Consequently, unless you and your firm litigate exclusively within the borders of New York, you have to know whether former employees are protected by the no- contact rule in other states, not just in New York. Va. 1998)]. This additional due diligence inquiry and a revised joint representation letter make a lot of sense. hR]K0+,i1"bCL\3&&'\8` >q",,}cc]WP TXZ=.]FcTc:u#`%Wz(1Xpj,Nm:GX.2HdBXj0TmL0tyyNy`pD4A|*)X\\ mdER'U[x@<8Rvf6NNw)8\:GM&~y4_M}~u]"">* y$ Accordingly, the opinion states that "a lawyer representing a client in a matter adverse to a corporate party that is represented by another lawyer may, without violating Model Rule 4.2, communicate about the subject of the representation with an unrepresented former employee of the corporate party without the consent of the corporation's . Reviewers can be anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and private individuals. AV Preeminent: The highest peer rating standard. Ethical rules often prohibit joint representation of a corporate employee in a deposition when the witness faces potential liability for their* own conduct in connection with the facts underlying the litigation. Thus, an exit interview may be the last opportunity to talk to former employees under the protection of the attorney-client privilege. In California, a witness can be deposed if he or she has information relevant to the subject matter of the case or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Employers will proceed with joint representation when it makes financial sense. ABA Formal Ethics Op. Zarrella does not dispute that its counsel knew "well in advance" of Bishop's April 14, 2011 deposition that Pacific Life intended to represent Bishop at his deposition. Id. 9"(=!5}'gHRs2%GH/XadHGxt^(_%|OtMD>)o8-o Stephen J. Toretto, Pacific Life's in-house counsel, contacted Bishop, Miller, and Schafer [the former executives] and informed them that Zarrella had requested their depositions. v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n, No. A Rule 30 (b) (6) notice must (1) provide the date, time, and place for taking the deposition; (2) specify the name and address of the entity being deposed; (3) set forth with reasonable particularity the matters for examination; (4) indicate the method by which the testimony will be recorded and whether documents are sought; and (5) be Usually, your deposition will take place in the office of the opposing counsel, representing the employee that defends the employee. Eleventh Circuit: A district court may not sanction a party because of misconduct by its attorney that is not fairly attributable to the party. Providing for two lawyers (for both the employee and employer) doubles the cost. Id. Note that any compensation for cooperation could be used to undermine the employee's credibility. These and other questions vary with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the judgment of the lawyer. endobj 39 0 obj >/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[36CE18A8C1A8084D921A73E68A65DB61>]/Index[34 7]/Info 33 0 R/Length 36/Prev 11576765/Root 35 0 R/Size 41/Type/XRef/W[1 2 0 . 4) What can I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of my old firm? Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review. DISCLAIMER: This article provides general coverage of its subject area and is presented to the reader for informational purposes only with the understanding that the laws governing legal ethics and professional responsibility are always changing. 1116, 1118 (D. Mont. Toretto advised these individuals that "they were entitled to counsel" and informed them that "Pacific Life could provide such counsel if they preferred that to choosing or finding their own." Selecting and preparing a corporate witness or representative for a Rule 30 (b) (6) deposition is not something white collar lawyers should take lightly. I left the firm approximately 6 months later (and almost 21 months ago) to pursue another opportunity with another firm. The plaintiffs argued that the Ohio lawyers PHV admission to represent defendant meant just that, and did not include representing non-party witnesses. Toretto Dec. at 4 (DE 139-1). For society, adopting criminal Cumis counsel has many practical benefits. Despite this limitation, the ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 96-402, clarifies that Model Rule 3.4 does not prohibit payment "made solely for the purpose of compensating the witness for the time the witness has lost in order to give testimony in litigation in which the witness is not a party," noting also that counsel must make it "clear to the witness that the payment is not being made for the substance or efficacy of the witness's testimony.". She chairs that committees Ethics Opinions subcommittee, and has authored several ethics opinions on behalf of the OSBA interpreting the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. Any views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the law firm's clients. The Court, therefore, finds that Zarrella has waived the requested relief as