasley 

Trial from disclosing the Retirement Systems’ respective and/or common attorney-client 

privileged communications, and (e) providing for such further and different relief necessary or 

appropriate to protect the Retirement Systems’ respective and/or common attorney-client 

privileged communications during the Beasley Trial. 

3. Given the anticipated schedule in the Beasley Trial, and the continuation of same, 

the Retirement Systems also respectfully request that the Court address this action on an 

expedited, if not an emergency, basis. 

4. Concurrence in the relief requested in this miscellaneous action was requested 

from counsel for the parties to the Beasley Trial, but concurrence was not obtained from all 

parties, making the filing of this action necessary. 

Controlling Law

5. The attorney-client privilege is one of the oldest (and most important) privileges 

in all of American Jurisprudence. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981). A

Case 2:14-mc-51472-NGE-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 10/29/14 PageID.3 Page 3 of 5
4

201529466.1 14893/136778

communication that is the subject of the privilege is one made to (or by) an attorney, as a legal 

adviser, by (or to) a party, as a client, for the purpose of obtaining the attorney’s legal advice and 

opinion, relative to some legal right or obligation. Id. 

6. The attorney-client privilege is personal to the client, and only the client can 

waive it. Leibel v. General Motors Corporation, 250 Mich. App. 229, 240 (2002).

Material Circumstances

7. On various occasions during the Beasley Trial witnesses have been asked to 

discuss (potentially) subject to an attorney-client privileging belonging exclusively to PFRS, 

GRS, or both Retirement Systems. For example, upon information and belief, Cynthia Thomas –

a former administrator for the Retirement Systems - provided testimony about communications 

with PFRS’ attorneys that transpired during a closed session. That testimony was (potentially) 

subject to the attorney-client privilege belonging to PFRS, and Ms. Thomas did not have the 

right (or the ability) to waive the privilege. Indeed, as set forth above, that privilege is personal 

to PFRS, and only PFRS could waive the privilege, which it did not, and does not. 

Conclusion

8. The instant miscellaneous action is necessary and important to protect the 

Retirement Systems’ attorney-client privileged communications during the course of the Beasley

Trial. As a non-parties to the Beasley Trial, and without the real-time ability to protect such 

communications from disclosure, the Retirements Systems respectfully request that the Court 

enter an order in limine, (a) precluding parties to the Beasley Trial and/or their counsel from 

seeking to discover the Retirement Systems’ respective and/or common attorney-client 

Case 2:14-mc-51472-NGE-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 10/29/14 PageID.4 Page 4 of 5
5

201529466.1 14893/136778

privileged communications, (b) precluding parties to the Beasley Trial and/or their counsel from 

otherwise obtaining the Retirement Systems’ respective and/or common attorney-client 

privileged communications, (c) precluding parties to the Beasley Trial and/or their counsel from 

disclosing the Retirement Systems’ respective and/or common attorney-client privileged 

communications, (d) precluding any witnesses testifying in the Beasley Trial from disclosing the 

Retirement Systems’ respective and/or common attorney-client privileged communications, and 

(e) providing for such further and different relief necessary or appropriate to protect the 

Retirement Systems’ respective and/or common attorney-client privileged communications 

during the Beasley Trial. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

By: _/s/ StuartM. Schwartz______________ 

Ronald A. King (P45088)

Martin E. Crandall (P26824)

Stuart M. Schwartz (P62752)

CLARK HILL PLC 

500 Woodward Ave, Suite 3500 

Detroit, Michigan 48226

(313) 965-8300/ (313) 309-6935 (fax)

rking@clarkhill.com

mcrandall@clarkhill.com

Dated: October 29, 2014 sschwartz@clarkhill.com

Case 2:14-mc-51472-NGE-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 10/29/14 PageID.5 Page 5 of 5