Post on 07-Apr-2018
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 1/82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
Thomas C. HorneAttorney General(Firm State Bar No. 14000)
Thomas K. Chenal (State Bar No. 006070)Carolyn R. Matthews (State Bar No. 013953)Assistant Attorneys GeneralOffice of the Attorney General1275 W. Washington StreetPhoenix, AZ 85007-2926Telephone: (602) 542-3725consumer@azag.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. THOMAS C.HORNE, Attorney General,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIALCORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: CV2010-033580
MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZINGPLAINTIFF TO CONDUCT EX PARTE
INTERVIEWS OF DEFENDANTS’FORMER EMPLOYEES
(Assigned to the Honorable J. Kenneth
Mangum)
Plaintiff State of Arizona ex rel. Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General, respectfully
moves this Court for an order authorizing the State to conduct ex parte interviews of
Defendants’ former non-management employees. Defendant Bank of America Corporation is a
company of more than 288,000 employees. See Bank of America 2010 Annual Report at 28,
relevant portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Upon information and belief,during the period relevant to this matter, Defendants have employed thousands of call center
employees (sometimes referred to as customer service representatives) to answer customer
service calls from Arizona borrowers whose loans are serviced by Defendants (“Borrowers”).
The State brings this motion to request an Order authorizing it to conduct ex parte interviews of
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Co*** Electronically Filed ***
Michelle PaigenFiling ID 903533
6/8/2011 6:45:00 PM
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 2/82-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
non-management level former Bank of America employees such as call center employees, so
that the State can fully investigate its case as permitted and required by law.
I. The State’s Investigation Will Not Be Complete Unless It Can Conduct Ex Parte
Interviews of Defendants’ Line-Level Former Employees.
The State alleges that Bank of America’s loss mitigation and foreclosure practices (“loss
mitigation”) have resulted in deceptive conduct, including a pattern of misrepresentations to its
Borrowers, in violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, A.R.S. §§ 44-1521 et seq. See
Complaint ¶¶ 20-25. The liability the State alleges does not result from the conduct of
individual Bank of America employees who are obligated to follow the Bank’s policies and
procedures, but who have no authority to establish policies, to ensure they are properly
implemented, or to allocate the resources necessary to properly execute them. To the contrary,
the State alleges an institutional failure caused by the actions or inaction of the institution itself,
as carried out by its top-level decision makers—officers, directors, and management-level
employees who were responsible for but failed to establish and implement appropriate loss
mitigation policies and procedures, to allocate sufficient resources and oversight to loss
mitigation, to provide appropriate hiring, training, supervision, and compensation of
employees, and to make changes and corrections to policies and provisions when warranted.
See Complaint ¶ 25 (alleging that “Arizona consumers’ experiences reflect a pervasive,
nationwide pattern and practice of conduct”).
One of the State’s two claims, for example, alleges violations of the Consent Judgment
between the State and certain Defendants. (The Consent Judgment is attached to the Complaint
as Exhibit A.) The Consent Judgment requires Bank of America to (among other things)
evaluate Eligible Borrowers for the agreed-upon loan modification options. See Complaint ¶
26 (citing Consent Judgment ¶ III.4.1). The State is not seeking to prove, and does not allege,
that individual employees of the Defendants made isolated mistakes in identifying and timely
evaluating specific consumers who were entitled to be considered for or provided with
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 3/82-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
modifications. Instead, the State asserts that Defendants failed at an institutional level to ensure
that they had the capacity and framework for providing eligible Arizona consumers with the
mandated modifications. See Consent Judgment, Complaint Exhibit A §§ 2.2.3, 3.1, at 10-11.
As another example, the State asserts that Defendants have failed to meet their Consent
Judgment commitment to make decisions on Borrowers’ loan modification requests within 60
days on average. See Complaint ¶¶ 30-33. The Bank’s ability to comply with this time frame
depends entirely on whether the Bank has devoted sufficient resources to hire the staff and
deploy the technology and other systems to process loss mitigation requests in a timely manner.
