Skip to content

Judicial Watch • JW v. State 06 02 Plf’s Opposition to Pagliano’s Motion for Protective Order 01363

JW v. State 06 02 Plf’s Opposition to Pagliano’s Motion for Protective Order 01363

JW v. State 06 02 Plf’s Opposition to Pagliano’s Motion for Protective Order 01363

Page 1: JW v. State 06 02 Plf’s Opposition to Pagliano’s Motion for Protective Order 01363

Category:Clintons

Number of Pages:4

Date Created:June 2, 2016

Date Uploaded to the Library:June 03, 2016

Tags:Deponent, protective, hillary email scandal, paglianos, Plfs, Video, Opposition, Pagliano, bryan, PARTY, amendment, deposition, motion, order, filed, plaintiff, State Department, FBI, document, district, united


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 06/02/16 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 13-cv-1363 (EGS)
PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION NON-PARTY DEPONENT
BRYAN PAGLIANO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc., counsel and pursuant the Court June 2016
minute order, respectfully submits this opposition Non-Party Deponent Bryan
Pagliano motion for protective order seeking prevent audiovisual recording
his deposition:
MEMORANDUM POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Mr. Pagliano motion both unnecessary and premature. The Court has
already ordered that all audiovisual copies depositions taken this case shall
sealed until further order the Court. Mr. Pagliano offers sufficient reason for the
Court revisit the issue.
Mr. Pagliano asserts that there proper reason videotape the
deposition intends assert his rights under the Fifth Amendment. the contrary,
the video will helpful the Court assessing the demeanor and credibility Mr.
Pagliano and when chooses assert the Fifth Amendment. one court has
observed,
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 06/02/16 Page
The video deposition allowed because superior
method conveying the fact finder the full message
the witness manner that assists the fact finder
assessing credibility and because Rule 30(b)(2) specifically
permits the deposing party select the method
recordation the deposition.
Riley Murdock, 156 F.R.D. 130, 131 (E.D.N.C. 1994). Moreover, since Mr. Pagliano
presumably will answer certain questions that not present any risk prosecution, the
videotape will useful assessing Mr. Pagliano demeanor answering those
questions well. Littlewood Federal Realty Inv. Trust, No. 13-CV-5538-F, 2014
6713468 (Mass. Sup. Ct., Sep 2014) Facial expressions, voice inflections,
intonation, gestures, and body language all enrich the experience the deposition and
ultimately advance the litigation process search for the truth. addition,
videotaping depositions useful for Court observe how the attorneys conduct
themselves the deposition, which often becomes relevant this issue sanctions.
Alexander FBI, 186 F.R.D. 123, 127 (D.D.C. 1998).
Any concerns that Mr. Pagliano has about the potential public release
the video some undefined time the future plainly are premature. Any concern such the video being used create soundbites can addressed and when motion
made lift the existing protective order. any event, Mr. Pagliano suggestion that
video him invoking the Fifth Amendment could taint potential jury pool (Motion irrelevant jury will impaneled this case. Hence, harm can result from video being created. fact, the only harm claimed Mr. Pagliano relating the
creation video possible leak data breach the court reporting company.
Motion This assertion is, course, entirely speculative, and needlessly questions
the good faith Plaintiff and the court reporting company has retained. Fanelli
-2-
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 06/02/16 Page
Centenary College, 211 F.R.D. 268, 270 (D.N.J. 2002) (protective order restricting video
should not entered without specific showing clearly defined and serious injury
Finally, this motion represents the second time the past week that
former State Department employee has attacked Plaintiff motives pursuing this case
and conducting discovery. See Motion (describing this lawsuit with
undisputed political agenda the Court has stated, this case about the public
right know details related the creation, purpose and use the clintonemail.com
system. Plaintiff has proceeded professionally and cautiously each stage this
litigation. These attempts impugn Plaintiff integrity are unwarranted and
inappropriate.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Mr. Pagliano motion for
protective order denied.
Dated: June 2016
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael Bekesha
Michael Bekesha
D.C. Bar No. 995749
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street S.W., Suite 800
Washington, 20024
(202) 646-5172
Counsel for Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc.
-3-
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 86-1 Filed 06/02/16 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 13-cv-1363 (EGS)
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration Plaintiff Opposition Non-Party Deponent Bryan Pagliano
Motion for Protective Order and the entire record herein, hereby ORDERED that:
Non-Party Deponent Bryan Pagliano motion DENIED. ORDERED.
DATE:
The Hon. Emmet Sullivan, U.S.D.J.