The W&J defendants make many of the sames points that Mrs. DeLay did in her Motion to Quash. The W&J defendants assert that they "are unaware of any involvement by Christine DeLay whatsoever in" the FEC case central to this lawsuit. Discovery can be burdensome. Yada, yada, yada.
I did, however, find something interesting in the Defendants' Joinder to Quash:
Teltschik nevertheless theorizes he could be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the State Bar of Texas1 or that his reputation might suffer as a result of his name appearing in the Agreement, even though he is not personally named.
1 Actually, the deadline for any such disciplinary proceedings has run.
Emphasis in original
First, I want to clarify what the W&J counsel means when he says that Mr. Teltschik is not "personally named" in the Conciliation Agreement. One of the defenses in this case claims that there is a distinction between Mr. Teltschik being "personally named" in the Conciliation Agreement with the FEC and being named in his "official capacity". Mr. Teltschik was named in his "official capacity" in the Conciliation Agreement. I'll let smarter people than I debate the merits of that.
But the more important piece of information I learned from this filing is that the deadline for any disciplinary proceedings before the State Bar of Texas has passed. The claim that Mr. Teltschik possibly faces such hearings is one of the stronger damages that Mr. Teltschik has claimed. Yes, as defense counsel states, this is only a possible outcome (courts don't like to think of possible outcomes, do they?). But more importantly, if defense counsel is accurate, the chance that Mr. Teltschik will face disciplinary proceedings before the State Bar is zero, meaning a major damage cannot occur.
I suspect that judges and lawyers like to spend Christmas with their families just like normal people do. But there is a short fuse until Mrs. DeLay's scheduled deposition on January 2. The judicial system must move on. There very well be more court documents prior to the schedule January 2 deposition.
I will upload and link to the Plaintiff's Joinder to Quash this weekend.
December 24, 2008
I can't explain something. Why did the W&J defendants even file the joinder to quash the subpoena of Mrs. DeLay? Here are a couple random thoughts regarding that:
1. As the W&J joinder claims, Mrs. DeLay doesn't have any relevant information regarding this case.
So what? Are the W&J defendants supposed to be counsel to Mrs. DeLay? It seems to me that the W&J defendants might be in a better position if attorneys for Mr. Teltschik waste time chasing down red herrings.
2. Are the W&J defendants counsel to Mrs. DeLay? Am I just being snarky?
I don't know if I'm snarky or not. Recall that Christine DeLay suggested that some of her conversations with W&J might be protected under attorney-client privilege. It seems that there is little space between Mrs. DeLay and the W&J defendants.