Thus, this claim does not depend upon the acts or omissions of individual employees who may
have delayed actions on individual consumer modifications.
The State also alleges violations of the Consumer Fraud Act, in that Defendants made
misrepresentations to Borrowers about its loss mitigation and foreclosure activities. See
Complaint ¶¶ 79-195. For instance, the State has evidence that Defendants promised that
consumers who met the conditions of their trial modifications would be converted
automatically and without delay into permanent modifications. See Complaint ¶¶ 93-97.
Defendants made these representations on its website, in letters, and in other public statements
that were made by and that must have been approved by senior managers. Call center
employees merely relayed these representations when, on information and belief, they relied on
scripts and other directives from senior managers regarding what they should tell consumers
who called to determine the status of their permanent modifications or to complain when they
did not come through. The deceptive nature of these representations is evidenced by Bank of America’s self-described “aged inventory” of trial modifications that waited for more than three
months for conversion, which approached 32,000 during the relevant time. See Complaint ¶ 97
(noting that this number was four times larger than Bank of America’s nearest competitor at the
time). This is and can only be the result of failures of management—not line employees.
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 4/82-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
Although the State believes that it will be able to prove that the choices made by
Defendants’ management caused Defendants to violate the law, the State also will depend on
the testimony of line-level Bank of America employees who struggled with limited resources,
inadequate systems, and insufficient training and supervision, relied on scripts provided by their
supervisors, and otherwise attempted to comply with the policies and procedures that
Defendants put in place. These employees are mere witnesses. They can speak about their
interactions with consumers, the realities of Defendants’ day-to-day operations, and their
understanding of and any problems in executing Defendants’ directives. Accordingly, it is
important for the State to be able to talk with Defendants’ former call center employees, who
are more likely than current employees to feel that they can speak candidly and freely. For
reasons laid out below, the State has reason to believe that it will not be able to conduct a full
and fair investigation if Defendants’ counsel is present during these interviews.
In addition, the State expects that some former employee interviews will be preliminary
or information-gathering only. Former employees may be able to provide information about
documents and potential witnesses that could better prepare the State’s counsel for employee
depositions to follow. See, for example, the letter attached hereto as Exhibit “B” from an
anonymous current employee, which provides information about Defendants’ loss mitigation
procedures and supervision and training of employees. In addition, the sheer number of
potential witnesses in this case presents logistical hurdles that can be substantially eased if the
State is not required to arrange every single witness interview around the schedules of counsel
for Defendants.As laid out below, the State believes that Arizona law permits it to conduct ex parte
interviews with former employees. Furthermore, the State has good cause to seek such
interviews in this case. In recent correspondence, Defendants asserted that there is no basis for
the State’s concern that Defendants will interfere with the State’s discovery of Defendants’
former employees if the State cannot conduct its interviews outside the presence of Defendants’
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 5/82-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
attorneys. To the contrary, the State does have a legitimate basis for concern. The Arizona
Attorney General has learned that Bank of America recently significantly interfered in the
investigation of Bank of America conducted by the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Office of Inspector General (“HUD-OIG”), one of the federal agencies
with oversight authority over Bank of America. See Declaration of William W. Nixon,
attached hereto as Exhibit “C” (“Nixon Declaration”). As the agency responsible for loans
made through the Federal Housing Agency (“FHA”) (and with the ability to bar banks from
making FHA loans), HUD-OIG should have had significant leverage to ensure Defendants’
cooperation.
The general objective of the HUD-OIG investigation was to determine whether Bank of
America complied with applicable foreclosure procedures when processing foreclosures on
FHA-insured loans. Nixon Declaration ¶ 10. Among other things, the HUD-OIG auditors
attempted to review Bank of America’s foreclosure policies and procedures and to interview
staff to determine how the bank operates to comply with requirements. Id. William Nixon, the
Assistant Regional Inspector General for Audit, who managed the Bank of America
Foreclosure Review, reports that the review “was significantly hindered by Bank of America’s
reluctance to allow us to interview employees,” among other things. Id. ¶¶ 1, 9, 11. Further,
“[w]hen interviews were permitted, the presence or involvement of the bank’s attorneys limited
the effectiveness of those interviews. On a number of occasions, the bank’s attorneys refused
to allow employees to answer questions.” Id.