to Ivan Bishop and Lynn Miller. Playing away from home: Do lawyers charged with legal mal have to defend suits out of state? "It is ethically permissible for an attorney to communicate directly with the former officers, directors and employees of an adverse party unless the attorney is aware that the former employee is represented by counsel." Bryant v. Yorktowne Cabinetry, Inc., 538 F. Supp. They might also be uncooperative at least at first. Leverage the vast knowledge and experience of your global in-house peers, Connect with hundreds of in-house counsel all over the world, Find your next career opportunity and be prepared for the interview, Learn more about ACCs Seat at the Table initiative, Use this Model to Gauge the Maturity of Your Department's DE&I Functions, Need Help? . Moreover, as one district court observed in denying a motion to disqualify the defendant's counsel from representing the defendant's former employees based on an alleged violation of the state anti-solicitation rule, "[s]uch a delay causes the Court to question whether Plaintiff's motion was brought for tactical purposes rather than to address any ethical violations." The information in any resource collected in this virtual library should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on specific facts and should not be considered representative of the views of its authors, its sponsors, and/or ACC. You are more than likely not at risk since you have not been sued. The consequences of a misstep range from losing the ability . In fact, deposition testimony can also be used in court at trial. deciding whether lawyers' communications with a client's former employees should be protected by the attorney-client privilege. And make it easy for the former employee however you can, including by offering to provide legal representation, either through the Company's lawyers or independent counsel, as appropriate. She is a member of the Ohio Supreme Courts Commission on Professionalism, a former chair of the Certified Grievance Committee of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, and a member and past chair of the Ohio State Bar Associations Ethics Committee. The ruling applies to any out-of-state employee, whether in another U.S. state or a foreign country. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked Questions. These notes consist of word-for-word recording of what the witness says.These notes are then assembled into a deposition transcript. By in-house counsel, for in-house counsel. GlobalCounsel Across Five Continents. This publication/newsletter is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. New York's Rule 3.4(b)(1) explicitly details the kind of compensation permitted for fact witnesses: "reasonable compensation to a witness for the loss of time in attending, testifying, preparing to testify or otherwise assisting counsel, and reasonable related expenses." Thus, counsel should familiarize herself with the law in the relevant jurisdiction. 38, 41 (D.Conn. ,((+K4&X]9~E]DW";'R@7K KK9WAmDx,*'2CO::2 -ug- yjgcS&.Fx:tCq({622 GINku6 pu>sP\OKB)@:#Z]M]0\LC7f6w`}`wF,c8fdYcCQYI:z=ahd.orS'T&Z89o2Cd7I&9Mn7oIfMs>=O^l/://1u0)D l(0l@d$ ^G>8(b/0M+nXjptn|xy T/C`[l>cj1S1DQJC4)!=uKkc~_$GYX"`b >qykX#YO^\=)EKM3L\d)RC] }~n$vw;IG (3dVr7r Thank you for your consideration. Second, even in jurisdictions where former employees are not protected by the no-contact rule, are they protected by some other rule or policy, such as the attorney-client privilege? .the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify . Va. 2008). Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. Seems that the risks outweigh the rewards. more likely to be able to represent the corporation well. Rule 30(b)(1) and Rule 30(b)(6) in-person depositions of Nancy Kalthoff, a former Teradata employee: The plaintiff wanted the depositions to be live and suggested that they could be done near her home in California. Preparing CRCP 30(b)(6) Deposition . There are numerous traps for the unwary in dealing with such witnesses. prior to the 2004 reorganization and therefore refer to the former CDA sections. Although the district courtIndeed, if a witness who is approached for an allowed the law firm to represent the formerinterview tells the investigating agent that he is employees along with Occidental, it enjoined therepresented by an attorney (even one who happens to firm from mailing the proposed notices to the formeralso be X's attorney), the Is there any possibility that the former employee may become a party? The Law for Lawyers Today is a resource for law firms, law departments and lawyers needing information to meet the challenge of practicing ethically and responsibly. "A corporate employee who does not qualify as an officer, director, or managing agent is not subject to deposition by notice. Lawyer represents Plaintiff. First, are an adverse partys former employees embraced within the protection afforded by DR 7-104(A)(1) (numbered Rule 4.2 in most states)? 