928 F. Supp. 2d 170
D.D.C.2013Background
- Soomai challenged the government’s assertion that he waived attorney-client privilege by raising ineffective assistance of counsel in his §2255 motion.
- The government sought a ruling to find a waiver and permit limited disclosures by Bos, with current counsel not required for communications.
- So omits opposition initially; the court granted the government’s motion in September 2012 despite lack of opposition.
- Soomai moved for reconsideration arguing his current counsel inadvertently failed to file opposition; he later submitted opposition.
- The court denied reconsideration, finding no error in the September 2012 order and noting no intervening controlling law.
- The court granted a stay of the September 2012 order pending counsel’s review and ordered protective measures governing any communications with Bos.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reconsideration is appropriate under Rule 54(b). | Soomai argues reconsideration is warranted due to inadvertent filing and factual issues. | The government contends no misapprehension or controlling change necessitates reconsideration. | Denied; no error or change in law requiring reconsideration. |
| Whether Soomai waived attorney-client privilege as to his §2255 claims. | Soomai opposes waiving privilege beyond the pro se claims; seeks protections for disclosures. | Government contends waiver applies to ineffective assistance claims raised in §2255. | Waiver finding upheld; no reversal on waiver. |
| Whether protective measures governing communications with former counsel are appropriate. | Soomai argues for protective orders and controlled disclosure to prevent unwarranted disclosures. | Government does not oppose protective measures. | Protective measures ordered. |
| Whether the government may speak with Bos only with current counsel present and disclose documents to both sides. | Soomai seeks equal access and present counsel for communication. | Government seeks permission to communicate under restricted conditions if Soomai proceeds. | Authority to speak with Bos limited to times current counsel is present; disclosures to both sides required. |
| Whether Soomai's §2255 matter should be stayed pending counsel’s review. | Soomai requests hold in abeyance to assess merit with counsel. | Government favorable to orderly resolution after full review. | Stay granted; government response stayed sine die pending Soomai’s counsel decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs., Inc., 630 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (interlocutory decision reconsideration standard and proper analytical framework)
- Arias v. DynCorp, 856 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2012) (reconsideration based on justice requires addressing controlling data)
- Negley v. FBI, 825 F. Supp.2d 58 (D.D.C. 2011) (changes in law; data not considered; reconsideration standards)
- Husayn v. Gates, 588 F. Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008) (good cause standard for protective orders in discovery-like contexts)
- McLaughlin v. Holder, 864 F. Supp.2d 134 (D.D.C. 2012) (denial of reconsideration where issues already resolved on merits)