If the bank hindered an investigation by its federal regulator, there is every reason tobelieve it would similarly hinder the State’s investigation in this case. Accordingly, the State
has good cause to believe that Defendants will interfere in its interviews if they are not
conducted ex parte, and, further, that Defendants would contact potential interviewees to
influence them in some way if their identities are disclosed to Defendants before the interviews
take place. Because this interference could not be fully remedied by follow-up interviews, and
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 6/82-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
because, as laid out below, Arizona law permits ex parte interviews, the State seeks the Court’s
permission to conduct such interviews.
II. With a Limited Exception, Arizona Law Permits Attorneys to Conduct Ex Parte
Interviews of Former Employees of an Opposing Party.
Under Arizona law, the general rule is that an attorney may conduct ex parte interviews
of former employees of an opposing party. Lang v. Superior Court , 170 Ariz. 602, 607, 826
P.2d 1228, 1233 (App. 1992) (“We believe the better approach is to permit ex parte contacts
with former employees.”). To reach this conclusion , the Arizona Court of Appeals interpreted
and applied Arizona Ethical Rule 4.2, which states:
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the
representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another
lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is
authorized by law to do so.
The purpose of Rule 4.2 is to “(1) prevent unprincipled attorneys from exploiting the disparity
in legal skills between attorneys and lay people, (2) preserve the integrity of the attorney-client
relationship, (3) help to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information, and (4)
facilitate settlement.” Lang, 170 Ariz. at 604, 826 P.2d at 1230.
The State is filing this motion rather than simply interviewing former employees without
court authority because Lang establishes an exception to the general rule that is not easily
applied to the facts of this case. The court held that ER 4.2 “does not bar counsel from having
ex parte contacts with a former employee of an opposing party . . . unless the acts or omissions
of the former employee gave rise to the underlying litigation or the former employee has an
ongoing relationship with the former employer in connection with the litigation.” 170 Ariz. at
607, 826 P.2d at 1233 (emphasis in original). Although the court seems to have intended this
language to describe a narrow exception, Defendants have interpreted the exception so broadly
that it would, at least in this case, entirely swallow the rule.
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 7/82-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
Lang was a consumer fraud and misrepresentation case brought by an automobile
purchaser against the automobile dealership that sold her a car. Id. at 603, 826 P.2d at 1229.
To support her response to the dealership’s motion for partial summary judgment, Lang
submitted affidavits from the dealership’s former finance director/general sales manager and
the former controller. Id. at 603-04, 826 P.2d at 1229-30. In a special action proceeding, the
court of appeals overturned the trial court’s order striking the affidavits. The court noted that
there was no Arizona case law on the issue of ex parte contacts with former employees and that
Arizona’s ethics committee had been unable to reach a definitive conclusion on the issue. Id. at
604, 826 P.2d at 1230. The court observed that the majority of courts considering the issue had
held that Rule 4.2 covers only current employees and agreed with the reasoning of the
American Bar Association Committee on Ethics, which concluded that Rule 4.2 does not
prohibit ex parte contacts with unrepresented former employees. Id. at 606-07, 826 P.2d at
1232-33 (citing ABA Formal Op. 91-359 (March 22, 1991)). Noting that neither the text of the
rule nor its comments give any indication the rule was intended to cover former employees, the
court said: “There is no reason to expand the scope of the ban once the employment
relationship ends.” Id. at 607, 826 P.2d at 1233. It is worth noting that, after Lang was
decided, the ABA expressly stated that Rule 4.2 does not apply to former employees. See ABA
Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 4.2, cmt. 7 (2006) (“Consent of the organization’s lawyer is
not required for communication with a former constituent.”), attached hereto as Exhibit “D.”
