Note: This article was written by ROBIN READER (612) and was originally published on her website Broken Arrow Forum on July 2, 2010, and reappears here on this blog with her permission.
- Sisney Motion to amend petition (add the District and Doug Mann as defendants) – granted
- Rep. Mike Ritze Motion to quash his deposition – denied
- Rep. Mike Reynolds Motion to quash his deposition – denied
- Sisney Motion to dismiss the board members’ counterclaim – denied
- Sisney Motion to disqualify RFR as the district’s legal counsel – denied
“Quash” is such a funny word.
Ritze and Reynolds were served by the attorney for the 3 board members to give their depositions. After they did their best to evade service, they claimed that they couldn’t testify because they had each undertaken their own “investigation” into the BA situation, and they claimed “legislative immunity”. The judge ruled that legislative immunity doesn’t apply to this situation, so they will have to show up for their depositions.
CANTRELL, DAMAN: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL IS DENIED. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND IS GRANTED OVER OBJECTION. MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITIONS BY THE TWO REPRESENTATIVES IS DENIED INSOFAR AS MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR SAME DO NOT CONCERN ONGOING SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE HOUSE, (NEXUS, AS DISCUSSED IN LINDLEY CASE) AND THEY ARE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE LITIGATION. THE LINDLEY CASE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT, IS ALSO INSTRUCTIVE IN THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY AND LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE, WHICH IS AT ISSUE HERE. MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS ARE DENIED. COUNSEL AND PARTIES SHOULD DISCUSS, AS REQUESTED BY COURT, PROSPECTS OF USING A MEDIATOR AND/OR WHETHER A NEW SCHEDULING ORDER WILL BE NEEDED AS A RESULT OF TODAY’S RULINGS. NOTICE
MAILED TO KENT RAINEY, GARY RICHARDSON, PHYLLIS WALTA, GRAYDON LUTHEY JR., CLARK BREWSTER, AND MARK MAGUIRE.