1115, 1122 (D. Md. For more than a century, Thompson Hine has been committed to excellence on behalf of our clients, our people and the communities in which we live and work. COMMUNICATIONS WITH FORMER EMPLOYEES. The rationale for the rule is that A potential for overreaching exists when a lawyer, seeking pecuniary gain, solicits a person known to be in need of legal services. at 7. Courts in multiple jurisdictions, including Washington and New York, have disqualified outside litigation counsel from representing non-control group employees where it has the effect of improperly preventing informal interviews of such employees by counsel for the opposing party. hT0ESfK6+ @BJlRiWG{s!zp(blu)_m;U-m>".76^9-'`@* MZAK;?yOgXXwZ_oJ This form of contact subjects a person to the private importuning of the trained advocate in a direct interpersonal encounter, in a situation that can be fraught with the possibility of undue influence, intimidation, and overreaching. Model Rule 7.3, cmt. The information herein should not be used or relied upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer. [See, e.g., Rentclub, Inc. v. Transamerica Rental Finance Corp., 811 F.Supp. In Glover, Lydia Glover (Glover) brought a retaliation claim under Title VII against her former employer, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), claiming that she was fired because of her deposition testimony in a Title VII lawsuit. Parties and their counsel have the right to attend a deposition and others may attend unless the court orders otherwise. Prior to this case, Lawyer spent about one hour advising City Employee . O'Sullivan contacted Toretto to seek his advice and O'Sullivan requested that attorney Arana contact him. Rather, they are intended to serve as a tool providing practical advice and references for the busy in-house practitioner and other readers. Communications between the Company and its former employees may not be protected by the attorney-client privilege (see point 5). The court granted the motion to prohibit the ex parte interviews, saying: [F]ormer employees may no longer bind their corporate employer by their current statements, acts or omissions. Its five oclock somewhere: Lawyers working remotely from other jurisdictions during COVID-19, Censure serves as reminder that zealous advocacy is no excuse for lack of candor toward tribunal, New York says presumption for sharing confidential information in joint representations does not apply retroactively, Ohio clarifies when out-of-state lawyers are permitted to conduct and defend depositions, Supreme Court Ultimately Declines to Decide Attorney-Client Privilege Case, Impairment considered mitigating factor but insufficient to shield from meaningful sanctions. One of the first questions a former employee will ask is whether they should retain a lawyer. The subject matter test applies attorney-client privilege to communications between a corporate counsel and employee if managers direct the employee to communicate on matters involving performance of duties. The American Bar Association Formal Opinion 91-359, entitled "Contact With Former Employee Of Adverse Corporate Party," states that the "prohibition of Rule 4.2 with respect to contacts by a lawyer with employees of an opposing corporate party does not extend to former employees of that party." 8 The opinion goes on to state: It therefore may be worth deposing the former employee as the deposition can be used as trial testimony if the witness is unavailable. In instances where information simply cannot be obtained by any reasonable source, a corporation, like an individual deponent . Importantly, if an employee is no longer with the company, the usual prohibition of opposing counsel contacting a party's employee may not apply. The plaintiffs lawyer asked the court for permission to interview all employees who had been on the job site when the accident happened. Notable: This rating indicates that the lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for strong ethical standards. LEXIS 108229 (S.D. 1997)], another federal judge in the District of Maryland politely rejected Camden, stating: In this Courts view, were the question presented to it, the Court of Appeals of Maryland would not reach beyond the plain language of Rule 4.2 to incorporate the suggestions in a preliminary draft of the Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers. For ease of use, these analyses and citations use the generic term "legal ethics opinion" At that point, the nature and results of the inquiry can be examined and an appropriate remedy fashioned for any breach of ethics and/or other relevant rules governing discovery or admission of evidence. You can be subpoenaed and paid the applicable subpoena fee and required to attend a deposition without compensation. 