In creating the exception, the Lang court stated that Rule 4.2 does intend to prohibit ex
parte contacts with employees and former employees when their acts or omissions “gave rise tothe underlying litigation.” Lang, 170 Ariz. at 607, 826 P.2d at 1233. The court’s illustration
depicts a narrow exception:
For example, if an employee hired to drive a truck is involved in an accident
that occurs in the course and scope of employment, the fact that the employee
leaves his or her employment should not determine the propriety of ex parte
communications. Clearly, the employee’s acts or omissions in connection with
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 8/82-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
any litigation that arises out of the accident can be imputed to the former
employer for purposes of civil liability.
Id. As applied to this case, if the deceptive conduct alleged was attributable to the independent
acts of a few specific employees, then the State would agree that Lang would preclude the State
from interviewing those employees ex parte about their acts that give rise to Defendants’
liability. But that is not the State’s case here. The State’s allegations of liability are not based
on the acts of particular employees or particular events, but rather on company-wide policies
carried out over several years by thousands of non-management employees. See Complaint.
Further, the State is not asking for ex parte interviews of current employees or of former
management employees, whose acts and omissions are directly at issue in this case. Rather, the
State wishes to interview only former non-management employees, who were mere witnesses
to conduct that may give rise to Defendants’ liability. The State wants to interview these
individuals about what they saw and heard about Defendants’ companywide policies, about
how Defendants’ policies worked in practice, and about Defendants’ failure to ensure
compliance with the law and the Consent Judgment. See Complaint. The State is asking for
nothing more than the opportunity to fully investigate its case by interviewing the only
available witnesses to Defendants’ implementation of their policies and procedures.
Defendants argue that the State cannot interview any of their thousands of former
customer service representatives, on the theory that their acts and omissions “may be imputed
to the organization,” or may have given “rise to the underlying litigation.” Joint Pretrial
Statement at 16. However, neither the fact that former employees “may have information
which is damaging” to Defendants, nor Defendants’ “desire to protect the organization from
liability-creating statements justifies a blanket ban on ex parte communications.” Lang, 170
Ariz. at 607, 826 P.2d at 1233. Arizona ethics opinions following Lang reinforce this view.
See Ariz. Ethics Op. 00-05 (stating that “[c]ontacts with a former employee are not prohibited
merely because that person may have information which is harmful to the opposing party”);
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 9/82-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
Ariz. Ethics Op. 95-07 (noting facts that testimony of former employee may be detrimental to
former employer and that former employee may have witnessed an unlawful act of former
employer do not determine propriety of contact).
The ban Defendants seek would not further the purposes of Rule 4.2, but rather would
operate as an unnecessary restriction upon informal discovery that can more efficiently advance
the cause of discovering the facts. Id. This is especially true in this case involving huge
corporations, where a blanket rule banning informal interviews with former employees would
not protect the attorney-client relationship or attorney-client communications—since former
non-management employees would have no access to privileged information that could be
improperly obtained. Rather, such a rule would effectively preclude all informal discovery
from these important witnesses to Defendants’ implementation of their relevant policies and
procedures.
The State’s request is consistent with the majority of courts that have interpreted Rule
4.2 as well as with ABA Formal Opinion 91-359. See, e.g., Clark v. Beverly Health & Rehab.
Servs., 797 N.E.2d 905, 906 (Mass. 2003) (lawyer’s contact with a nurse formerly employed at
Defendant nursing home who was on duty the night that patient died was proper, even though
nurse was “directly involved” in the subject matter of the litigation); Smith v. Kalamazoo
Ophthalmology, 322 F. Supp. 2d 883, 885 (W.D. Mich. 2004) (interview in civil rights case of
former personnel manager with extensive knowledge directly related to litigation was proper);
Fleetboston Robertson Stephens, Inc. v. Innovex, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1195 (D. Minn.
2001) (plaintiff's counsel contacted defendants’ former CEO to discuss matters relevant to thelitigation); see also infra. p. 13. Although these cases are not controlling, they do provide
persuasive support for a narrow construction of the Lang exception to the general rule.
