With extensions granted and apparent problems with settlement terms agreed to, the late Anna Nicole Smith’s attorney Howard K. Stern has settled his defamation lawsuit against Houston Texas attorney John O’Quinn.

O’Quinn represents the late Anna Nicole Smith’s mother, Virgie Arthur. During and after hearings in Florida to decide Anna Nicole’s final resting place, O’Quinn went on various television shows and implied that Stern was responsible for the death of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel.

A prior announcement one month ago on October 30th, 2008 that the lawsuit was settled led to speculation that the terms may not have been too fruitful for Stern because settlement negotiations were officially postponed due to Florida Attorney Robert Klein having the flu. The negotiations did take place after all on the date that Judge Dimitrouleas had postponed. And there was no public statement from Stern.

The negotiations were allowed to continue until today, December 1st when the “Stipulation For Entry of Dismissal With Prejudice” and “Final Order of Dismissal” was filed.

The only terms revealed are that certain pages of a deposition given by O’Quinn investigator and consultant Don Clark dated October 14th, 2008, will no longer be confidential. The terms of the settlement are “strictly confidential” and neither party is permitted to comment except to say “the matter has been amicably resolved”.

120108_Stern_vs_OQuinn_248_settled.pdf
120108_Stern_vs_OQuinn_249_settled.pdf

Regarding the defamation suit of Howard K. Stern vs John O’Quinn. With an extension of time granted to Texas attorney John O’Quinn re a mediation hearing that was to happen on October 30th, quite a few people following this case were surprised to wake up this morning to see the mediation did indeed go forward on the previously scheduled day and the case was settled!

So far the details are confidential and are not expected to be published. The question around the internet is which party wanted to settle? Readers remember that the lead attorney for John O’Quinn in this case, Richard Klein, was forced to file a motion to reschedule the customary mediation hearing due to a bad case of the flu. Howard K. Stern’s co-counsel, Krista Barth was asked for the courtesy of extending the mediation and she refused, forcing Klein to file the motion. The extension was granted by Magistrate Judge Robin Rosenbaum.

As I was reading the chatter about this case on a Topix forum, I came to a post by an alert blogger stating that Lin Wood’s firm Powell Goldstein LLP who represents Howard K. Stern is being sold. This link to the Atlanta Business Chronicle was given. “Powell Goldstein to Sell to St. Louis Firm”.

Everyone will draw their own conclusions concerning the urgency to settle and the willingness of O’Quinn’s reps to attend a mediation that was already rescheduled by the judge. With the announcement of the sale of  POGO Law under dire circumstances, I know what I think about it. And it makes me wonder who got the short end of the stick in this deal.

********

Motion requesting court for relief of obligation to produce defendants financial records and proposed order.

103108_Stern_vs_OQuinn_243-2.pdf
103108_Stern_vs_OQuinn_243.pdf

The numerous lawsuits arising from the death of Anna Nicole Smith are all moving forward. Notable is that most of these suits have protection orders in place for at least a year and a half so the public will have to wait to see some of the more supposedly sensational material.

In Howard K. Stern vs Rita Cosby and Hatchette books, investigators Don Clark and Wilma Vicedomine gave depositions. Counsel for Stern in the Florida case of Stern vs O’Quinn requested to use not only those depositions but that of California Private Investigator Jack Harding who says he spoke to Anna Nicole’s son Daniel before his death. Harding says Daniel expressed fear and mistrust of Howard K. Stern’s involvement with his mother. When Daniel died unexpected and tragically in the Bahamas visiting his mother and meeting his newborn sister, Harding’s business card was found in Daniel’s pocket.

O’Quinn offered no objection to the use of those depositions which are protected from public view but Georgia defamation attorney Lin Wood for Stern would not allow Stern’s deposition to be used. Counsel for Rita Cosby also allowed her deposition to be used in Stern vs O’Quinn. Don Clark gave a deposition in Stern vs O’Quinn as well for a total of two that will be looked at in the Florida case.

A customary mediation hearing in Stern vs O’Quinn scheduled for today had to be postponed due to Florida attorney Robert Klein suffering from the flu. A call was made to Sterns counsel Lin Wood that went unanswered so Klein asked co-counsel Krista Barth to reschedule the hearing. She refused to reschedule but an emergency motion to Judge Rosenbaum resulted in the hearing being postponed.

103008_Stern_vs_OQuinn_241.pdf

103008_Stern_vs_OQuinn_240.pdf

November 4th at 4:00pm there will be a status conference in the US District Court case in Houston, Texas of Virgie Arthur vs Howard K. Stern and CBS Studios

And last but not least, a little comic relief in Arthur vs Stern and CBS Studios.

