On Friday afternoon, a day after a three-judge Federal panel ordered lawyers for Republican legislators and staffers to release to the public 84 emails (some with maps, and attachments), and to lawyers suing over how the secretive redistricting came about and was handled, an attorney for the legislators told the plaintiff lawyers he'd found additional communications and had sent that file - - email messages, maps and attachments - - to the plaintiff lawyers too.
At first glance, the documents contain strategy, talking points, and legal research that were similar, and in some cases identical to, the first set of records released Thursday.
It is unclear whether there will be an impact from this belated disclosure on the federal lawsuit that is scheduled for trial Tuesday, or on the temperament of the three-judge panel that has already issued stinging orders - - and a forfeiture - - to the legislators' lawyers for having either filed frivolous motions or withholding documents under lawyer-client privilege that the judges said did not exist.
Here is the communication about the disclosure: I will post the file of documents when I can convert it out of the pdf format in which I have seen it.
Wrote Eric McLeod, of Michael Best & Friedrich, in part (some names, email addresses and phone numbers appearing in the communication have been deleted):
From: McLeod, Eric M (22257)Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:56 PMIn light of the Court's order of February 16, we have determined that in all but two instances, the attachments to the emails identified on the privilege log were previously produced in the prior document production from Mr. Ottman and Mr. Foltz. However, rather than identifying them in the prior production, I am going to re-produce all of the attachments now, so that it is clear what attachment goes with what email. I will be forwarding those attachments in successive email messages. Each email from me will separately include the attachment(s) from each email on the privilege log.Also, after review of the Court's order, we realized that there are additional responsive email communications between counsel and Mr. Ottman and/or Mr. Foltz that were not in the actual possession of Mr. Ottman and/or Mr. Foltz, but which were in the possession of counsel. Thus, those email communications should, arguably, be produced. We did not include them previously in the privilege log as our focus was on identifying documents within the possession of Mr. Ottman and Mr. Foltz. However, in order to ensure that we are fully complying with the Court's order, we are producing those now. Those items are attached to this email.EMMEric M. McLeodMichael Best & Friedrich LLPOne S. Pinckney St., Suite 700Post Office Box 1806Madison, WI 53701-1806