It is crucial that the State be permitted to interview former employees without the
presence of Defendants’ counsel, so that these witnesses can speak freely and without
interference and the State can carry out its investigation and discover the truth. It is also crucial
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 10/82-10-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
that the State be permitted to delay identifying any former employee it contacts unless and until
it has conducted an interview of the employee, to prevent Defendants from attempting to
influence any interview before it is conducted. The State will of course fully comply with its
disclosure obligations. Following any interview, the State will provide the name of the former
employee interviewed. If the State wishes to use any former employee as a witness, it will so
notify Defendants, and the State will also timely disclose any evidence that any former
employee might provide to the State.
III. The State Also Seeks the Court’s Guidance About Interviews Previously Conducted
By Outside Counsel for the State of Nevada.
As argued herein, the State believes its attorneys should be permitted under ER 4.2 to
conduct ex parte interviews of former Bank of America non-managerial employees. In the
event the Court disagrees, however, then the State requests that the Court resolve the following,
related issue that Bank of America raised in its Joint Pretrial Statement.
A. Factual Background.
The State’s outside counsel in this matter, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll (“Cohen
Milstein”), also represents the Nevada Attorney General’s Office in similar litigation that is
currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Solely in
connection with its representation of the State of Nevada, Cohen Milstein interviewed a number
of Defendants’ former Nevada call center representatives and one current call center
representative who reached out to counsel.
In the Joint Pretrial Memorandum, Defendants alleged that Cohen Milstein’s conduct in
interviewing these individuals on behalf of the Nevada Attorney General violated Arizona
Ethical Rule 4.2. Joint Pretrial Memorandum § VII(B). Without any basis whatsoever,
Defendants further accuse the State of Arizona of directing the interviews “under the guise of
the Nevada Attorney General,” presumably as a means to avoid Arizona ethical rules. Id .
These are serious and inflammatory allegations, and they are wholly unsupported by fact or
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 11/82-11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
law. The State respectfully requests that this Court rule that counsel’s conduct was permitted
under Nevada ethical rules, that Nevada ethical rules apply to interviews conducted on behalf
of the State of Nevada, and that those interviews were therefore entirely proper under Arizona
ethical rules. The State requests this ruling now to put to rest Defendants’ potentially chilling
and damaging allegations.
B. Nevada’s Ethical Rules Apply to Cohen Milstein’s Interviews.
If, as the State has laid out, Arizona ethical rules permit ex parte interviews with
Defendants’ former employees, then counsel’s interviews were permissible under the rules of
both jurisdictions. Even if this Court finds that Arizona does not permit such contact, counsel’s
interviews were proper under the rules of the jurisdiction in which they were carried out and
therefore, under Arizona rules, were proper in Arizona as well.
Arizona Ethical Rule 8.5 applies conflict of law provisions to determine which
jurisdiction’s ethical rules apply. ER 8.5 states, in relevant part:
(b) Choice of Law. In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this
jurisdiction, the rules of professional conduct to be applied shall be as follows:
(1) for conduct in connection with a matter pending before a tribunal,
the rules of the jurisdiction in which the tribunal sits, unless the rules of the
tribunal provide otherwise.
Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42, ER 8.5. Under this rule, Nevada’s ethical rules apply to govern the
conduct of lawyers in connection with matters pending before Nevada tribunals. Therefore,
Nevada ethical rules govern the conduct of Cohen Milstein in connection with the litigation
pending before the Nevada District Court.