Howard K. Stern attorney Lin Wood requested email communications between freelance reporter Dawna Kaufman and O’Quinn investigators Don Clark and Wilma Vicedomine in the Southern District of Florida defamation case of Stern vs O’Quinn. That motion was denied by Magistrate Judge Robin Rosenbaum.

Stern had argued since some investigative work produced by Clark and Vice was not deemed to be work product because it was shared with third parties, a series of emails between Ms. Kaufman and the investigators should also not be covered under the work product doctrine. After an in camera review of the emails, the Magistrate said those materials are protected and will not be made available to Stern.  

Why? Kaufman is the party who disclosed information to Vice and Clark. Not the other way around!
Request denied.

Also, Stern asked the court to set a deadline for deposition scheduling. The Court reminded Stern that discovery deadlines would not be extended beyond September 19th, 2008 and the Court would not be involved in any discovery disputes beyond that date. Plaintiffs were however granted an enlargment of time to file a response to Defendants Dispositive Motion. So IF Defendants file a dispositive motion, the Plaintiff’s response has to be filed on or before October 27th, 2008. Any reply must be filed on or before November 26th., 2008.

100108_Stern_vs_OQuinn_199.pdf
100108_Stern_vs_OQuinn_197.pdf

In the lawsuit of Virgie Arthur vs Howard K. Stern, Bonnie Stern, Art Harris, TMZ, Harvey Levin, and some bloggers, the case was moved from the Harris County Texas 190th Judicial District Court to the 280th. A docket control order was also filed.

092408_Arthur_vs_Stern_transfer_to_280_district.pdf
092408_Arthur_vs_Stern_etal_Docket_Control_Order_Houston.pdf

*Late filing 100108_Stern_vs_OQuinn_200.pdf Don’t miss this one. Stern charges “abuse of discretion”!

Countdown to hammer time ;-) 100208_Stern_vs_OQuinn_201.pdf

John O’Quinn requested a protective order today in defense of Howard K. Stern’s defamation lawsuit against him and The O’Quinn Law Firm in the Southern District of Florida Federal Court.

Counsel for Stern demanded practically everything but the kitchen sink in a financial discovery request. The list is long and includes requests for Federal and State tax returns dating back three years, financial records, property records, appraisals, deeds, mortgages, any personal property including cars, jewelry, boats etc.. whether it is still owned by Mr. O’Quinn or not and if so what it sold for. They also ask for any communications that may have occurred between the “Firm” and the IRS.

Customarily when there may be punitive damages involved in a civil suit, only current net worth should have to be produced according to a 2005 Florida Federal Court Decision. Another case in this memorandum is cited where O’Quinn believes that any financial disclosure should not have to be produced until 30 days before trial.

Stern’s attorney, Lin Wood disagrees saying there is no 30 day rule. He states there is approximately 90 days until trial and due to “lengths to which we have gone to get responses to substantive discovery”, he feels his requests are appropriate.

O’Quinn also asks that Howard K. Stern not be permitted to view any of the financial disclosure records whatever they may be. He cites two past actions attributed to Stern in other court cases in which he was in breach of confidentiality orders.

The first of those is substantiated by an affidavit from “Estate of J. Howard Marshall” attorney Rusty Hardin.

In 2001, Anna Nicole Smith brought an action in Texas probate court against the Estate of her late husband J. Howard Marshall and his son Pierce Marshall. Stern was not an admitted attorney to the case but sat at the counsel table. He is said to have taken a financial statement that was ruled protected and confidential and faxed it to a California bankruptcy court. Stern admitted taking the financial records but said he did not know it was “confidential”. He was repremanded by the judge in the case and told to sit with the rest of the audience for the remainder of the trial.

Mr Hardin also says that he read Stern’s deposition in Virgie Arthur’s (Anna Nicole Smith’s mother) defamation lawsuit against Stern in Houston Texas. In this deposition, Stern says he did not take the confidential document “off the…that table” even though in the transcript of the Texas Probate Judge reprimanding Stern, Stern says “I think I just got it from the [counsel's] table”. Hardin disagrees with that and attaches court testimony from that trial.

The second issue is of a confidentiality breach in the case of Howard K. Stern vs Rita Cosby in a New York Federal Court. The Judge in the case, Denny Chin had already issued a protective order concerning Ms. Cosby’s deposition. However, parts of the deposition ended up on artharris.com with Journalist Art Harris being a friend and supporter of Stern. Judge Chin then “chided” Sten’s attorney Lin Wood for the breaching of his order.

