Filed

D.C. Superior Court

11 Apr 14 A09:47
Clerk of Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Division

Estate of ROBERT E. WONE, by

KATHERINE E. WONE,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 0008315-08

The Honorable Michael L. Rankin
v. Next Event: September 7, 2011
Pre-Trial Conference
JOSEPH R. PRICE,

VICTOR ZABORSKY,

and

DYLAN WARD,

Defendants

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT’S
MOTION TO QUASH FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ASSERTING THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRIVILEGE DURING FORMER DETECTIVE BRYAN WAID’S
DEPOSITION AS TO SUBJECT MATTER NOT PREVIOUSLY DIVULGED BY
DETECTIVE WAID AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

Defendant Joseph Price, joined by Defendants Victor Zaborsky and Dylan Ward, by their

respective undersigned counsel, respectfully file this Opposition to the Metropolitan Police

Department’s (“MPD”) Motion to Quash Deposition of Former Detective Bryan Waid, and in

support of said Opposition, state:

1. Initially, the MPD has failed to properly assert the law enforcement privilege as

expressly required by governing precedent. Jurisprudence is plain that the MPD’s assertion of

the privilege is procedurally insufficient, and its Motion should be denied for that reason alone.

2. Rather, at a minimum, the MPD is required top set forth a verified statement that an

official with appropriate authority has reviewed the information sought and confirmed that the

privilege properly applies to specified information for specified reasons. This information is
lacking from the motion and is essential to a proper weighing of the interests involved in the

privilege. Indeed, a large volume of evidence regarding the MPD’s investigation was disclosed

to Defendant Price, as well as to Defendants Zaborsky and Ward, during the prior criminal

prosecution, and it is unclear as to whether and how the MPD could retain privilege over certain

information where such disclosure has already occurred.

3. Defendant does not question the existence of a law enforcement privilege, but the

facts and circumstances of this particular case, including that there has already been a criminal

proceeding against the same Defendants, seemingly negates the need for any wide-ranging

exercise or application of that privilege. Although the privilege may apply to some areas of

inquiry in the present matter, the MPD’s Motion lacks the clarity and specificity to enable

Defendant Price to ascertain whether the MPD is attempting to protect a legitimate public

interest or to merely stymie Defendant’s attempts to conduct discovery of its officers. On its

face, however, the Motion appears to request that this Court to provide the MPD relief that is far

beyond what is needed to protect the public interests intended to be protected by the law

enforcement privilege.

4. The allegations contained in the Plaintiff’s Complaint generally mirror those

allegations contained in the MPD Affidavit in support of an arrest warrant for Dylan Ward

signed by Detective Waid on October 27, 2008. Given the symmetry of the allegations between

the prior criminal case and the present civil case and the vagueness of the MPD’s identification

of the information and/or areas of testimony for which the privilege is being asserted, Defendant

is unable to fathom that there is any significant information relating to the MPD investigation

that has not already been disclosed, or was required to have been disclosed, during the criminal

proceedings.

2
 5. Ultimately, the Defendants face civil claims levied by Plaintiff, including a claim for

wrongful death, and damages in the amount of $20 million dollars. MPD detectives are expected

to be called as witnesses by both the Plaintiff and Defendants. Defendants have a strong interest

in conducting discovery into what information these witnesses will present when called at trial,

and if discovery cannot be had into information known to these witnesses, the best course of

action would be to exclude them from testifying at all.

6. The depositions of other MPD officers have been or will be noted. The substance of

the MPD’s Motion, as well as the substance of this Opposition, is applicable not only to the

deposition of former Detective Waid, but to all MPD personnel who may be called as witness or

deposed by any of the Parties to this case.

7. In support of this Opposition, Defendant Price is contemporaneously filing a

Memorandum of Points and Authorities, which is adopted and incorporated as if fully set forth

herein.

8. The issues presented by the MPD’s Motion impacts not just Mr. Price, but all Parties

in the civil case. In light of their own respective interests in the issues presented by this Motion,

Defendants Zaborsky and Ward, through their undersigned respective counsel, join in Defendant

Price’s Opposition.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Joseph Price, joined by Defendants Victor Zaborsky and

Dylan Ward, respectfully request that this Honorable Court deny the MPD’s Motion to Quash

with respect to former Detective Bryan Waid and to other MPD officers who have been or may

be noted for deposition, and for such further and additional relief as is deemed appropriate.

3
 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Craig D. Roswell

CRAIG D. ROSWELL (DC Bar # 433406)

/s/ Brett A. Buckwalter

BRETT A. BUCKWALTER (DC Bar # 478382)
Niles Barton & Wilmer LLP
111 South Calvert Street, Suite 1400
Baltimore, Maryland 21202-6185
Telephone: (410) 783-6300
cdroswell@nilesbarton.com
babuckwalter@nilesbarton.com
Counsel for Defendant Joseph R. Price

/s/ Robert Spagnoletti

ROBERT SPAGNOLETTI (DC Bar # 446462)
SCHERTLER & ONORATO LLP
601 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
North Building, 9th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: (202) 628-4199
rspagnoletti@schertlerlaw.com
Counsel for Defendant Dylan M. Ward

/s/ Ralph C. Spooner

RALPH C. SPOONER 1
SPOONER & MUCH, P.C.
530 Center St. NE.
Suite 722
Salem, OR 97301
Telephone: (503) 378-7777
rspooner@smapc.com
Counsel for Defendant Dylan M. Ward

1
Admitted pro hac vice pursuant to Court’s 10/18/10 Order.

4
 /s/ Larissa N. Byers
LARISSA N. BYERS (DC Bar # 472431)

/s/ Frank F. Daily

FRANK F. DAILY 2

/s/ Sean Edwards

SEAN EDWARDS 3
The Law Offices of Frank F. Daily, P.A.
11350 McCormick Road
Executive Plaza III, Suite 704
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Telephone: (410) 584-9443
lbyers@frankdailylaw.com
info@frankdailylaw.com
sedwards@frankdailylaw.com
Counsel for Defendant Victor Zaborsky

2
Admitted pro hac vice pursuant to Court’s 2/26/10 Order.
3
Admitted pro hac vice pursuant to Court’s 8/2/10 Order.

5
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14th day of April, 2011, copies of the foregoing

Opposition, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, and proposed Order were

served via e-filing to:

Benjamin J. Razi (brazi@cov.com)

Stephen W. Rodger (srodger@cov.com)
Brett C. Reynolds (breynolds@cov.com)
Charles Kitcher (Ckitcher@cov.com)
Jason Levine (jlevine@cov.com)
Covington & Burling LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
Counsel for Plaintiff

Patrick M. Regan, Esquire (pregan@reganfirm.com)

1919 M Street, N.W., Suite 350
Washington, D.C. 20036
Counsel for Plaintiff

William B. Jaffee
D.C. Bar No. 502399
Chief, General Litigation Section III
Patricia B. Donkor (patricia.donkor@dc.gov), admitted pro hac vice
Assistant Attorney General
441 Fourth Street, N.W., 6th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20001
Counsel for Non-Party Metropolitan Police Department

___/s/ Brett A. Buckwalter________________

BRETT A. BUCKWALTER