This rule applies even where, as here, the lawyers also practice in Arizona. In Arizona
Ethics Opinion No. 90-19 (Dec. 28, 1990), the Arizona Supreme Court Judicial Ethics
Advisory Committee (the “Committee”) relied on ER 8.5 to hold that a lawyer whose conduct
was permitted by the ethical rules of the Navajo Nation Bar Association would not be subject to
disciplinary action under the Arizona rules. The Committee concluded that the rules of the
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 12/82-12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
jurisdiction in which the attorney was practicing at the time should govern the attorney’s
conduct in the jurisdiction. Id. at 5. Both the sovereign powers of the jurisdiction and the
reasonable expectations of attorneys practicing within that jurisdiction demand this choice. Id.;
see also Ariz. Ethics Op. No. 99-13 (Dec. 1999) (tribal rules permitted paralegal to represent
clients in tribal court and therefore paralegal was not engaged in unauthorized practice of law
under Arizona ethical rules); Comm. on Ethics of the Md. State Bar Ass’n, Op. 86-28 (Oct. 7,
1985), at 3-4 (“Where a Maryland attorney is acting in a foreign jurisdiction in accordance with
that jurisdiction’s Code of Professional Responsibility, . . . his conduct is ethical per se.”);
Comm. on Prof’l and Judicial Ethics of the State Bar of Mich., Informal Op. CI-709 (Dec. 29,
1981), at 3 (no violation of Michigan ethics rules where conduct was permitted under
California rules). Thus, the Nevada ethics rules govern Cohen Milstein’s conduct while
representing the State of Nevada in its judicial proceeding pending in Nevada.
C. Nevada’s Ethical Rules Permit Attorneys to Interview Ex Parte Former
Employees of an Opposing Party.
In Nevada, a lawyer may interview former employees and non-management current
employees of a party ex parte. In Rebel Communications, LLC v. Virgin Valley Water District ,
2011 WL 677308, *7-8 (D. Nev. Feb. 15, 2011), the district court held that the Nevada
Supreme Court would find that Nevada law would allow ex parte communications with an
opposing party’s former employees. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied upon the
Nevada Supreme Court decision in Palmer v. Pioneer Inn Associates, 59 P.3d 1237 (Nev.
2002).
In Palmer, the state supreme court analyzed application of Nevada’s Rule 4.21
to an
employee of a corporation or other organization and held that an attorney is prohibited from
1Effective May 1, 2006, former Nevada Supreme Court Rule 182 became Rule 4.2 of the
Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct. The text of the rule is substantially the same as Arizona
ER 4.2 and states: “In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of
the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 13/82-13-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
contacting an organization’s current employee only if the employee has managing authority
sufficient to give the employee the right to speak for and bind the corporation.2
In choosing
this managing-speaking agent test over the party-admission test, the court said:
It is not the purpose of the rule to protect a corporate party from the revelation
of prejudicial facts. Rather, the rule’s function is to preclude the interviewing
of those corporate employees who have the authority to bind the corporation.
. . . [E]mployees should be considered “parties” for the purposes of the
disciplinary rule if, under applicable [state] law, they have managing authority
sufficient to give them the right to speak for, and bind, the corporation.
Id. at 1248 (quoting Wright by Wright v. Group Health Hospital, 691 P.2d 564, 569 (Wash.
1984)). The call center employees interviewed by Cohen Milstein have no management
authority to bind Bank of America. Therefore, Cohen Milstein’s interviews of these employees
were proper under Nevada law.
Because, under Palmer , interviews of Defendants’ non-management current employees
are permitted by Nevada’s ethical rules, interviews of non-management former employees are
allowed as well. Palmer’s analysis shows the path that Nevada courts would follow in
evaluating communications with former employees.
matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or
a court order.”
2 The court analyzed the competing considerations at play in determining how to apply the
no-contact rule in the case of organizations. On the one hand, the court stated, the primary
purpose of the rule is to protect the attorney-client relationship from intrusion by opposingcounsel and to protect against disclosure of privileged information. Palmer , 59 P.3d at 1240 &
n.8, 1242. On the other hand, the court weighed the also important policies of “permitting more
equitable and affordable access to information pertinent to a legal dispute; promoting the court
system’s efficiency by allowing investigation before litigation and informal information-
gathering during litigation; permitting a plaintiff’s attorney sufficient opportunity to adequately
investigate a claim before filing a complaint in accordance with Rule 11; and enhancing the
court’s truth-finding role by permitting contact with potential witnesses in a manner that allows
them to speak freely.” Id . at 1242. In this case, the customer service representatives contacted
by Cohen Milstein would have no access to Defendants’ lawyers or to privileged information.