O’Quinn also asked for extra time to produce the records if ruled they must be released sooner rather than later because his accountants offices have been closed due to hurricane damage. Wood has disagreed with this request as well.

092508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_192.pdf
092508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_192-5.pdf
092508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_192-6.pdf
092508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_192-7.pdf
092508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_192-8.pdf
092508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_192-9.pdf

Judge Chin to Lin Wood

Stern_V_Cosby_protective_order_LinWood_slap.pdf

Stern_V_Cosby_protective_order_LinWood_slap1.pdf

Judge Dimitrouleas ruled today Howard K. Stern’s request for default in his defamation lawsuit against John O’Quinn is denied. The Judge citing case law said default is reserved for only the most “severe sanction” and “appropriate only as a last resort”.

In response to Stern’s accusations of “bad faith” on the part of council for O’Quinn, the Judge mentions that Stern “did not act upon the lack of responsive pleading until the Court prompted him with an Order to Show Cause”.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Default (179): Denied
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (183): Denied
Defendant’s Motion for time extension (188) Granted
Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Clerk’s Default (187):Granted

http://annanicoleandhowardkstern.com/092308_Stern_vs_OQuinn_191.pdf

Howard K. Stern’s reply “in support of motion for entry of default judgment after assessment of damages by a jury and motion to set aside clerk’s default” was filed today in Stern’s defamation lawsuit against Virgie Arthur attorney John O’Quinn.

I must say in reading so many documents in the lawsuits that have been filed since the death of Anna Nicole Smith, this one is the most passionate to date. By passionate, I mean angry. It’s signed by Lin Wood.

Be sure to read 091908_Stern_vs_OQuinn_189.pdf after reading this reply. You will see that there were major disagreements as to what information was discoverable for Stern and what was privileged. O’Quinn says in 189 that the parties had an informal agreement to defer several depositions until after privilege issues were resolved. Meaning, arguments need to be cleared up concerning Stern asking for information covered by attorney work product doctrine. Those arguments eventually were settled by “in camera” inspections by  Judge Rosenbaum in the case of evidence gathered by investigators Don Clark and Wilma Vicedomine.

Now, Stern says that O’Quinn has fought all depo’s except a couple jurisdictional depos. As an observer, I remember depo’s being scheduled several times and then hearing or seeing nothing, wondered why they were not taken.

Anyway, read this rant about the tardiness of the answer to the lawsuit and see what you think. If the default is granted, Stern wants a jury to determine damages to his reputation  :-)

Interesting documents from Stern vs O’Quinn the past two days. There was a hearing on Monday September 15th. Lin Wood by letter to the Judge asked that during the hearing, Judge Rosenbaum address Wood’s complaint that some materials that were granted in the Omnibus Order from August 29th 2008 to be turned over to Stern were still being withheld.

In “Order”, numbered 180, it appears that Judge Rosenbaum examined many documents over the course of 2 and 1/2 hour hearing and determined what was missing and needed to be turned over. She also determined a host of other documents that do not need to be produced. O’Quinn has until September 17th which is tomorrow to produce the documents.

In 174, Stern applies for a default judgment. He says that O’Quinn has “failed to plead or otherwise defend”. In 176, the Clerk of Court states that O’Quinn is in default for failure to appear, answer or otherwise plead to the original complaint filed within the time required by law.

In 178, O’Quinn files his answer listing which allegations he admits to from the First Amended Complaint and which he denies and which he neither admits nor denies. There are a ton of numbers there to compare to the First Amended Complaint.

Back in document 172, Judge Dimitrouleas filed an order for Stern to show cause as to why the case “should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution”. Sterns answer is 175. In 179 Stern asks the court to enter a default judgment for him after an assessment by a jury for the tardy filing of 178.

So here are the questions that I have.

Will the Court grant Sterns request for Default?

Will Sterns arguments to “show cause” as ordered by the Court be good enough so the case is not dismissed” due to lack of prosecution”?

Will Lin Wood get a pain in the neck from having to compare all the allegation numbers 178 with the actual allegations in the First Amended Complaint to see which are affirmed and which are denied?

And here is the kicker. Both sides requested an extension for discovery and it was denied in 173. Discovery is over September 19th.

Judge Dimitrouleas however said that any discovery issues after the 19th, and that would include depositions, will not involve the Court. In other words, don’t come crying to the Court if a discovery issue arises after the 19th. The court will not be involved.