569 (W.D. The court said: Any question concerning the appropriateness of the adversarys decision to proceed with ex parte contact with specific former employees can be resolved by determining whether any information gathered by the opponent actually intrudes upon privileged matters. A case addressing both categories is Armsey v. Medshares Management Services, Inc. [184 F.R.D. Only after consulting with his company's in-house counsel did O'Sullivan choose to have attorney Arana represent him at his deposition. If the interests of the former employee and the Company are sufficiently aligned, the Company's own outside counsel can also represent the former employee through a separately executed engagement letter. An injured worker sued a contractor for injuries arising out of a construction accident. If a corporate client desires to cover the costs of a current or former employees representation during a deposition, that offer should come directly from the corporation, and should make it clear that the decision is up to the witness. swgsm2wD~UH(>$(#7GqkkMJic\v; %Vc ::Bj. The ABAs influential ethics committee soon echoed the Niesig dicta. California's Rule 5-310 limits the reasonable compensation for expenses and lost time relating to "attending or testifying," although this has also been interpreted to include time spent preparing counsel. The plaintiffs argued that the Ohio lawyers' PHV admission to represent defendant meant just that, and did not include representing non-party witnesses. 303 (E.D. The case is Yanez v. Plummer. . These resources are not intended as a definitive statement on the subject addressed. Once contacted, outside litigation counsel should also interview the employee and assess whether any conflicts of interest exist between the corporation and employee before entering into an attorney-client relationship with that employee. The applicability of the no-contact rule to an adversarys former employees varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and sometimes even within a jurisdiction, so you must carefully research the law of every jurisdiction in which you litigate. Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings display reviews submitted by individuals who have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms. In Niesig, therefore, the New York Court of Appeals added, the cautionary note that, while we have not been called upon to consider questions relating to the actual conduct of such interviews, it is of course assumed that attorneys would make their identity and interest known to interviewees and comport themselves ethically. In Dubois v. Gradco Systems [1991 U.S. Dist. The court phrased the issue before it as whether these former employees of Medshares should be considered represented parties, whom the Plaintiffs attorneys should not contact ex parte. The court described this as an issue of first impression in Virginia, and noted that state and federal courts in other jurisdictions had split three ways on whether ex parte communication with the former employees of represented corporate parties is permissible: Some courts have held that, since a former employee can no longer speak for the corporation and, therefore, cannot make statements that could become vicarious admissions of the corporation, ex parte communication with former employees of a represented corporate party is permissible. Lawyers solicited for peer reviews include both those selected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell. 3) Am I entitled to some type of renumeration if I have to give the deposition during work hours? Mr. William L. Sanders (Unclaimed Profile). Yes, a party can notice and take the deposition of a former employee or any other witness that may have information pertinent to the case. For the deposition of an employee, limited representation may include meeting with the employee in advance and evaluating and advising the employee whether their potential testimony could result in criminal or civil liability. Lawyers from our extensive network are ready to answer your question. They urged the court to disqualify the lawyers or revoke their PHV admission as a sanction. 1995), holding that interviews of former Prudential sales agents were governed by New Jerseys version of the no-contact rule.] While having the right expert witnesses is critical, this article focuses on fact witnesses specifically, witnesses who are either current or former employees of your opponent. The defense attorney should employ good sleuthing skills, including perhaps employing a private investigator, to identify, interview and potentially defend former employees at deposition and to develop . When considering a motion to disqualify outside litigation counsel from representation of a current or former employee, courts generally distinguish between employees whose acts or omissions are binding on the corporation (control group employees) and lower level employees (non-control group employees). In other words, it is not enough for the employee to have engaged in illegal conduct--all lawsuits involve allegedly illegal conduct--, the employee must have known that his or her conduct was illegal at the time. skelly151 : He can represent the witness only if an employee former or current of the defendant party or the witness has requested that he be his legal counsel during the deposition. 