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 14/82-14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
Although Palmer did not address whether Rule 4.2 applies to former employees,
Comment 7 to ABA Model Rule 4.2 does so explicitly: “Consent of the organization’s lawyer
is not required for communications with a former constituent.” This is consistent with the
majority rule in the United States. See Rebel Communications, supra, 2011 WL 677308 at *7;
Rotunda & Dzienkowski, Legal Ethics, The Lawyer’s Deskbook on Professional Responsibility,
§ 4.2-6 at 898 (2010) (“Neither Rule 4.2 nor its Comments require a lawyer representing a
client in a matter adverse to a corporation to seek permission of that corporation’s attorney
before interviewing former employees of the corporate party about the subject of the
representation.”) (emphasis in original); 2 Hazard, Hodes and Jarvis, The Law of Lawyering, §
38.7 n.2 (2011 supp.) (“A few decisions have held that all former employees are governed by
the no contact rule. . . . Such decisions are clearly wrong, however, given the text of Rule 4.2
and the underlying policies of the rule discussed in its Comments.”) (citation omitted).
Nevada law clearly permits counsel’s communications with Defendants’ former and
current non-management employees. It is indisputable that customer service employees, whose
duties were to answer customer service calls, lack the authority to bind any of the Defendants.
Under both Palmer and Rebel Communications, counsel’s contacts with current and former
non-management employees were permitted under Nevada law.
Because Cohen Milstein’s interviews of former employees concerned its representation
of Nevada in a Nevada proceeding, there was nothing improper about them. Moreover, as
stated repeatedly to Defendants, those interviews took place without the knowledge of, consent
of, or participation of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. Defendants’ bald assertion thatthe Arizona Attorney General’s Office or its outside counsel manipulated the Nevada Attorney
General’s Office into conducting these interviews for it is insulting and completely without
foundation or good faith basis.
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 15/82-15-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
IV. Conclusion
The State respectfully requests that this Court rule that: (1) Arizona Ethical Rule 4.2 and
Lang permit the State to conduct ex parte interviews of Defendants’ former employees who are
merely fact witnesses and were not responsible for Defendants’ institutional policies; and (2)
the State may refrain from disclosing the identities of such witnesses until after the interviews
have been conducted. As a result, the interviews of Defendants’ non-management employees
by the State’s outside counsel were proper under Arizona Ethical Rule 4.2. Even if the Court
finds that Arizona Ethical Rule 4.2 does not permit such ex parte interviews, the State asks that
the Court find that the interviews conducted were proper under Nevada law and therefore were
not improper under Arizona’s ethical rules.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 8th day of June, 2011.
Thomas C. HorneAttorney General
B /s/ Carol n R. MatthewsThomas K. ChenalCarolyn R. MatthewsAssistant Attorneys GeneralAttorne s for Plaintiff
ORIGINAL filed electronically usingAZTurboCourt this 8th day of June, 2011.
COPY of the foregoing mailedthis 8th day of June, 2011 to:
Don Bivens
Robert Henry
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
400 East Van Buren Street
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
and
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 16/82-16-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
Matthew W. Close
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
400 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 92551
and
Brian D. Boyle
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
1625 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Attorneys for Defendants
/s/ Catherine Jacobs#1950649.3
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 17/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 18/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 19/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 20/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 21/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 22/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 23/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 24/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 25/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 26/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 27/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 28/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 29/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 30/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 31/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 32/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 33/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 34/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 35/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 36/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 37/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 38/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 39/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 40/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 41/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 42/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 43/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 44/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 45/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 46/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 47/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 48/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 49/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 50/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 51/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 52/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 53/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 54/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 55/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 56/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 57/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 58/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 59/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 60/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 61/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 62/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 63/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 64/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 65/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 66/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 67/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 68/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 69/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 70/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 71/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 72/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 73/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 74/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 75/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 76/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 77/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 78/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 79/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 80/82
8/6/2019 WOES FOR BOA - PART 2 - MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EX PARTE INTERVIEWS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/woes-for-boa-part-2-motion-for-order-authorizing-ex-parte-interviews 81/82