The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent


Devin Nunes's Libel Lawyering, Employee Witnesses, and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination


From Nunes v. Lizza, handed down yesterday by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Roberts (N.D. Iowa):

Defendants published an article about Plaintiffs' dairy farm. A thorough statement of the factual background is set forth in Judge Williams's Memorandum and Order regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Because of Judge Williams's ruling, the sole surviving claim is for defamation arising from Defendants' allegedly false statements that Plaintiffs knowingly employed undocumented or unauthorized workers.

Thereafter, discovery focused on the immigration status of Plaintiffs' employees, including, among other things, Plaintiffs' I-9 documentation and records in the possession of the Social Security Administration. Defendants noticed the depositions of six of Plaintiffs' current employees and had them served with subpoenas duces tecum that required them to bring identification to their depositions.

Plaintiffs' counsel, Steven S. Biss, accepted service of the subpoenas on behalf of the employees, but Plaintiffs arranged for separate counsel, Justin Allen, to represent the deponents. F.S.D. was the first such witness to be deposed on May 12, 2021.

While Defendants' counsel was questioning F.S.D. about his purported signature on various documents, Mr. Allen stated, "I've advised my client to invoke his Fifth Amendment right regarding questions about this document. [F.S.D.] --- " Mr. Biss then interrupted stating, "Hold on. Hold on. Can we go off the record for just a minute? I'd like to talk to Justin before we do this." In fact, the deposition was delayed for much more than just a minute. More than two hours later, the deposition resumed. When Defendants' counsel attempted to make record, Mr. Biss interrupted him several times insisting that Mr. Allen would make a statement and the deposition would be rescheduled. Once Mr. Biss got his way, Mr. Allen stated,

I am not going to allow [F.S.D.] to answer that question because when we left it I advised him to invoke his Fifth Amendment right. We took a break. We went off the record, and we've had several conversations with lots of people and I've talked to [F.S.D.], and as of now I am no longer representing him. I am not his lawyer.

The depositions were then halted. At the hearing, Mr. Biss stated that a new lawyer had been retained to represent the employee witnesses at their depositions, but he could only identify the new attorney by her first name, Jennifer. Mr. Biss was ordered to provide her name to opposing counsel and the Court. To date, I have not received that information….

Defendants complain about Mr. Biss's behavior during the deposition of F.S.D. Particularly, Defendants assert that Mr. Biss asserted argumentative objections that were disruptive and intended to intimidate or coach the witness. Mr. Biss asserts that his objections were proper and "intended to call out the Defendants' overt harassment of the NuStar employee." Mr. Biss's further explanation on this issue is puzzling and troubling:

No effort was made to "signal to the witness how to answer questions" or to "coach[ ] the witness to testify in a certain way." Counsel for the Defendants got answers to all his questions, including those about [F.S.D.'s] traffic tickets. The deponent was never instructed not to answer. Indeed, he wanted to answer all questions. Plaintiff's counsel sought a side bar with counsel for the witness to determine whether the witness wanted to take the Fifth Amendment. The witness did not, which is why the witness terminated the lawyer with absolutely no prompting by Plaintiffs' counsel.

During the deposition, Defendants' counsel was asking questions about documents such as a bond F.S.D. had posted and a traffic ticket he had received that bore his signature. Mr. Biss made a lengthy speaking objection claiming this was harassment. Here, where the identity and immigration status of the employees is a central issue, it is not harassing or irrelevant to ask questions about such documents. In the context of this case, it is not conducive to obtaining truthful answers from an employee such as F.S.D. to have his employer's lawyer making lengthy, animated objections to those questions.

The most puzzling and troubling aspect of Mr. Biss's explanation, however, is the representation that he "sought a sidebar with counsel for the witness to determine whether the witness wanted to take the Fifth Amendment." This two-hour "sidebar" occurred immediately after Mr. Allen stated, "I've advised my client to invoke his Fifth Amendment right regarding questions about this document."