091608_Stern_vs_OQuinn_180.pdf

091608_Stern_vs_OQuinn_179.pdf

091608_Stern_vs_OQuinn_178.pdf

091608_Stern_vs_OQuinn_177.pdf

091608_Stern_vs_OQuinn_176.pdf

091508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_175.pdf

091508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_174.pdf

091508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_173.pdf

091508_Stern_vs_OQuinn_172.pdf

A 65 page decision was rendered by Magistrate Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum in the Florida Southern District Court lawsuit that Howard K. Stern filed against Houston Texas attorney John O’Quinn and his law firm on various pending motions. The suit was filed by Stern alleging defamation by O’Quinn concerning statements that he made to media outlets after the death of Anna Nicole Smith while in representation of Anna Nicole’s mother Virgie Arthur.

In his statements, Stern alleges that O’Quinn made statements conveying that Stern murdered Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel Smith for financial gain. Also alleged was Stern kidnapped Anna Nicole’s infant daughter Dannielynn for the purpose of ransoming her to Larry Birkhead.

The decisions mostly address O’Quinn investigator Don Clark who is retired as an FBI bureau chief and investigator Wilma Vicedomine. O’Quinn’s reliance on statements that he made with information allegedly supplied by the investigators was at issue.

There were several assertions in motions by Stern that were tellingly were not challenged by O’Quinn giving the impression of truism concerning some of O’Quinn’s statements believing they would hold up under scrutiny.

The court found that investigative efforts and information obtained after the alleged statements were made to be of “little relevance”.

The court concluded that limited information culled by investigators and used by O’Quinn will be made available to Stern but only information received before O’Quinn’s last public statement made through March 27^th, 2007. Information supplied to Rita Cosby would be open to inspection whether or not she used it in her book, “Blonde Ambition”. Vicedomine will reveal postings she made on the internet and the pseudonyms she used as the information is already public and not subject to work-product protection.

Rosenbaum wrote:

Stern is however not entitled to any work product that occurred after O’Quinn’s statements were made. Stern can employ interrogatories to learn identities of all people with info regarding the truth or falsity of particular allegations in O’Quinn’s statements and then conduct his own interviews and discovery. Allowing Stern to review O’Quinn’s post-statement investigation to provide a short cut for Stern to prepare his case does not amount to substantial need.

As for the need of investigative materials to prove actual malice, the court said there are other ways of obtaining evidence regarding such a claim such as the O’Quinn Materials and Investigation Materials generated through March 27, 2007.

Rosenbaum made an exception though prohibiting any information given to the FBI or Florida Attorney General by Clark. That information would not be available to the public and will not be disclosed.

O’Quinn successfully argued that “any waiver (of work product privilege) must be limited to the information actually disclosed and not the entire subject matter “allegedly” discussed.”

Both Clark and Vicedomine will be deposed at an undisclosed date. However deposition subject matter will be limited for Stern’s attorney Lin Wood. According to the document, the Judge was very specific in what could be addressed.

One issue that was left up in the air was the conflict of investigator work-product protection concerning Virgie Arthur’s lawsuit in Houston Texas against Howard K. Stern alleging defamation and conspiracy to defame in both Federal and State courts. The Court said “Arthur’s work-product protection is not at issue before this Court at this time.”…”Thus the Court makes no determination regarding the viability of any work product protection Arthur may have as to these materials.”

An important thing to remember is that it has not been disclosed in Cosby’s book who gave her what information. Nor is there any way to tell who posted what on the internet. In the Cosby case, most information remains under seal.

Rosenbaum:

Indeed in the Blonde Ambition Litigation, Cosby and Hachette list Vicedomine in their Initial Disclosures as an individual likely to have discoverable information. Specifically, the Initial Disclosures state that Vicedomine has information regarding the “truth of statements in Blonde Ambition, fact refuting Mr. Sterns allegation of fault, [and] Mr. Stern’s conduct and reputation.”

Lin Wood’s motion for attorney fees has been denied.

Rosenbaum found “both parties presented their respective arguments in good faith and that a genuine dispute existed regarding the discoverability of the materials sought. For these reasons, the Court declines to award attorney fees to either Plaintiff or Defendants in this matter”.

65 page decision

In relation to these decisions, Stern filed a “Memorandum of Law in Opposition To Defendants Motion For Immediate Appeal”. O’Quinn filed “Motion To Strike Stern’s Unauthorized Opposition Response To Defendant’s Motion”. O’Quinn’s “Motion To Strike” was granted.

* Also tonight Howard K. Stern filed more lawsuits. He is suing Mark Speers, former Larry Birkhead bodyguard and Jackie Hatten who both were quoted in Rita Cosby’s book, “Blonde Ambition”.