Claire Lucas attempted to avoid testifying in the DNC’s ongoing anti-gay discrimination discovery case, but DC Superior Court Judge Jeannette J. Clark ordered the gay board chair to take the stand. Here’s the judicial command in handy PDF form.
On February 1, 2008, the Court ruled that Mr. Hitchcock’s subpoena was properly served on Ms. Lucas on November 30, 2007. However, more importantly, the Court did not
order Ms. Lucas to appear for a deposition on or by any specific date.
Instead, the Court directed Ms. Lucas’s lawyer and Mr. Hitchcock’s lawyer to continue to negotiate in good faith to resolve the other issues that Ms. Lucas had raised in her motion. These issues include whether Ms. Lucas’s deposition is in fact necessary, the burden entailed by plaintiff’s request for a large number of documents that appear unrelated to plaintiff’s claims in this case, and the manner in which the parties will treat any confidential information that Ms.Lucas may ultimately have to provide, including: 1) private communications between Ms. Lucas and other members of the LGBT community who are not parties to this case, and 2) third party communications to which Ms. Lucas may have had access as a member of various list serves, including the National Stonewall Democrats Board list serve.
If Ms. Lucas’s and Mr. Hitchcock’s lawyers are unable to resolve these issues through negotiation, the Court will consider a new motion by Ms. Lucas for a protective order.
On February 1, 2008, the Court ruled that Mr. Hitchcock’s subpoena was properly served on Ms. Lucas on November 30, 2007. However, more importantly, the Court did not
order Ms. Lucas to appear for a deposition on or by any specific date.
Instead, the Court directed Ms. Lucas’s lawyer and Mr. Hitchcock’s lawyer to continue to negotiate in good faith to resolve the other issues that Ms. Lucas had raised in her motion. These issues include whether Ms. Lucas’s deposition is in fact necessary, the burden entailed by plaintiff’s request for a large number of documents that appear unrelated to plaintiff’s claims in this case, and the manner in which the parties will treat any confidential information that Ms.Lucas may ultimately have to provide, including: 1) private communications between Ms. Lucas and other members of the LGBT community who are not parties to this case, and 2) third party communications to which Ms. Lucas may have had access as a member of various list serves, including the National Stonewall Democrats Board list serve.
If Ms. Lucas’s and Mr. Hitchcock’s lawyers are unable to resolve these issues through negotiation, the Court will consider a new motion by Ms. Lucas for a protective order.
Barry Reingold
Attorney for Claire Lucas
But Claire has been such a mean, cruel person for so many years, it just makes me sad for her soul