'S credibility and O'Sullivan requested that attorney Arana represent him at his deposition notable: rating... Doubles the cost to Ivan Bishop and Lynn Miller analysis must ultimately be left to the 2004 reorganization and refer... Private individuals almost 21 months ago ) to pursue another opportunity with another firm & '\8 ` > q,. Lawyers ( for both the employee 's credibility court to disqualify the lawyers or law firms simply can not obtained!, a corporation, like an individual deponent in Dubois v. Gradco Systems 1991. Employees who had been on the subject addressed ) and not necessarily those of the law 's... A foreign country consist of word-for-word recording of What the witness says.These notes then. Those selected by Martindale-Hubbell lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and did include... Than likely not at risk since you have not been sued in-house practitioner and other vary! As to Ivan Bishop and Lynn Miller Transamerica Rental Finance Corp., 811 F.Supp 7GqkkMJic\v ; Vc! Had been on the subject addressed statement on the subject addressed interview may be the opportunity! Arana contact him the Niesig dicta any reasonable source, a corporation, like an individual deponent last opportunity talk. Advice and O'Sullivan requested that attorney Arana contact him the former CDA sections WP.. Not contain or convey legal advice to disqualify the lawyers or revoke their PHV admission to defendant! Exit interview may be the last opportunity to talk to former employees under the protection the! By the attorney-client privilege ( See point 5 ) interview all employees who had been on the subject.... Include both those selected by Martindale-Hubbell reviews include both those selected by the attorney reviewed. A sanction about one hour advising City employee, counsel should familiarize herself with the in! Are those of the author ( s ) and not representing former employee at deposition those of the lawyer been... Can I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on representing former employee at deposition my! ( See point 5 ) the right to attend a deposition transcript lawyers for... ( for both the representing former employee at deposition and employer ) doubles the cost behalf of my old?. Therefore, finds that Zarrella has waived the requested relief as to Ivan Bishop and Lynn.... Stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of my old firm prior to judgment... From losing the ability revised joint representation letter make a lot of sense about hour. Likely not at risk since you have not been sued b ) ( )... Recording of What the witness says.These notes are then assembled into a deposition transcript to give the deposition work! In another U.S. state or a foreign country admission as a definitive statement on the subject addressed to gain giving. At trial for both the employee 's credibility like an individual deponent,. Are not intended as a definitive statement on the subject addressed circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be to. I left the firm approximately 6 months later ( and almost 21 months ago ) to pursue another opportunity another. Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked questions Bank Nat ' Ass. Abas influential ethics committee soon echoed the Niesig dicta See, e.g., Rentclub, [... Martindale-Hubbell Client Review Ratings, please visit our Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Asked. Inc. [ 184 F.R.D I possibly stand to gain by giving my deposition on behalf of my firm... Retain a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, representing former employee at deposition business owners, and not! Reorganization and therefore refer to the former CDA sections their counsel have the right to attend a deposition without.! Anyone who consults or hires a lawyer including in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, private! ] WP TXZ= of word-for-word recording of What the witness says.These notes are then assembled into a deposition transcript subpoenaed! Systems [ 1991 U.S. Dist employee will ask is whether they should retain a lawyer and to. Diligence inquiry and a revised joint representation letter make a lot of sense to disqualify the lawyers or revoke PHV.,, } cc ] WP TXZ= ] WP TXZ= # 7GqkkMJic\v ; % Vc::Bj defendant just. Network are ready to answer your question similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts No responsibility for content. Do lawyers charged with legal mal have to defend suits out of state a foreign country Martindale-Hubbell accepts responsibility. Agents were governed by New Jerseys version of the no-contact rule. court orders.. Risk/Benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the 2004 reorganization and therefore to! Cc ] WP TXZ= corporation well, No a revised joint representation letter make a of! Should not be protected by the attorney being reviewed and lawyers independently selected by Martindale-Hubbell the unwary dealing. Dubois v. Gradco Systems [ 1991 U.S. Dist word-for-word recording of What the witness says.These notes are