New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Legislative Privilege Waived by State House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader When They Intervened in Case Challenging Voting Laws And Putting Their Movtives At Issue

Download PDF

Petersen v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Ariz. (In re Toma), 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31250 (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2023):

MEMORANDUM*

Petitioners Ben Toma and Warren Petersen (collectively, Petitioners) intervened as defendants in an action challenging Arizona H.B. 2243 and H.B. 2492 (Voting Laws), and invoked their privilege after receiving Plaintiffs' discovery requests. The district court found that Petitioners "waived their [legislative] privilege by intervening to fully defend the Voting Laws and putting their motives at issue."

Petitioners now seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to withdraw its discovery order requiring them to produce certain communications and to submit to depositions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and we deny the petition.

Mandamus is a "drastic" remedy reserved for "extraordinary situations." Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650, 654 (9th Cir. 1977) (citations omitted). A petitioner must demonstrate that the "right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable." Bozic v. United States Dist., 888 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation and [*8]  internal quotation marks omitted).

We consider five factors when examining a petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus: whether (1) Petitioners have "no other adequate means, such as a direct appeal, to attain the relief . . . desire[d]"; (2) Petitioners "will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal"; (3) the "district court's order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law"; (4) the "order is an oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules"; and (5) the "order raises new and important problems, or issues of law of first impression." Bauman, 557 F.2d at 654-55 (citations omitted). While all five factors are not required to be met, "the absence of factor three . . . will always defeat a petition for mandamus." Sussex v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Nev., 781 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 2015), as amended (citation omitted).

The district court did not clearly err in determining that Petitioners waived their legislative privilege by voluntarily intervening and putting their intent at issue by denying Plaintiffs' allegations. "Clear error is a highly deferential standard of review. . . ." Van Dusen v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Ariz., 654 F.3d 838, 841 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "[W]e must have a definite and firm conviction that the district court's interpretation was incorrect." Id. [*9]  (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). There is no precedent in this circuit resolving the issue of whether Petitioners' voluntary involvement in Plaintiffs' action resulted in a waiver of their legislative privilege. "Because no prior Ninth Circuit authority prohibited the course taken by the district court, its ruling is not clearly erroneous. . . ." Morgan v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (In re Morgan), 506 F.3d 705, 713 (9th Cir. 2007).

To the extent Petitioners contend that the requested discovery is not relevant, the district court did not explicitly rule on that separate issue. In any event, an order about the relevance of proposed discovery is not normally a ruling that would warrant the extraordinary relief of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

FRAP 38 Sanctions: An Appeal May Not Be “Wholly Without Merit” — And Therefore May Not Be Sanctionable — Even If Several of Appellant’s Arguments Are Frivolous; Soundness of Central Arguments May Dominate

Standing: An “Identifiable Trifle” Suffices — PSLRA/Rule 11: District Court Must Make Findings As to Compliance with Rule 11 Whether or Not Asked — Filing Securities Lawsuit to Obtain Immaterial Disclosures Presumptively Violative of Rule 11

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Claims of Judicial Bias, Citing Non-Existent Cases/Sources, Inventing Quotes from Real Ones, And Exhibiting Inflammatory and Antagonistic Tone — Recusal: “Adverse Rulings Are Not Evidence of Bias” (Good Quote) — Critical Judicial Remarks Ordinarily Do Not Support A Claim of Bias — Circuit-Wide Filing Bar Until $5,000 Fine Paid

Court’s Inherent Power to Police the Conduct of Litigants and Attorneys Extends to Persons Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law Before Them

(1) Inherent Power Sanctions — Duty to Correct or Withdraw — Strategic Silence As Bad Faith — Failure to Advise Court of Absence of Diversity Jurisdiction for 15 Months for Strategic Reasons, Only “Pull[ing] Out The Diversity-Destroying Card” After Losing = “A Textbook Example of Bad Faith” — (2) Under Goodyear, The Court’s Fundamental Job Is to Decide Whether Fees Would Have Been Incurred Absent the Sanctioned Conduct — (3) Appellate Review: While Sanctions Orders Are Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion, A Finding of Bad Faith Is Reviewed for Clear Error — (4) When There Are Two Permissible Views of The Evidence, The Factfinder’s Choice Between Them Cannot Be Clearly Erroneous — (5) “A District Court Is Not Required To Consider Irrelevant Evidence” — (Good Quotes)

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice