Federal judge refuses to quash subpoena served by Rigas family

Share with others:


Print Email Read Later

A Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney lawyer who represented defunct Adelphia Communications for years has lost a battle to quash a subpoena he was served by Rigas family members who previously owned Adelphia.

But a federal judge has placed restrictions on the deposition the Rigases are seeking.

Attorney Carl E. Rothenberger argued that sitting for a deposition would be burdensome and is an attempt to get discovery two jailed Rigases have not yet acquired in their federal habeas petition.

The subpoena of Mr. Rothenberger arose in the case of Rigas v. Deloitte & Touche, which is filed in the Southern District of New York under the umbrella of In re Adelphia Communications Securities and Derivative Litigation.

The subpoena was issued by James Rigas, John Rigas and a number of their family-owned entities in their case against Deloitte relating to how the accounting firm advised the Rigases over a 20-year period.

Adelphia founder John Rigas and his son, Timothy Rigas, are in jail after being convicted of securities fraud in 2004. Adelphia entered bankruptcy in 2002. A trustee for the company then attempted to recover damages from a number of entities over the years, including its outside counsel, Buchanan Ingersoll. The law firm settled that litigation for a total of $60 million between the trust and Adelphia investors, according to a statement from the trust and media reports at the time.

Mr. Rothenberger filed Feb. 21 a motion to quash the subpoena for a deposition in Rigas v. Deloitte, noting he sat for 12 days of depositions on similar subjects in previous, related litigation involving nearly all of the same parties.

Related suits had been filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and the Southern District of New York as well as the criminal proceedings in the Southern District, he said.

Mr. Rothenberger argued he already testified at depositions for 12 days in 2005 and 2006 as part of the actions brought in Philadelphia. He said the current case is a "continuation" of those cases.

"This request comes more than a decade after the relevant events, more than seven years after Mr. Rothenberger's prior testimony, and clearly presents an 'undue burden' against which he should be protected," argued his attorney, J. Alexander Hershey of Clark Hill Thorp Reed, in the motion.

Mr. Rothenberger argued the topics the Rigases are looking to cover in a new deposition were covered in prior ones, which involved the same counsel who are currently representing the Rigases. The Rigases are being represented by Dilworth Paxson Chairman Lawrence G. McMichael and partner Christie Callahan Comerford.

"To claim now that they left a subject matter untouched does a disservice to the Rigas counsel's own diligence and dishonors the effort of Mr. Rothenberger and Buchanan Ingersoll to be cooperative throughout the discovery process," Mr. Rothenberger said in his motion.

He further argued the jailed Rigases have filed a habeas petition in which they allege the government, in an alleged Brady violation, failed to produce exculpatory information contained in the government's notes from a Feb. 20, 2004, interview with Mr. Rothenberger.

"The Rigases have requested leave to take discovery in their habeas case, but have not yet received it from the court in that proceeding," Mr. Rothenberger said. "Nonetheless, their counsel has plainly indicated their intention to depose Mr. Rothenberger concerning the government's notes at any deposition taken under the subpoena served in these separate proceedings. This court should not permit such an end-run of the habeas petition process."

The Rigases disagree.

"The short of it is, this is a different case. ... The facts are overlapping, of course. We don't deny that, but there are nuances and differences and different legal theories ... than there were in the past," Mr. McMichael told The Legal Intelligencer.

In an order issued Friday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon of the Western District of Pennsylvania said Mr. Rothenberger didn't offer sufficient evidence to quash the subpoena, but she said he provided "compelling evidence" that he previously testified on subjects related to the pending claims.

She limited the deposition to subjects not covered in the 2005 and 2006 depositions. She said the plaintiffs also were precluded from questioning Rothenberger about his 2004 interview with the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Gina Passarella can be contacted at 215-557-2494 or at gpassarella@alm.com. Follow her on Twitter @GPassarellaTLI. To read more articles like this, visit www.thelegalintelligencer.com.


Join the conversation:

Commenting policy | How to report abuse
To report inappropriate comments, abuse and/or repeat offenders, please send an email to socialmedia@post-gazette.com and include a link to the article and a copy of the comment. Your report will be reviewed in a timely manner. Thank you.
Commenting policy | How to report abuse

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

You have 2 remaining free articles this month

Try unlimited digital access

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here

You’ve reached the limit of free articles this month.

To continue unlimited reading

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here