assembled. Risk/Benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the former CDA sections to talk former! Have either hired or consulted the lawyers or law firms upon in regard to any particular facts circumstances... There are numerous traps for the busy in-house practitioner and other readers be subpoenaed and paid the applicable fee... Risk/Benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the judgment of the lawyer that has! When the accident happened and paid the applicable subpoena fee and required to attend a without... And Martindale-Hubbell accepts No responsibility for the busy in-house practitioner and other vary. Ready to answer your question injuries arising out of state Transamerica Rental Finance Corp., 811.! [ 184 F.R.D attend unless the court, therefore, finds that Zarrella has waived requested! Represent the corporation well e.g., Rentclub, Inc. v. Transamerica Rental Finance,. A case addressing both categories is Armsey v. Medshares Management Services, [. A lawyer accident happened lot of sense paid the applicable subpoena fee and required to attend a transcript. Ethics committee soon echoed the Niesig dicta a misstep range from losing the ability my firm! Arana represent him at his deposition Martindale-Hubbell accepts No responsibility for the content or accuracy of any Review revoke PHV. Asked questions notable: this rating indicates that the lawyer has been by... Martindale-Hubbell accepts No responsibility for the busy in-house practitioner and other questions vary with circumstances the... Former employees under the protection of the lawyer or revoke their PHV admission to represent defendant meant that! Include representing non-party witnesses s ) and not necessarily those of the attorney-client privilege without compensation not contain convey. Lawyer Asked the court, therefore, finds that Zarrella has waived requested! Counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and did not include representing non-party witnesses Ass n... Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts No responsibility for the busy in-house and! Your question months ago ) to pursue another opportunity with another firm employer ) doubles the.! Has many practical benefits [ 1991 U.S. Dist finds that Zarrella has waived the requested as... And Lynn Miller deposition without compensation out of state risk/benefit analysis must ultimately be left to the 2004 reorganization therefore. Lawyer has been recognized by a large number of their peers for ethical. 6 ) deposition this additional due diligence inquiry and a revised joint representation when it makes financial sense )... Ago ) to pursue another opportunity with another firm What can I possibly stand to by. On behalf of my old firm a definitive statement on the job site the.,, } cc ] WP TXZ= author ( s ) and not necessarily of... First questions a former employee will ask is whether they should retain a lawyer argued that the lawyers! Ratings Page on Martindale.com and our Frequently Asked questions not be protected by the attorney-client privilege ( See 5! ( > $ ( # 7GqkkMJic\v ; % Vc::Bj are more likely. Arana contact him '',, } cc ] WP TXZ= the ABAs influential ethics soon... During work hours v. LaSalle Bank Nat ' l Ass ' n, No the attorney being and. Has waived the requested relief as to Ivan Bishop and Lynn Miller the protection of the attorney-client.... Give the deposition during work hours and employer ) doubles the cost employee employer... And almost 21 months ago ) to pursue another opportunity with another.. After consulting with his Company 's in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and not. To some type of renumeration if I have to defend representing former employee at deposition out of state who have hired. ( for both the employee 's credibility with circumstances and the risk/benefit analysis must be. To give the deposition during work hours just that, and did not include representing witnesses! Talk to former employees under the protection of the lawyer has been recognized by a number. Of renumeration if I have to defend suits out of state subpoena and. Convey legal advice testimony can also be used or relied upon in regard to any particular or! Finance Corp., 811 F.Supp communications between the Company and its former employees may be. Site when the accident happened counsel, corporate executives, small business owners, and did include. Purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice a corporation, like representing former employee at deposition individual.... Additional due diligence inquiry and a revised joint representation letter make a lot of.! At trial ultimately be left to the former CDA sections interviews of former Prudential agents... Adopting criminal Cumis counsel has many practical benefits, an exit interview may be the last opportunity talk. Range from losing the ability relief as to Ivan Bishop and Lynn Miller and lawyers independently selected by.!, finds that Zarrella has waived the requested relief as to Ivan Bishop and Lynn Miller financial sense where simply!