Normally, one would expect the lawyer for a deponent to be in the best position to ascertain whether the deponent desires to assert a privilege. There is no record of the sidebar, only Mr. Biss's protestations that the employees are not being pressured regarding their rights under the Fifth Amendment. Mr. Biss makes bald assurances that the employees want to answer all questions and not assert their Fifth Amendment rights. Nevertheless, Mr. Biss's behavior—coupled with the facts that (a) the privilege was raised, (b) the privilege was perhaps withdrawn after a lengthy sidebar, and (c) Mr. Allen was fired—gives me little confidence that F.S.D. could make a knowing waiver of his Fifth Amendment rights under these circumstances….

Here, the problem is at least the appearance of an attorney pressuring a witness not to assert a privilege and effectively canceling the deposition to obtain that result. I make no finding based on this record that such pressure did, in fact, occur. Nevertheless, the record lends itself to the appearance that [F.S.D.] may have been subject to pressure not to independently assert his rights….

The judge had the option to appoint counsel for the employees, but concluded:

At this juncture, I decline to appoint counsel because Plaintiffs have represented that independent counsel has been retained to represent the employees. As I stated at the hearing, a lawyer admitted to practice in Iowa should be aware of his or her obligations under Rule 32:1.8(f)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires independence of professional judgment on behalf of a client, even if someone else is paying for those services. As I intended to convey at the hearing, if concerns arise about the exercise of independent judgment by the attorney replacing Mr. Allen, I may reconsider the necessity of appointing counsel….

You can also read the (fairly heavily redacted) defendants' motion to compel, and the plaintiff's response.

NEXT: Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I'm not a lawyer, so need to ask: Is this as much of a Devin Nunes-grade mess as seems after a casual (and inexpert) reading?

    1. I'm not a lawyer either, but I get the same sense. Here is a passage that Volokh left out of his condensed version:

      To avoid a repetition of this problem, Plaintiffs’ attorneys are adjured to read the Van Stelton decision. In addition, they are ordered to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and conform their behavior in future depositions to those rules.

      That's pretty harsh language.

  2. I didn't get enough sleep last night to sort out the plot. Did F.S.D.'s lawyer advise him to clam up then Nunes' lawyer told F.S.D. to answer the question? I know it's unethical for one party's lawyer to bypass an adverse party's lawyer and talk to the party directly. What about a non-party witness who is represented by counsel?

  3. Is this Steven S. Biss the same Steven Scott Biss who lost his law license for a year consequent to findings of professional misconduct? If so, this attorney seems a perfect fit for the Nunes family.

    Devin Nunes is an inspiration to all those who want to know how far one can go in America with a big inherited head start, a backwater right-wing political leaning, and a degree in cow-milking.

    1. Yes, same guy.

  4. Is there more to know here than the fact that it involves Republican hero Devin Nunes?

  5. On behalf of America’s winning side in the culture war, I publicly thank Devin Nunes for being part of the Republican-conservative side. Republicans such as Rep. Nunes make it easier and more important for better Americans to accomplish the right thing.

  6. Clearly nobody above read the actual document, because it doesn't say "Devin Nunes" it says plaintiff is Anthony Nunes, from Iowa.

    Devin Nunes is a Rep from California. I figured educated people would know this, but apparently you are all fairly stupid.

    1. The relationship of the named plaintiffs to Rep. Nunes is fully explained in the opinion. It is non-trivial; it explains why the allegedly defamatory news report by Defendant Ryan Lizza was newsworthy (bracketed portions in original, record citations omitted):

      Plaintiff NuStar Farms, LLC ("NuStar") operates a dairy farm in Sibley, Iowa. Plaintiffs Anthony Nunes, Jr. ("Anthony Jr.") and Anthony Nunes III ("Anthony III") (collectively "the Nuneses") manage NuStar. Devin Nunes, a California congressman, is Anthony Jr.’s son and Anthony III’s brother. The Nunes family has long owned and managed a dairy farm located in Tulare, California. This farm is closely associated with Devin Nunes’s political profile. In 2006, Anthony III, Anthony Jr., and Anthony Jr.’s wife Toni Dian ("Dian") moved to Iowa, formed NuStar, and started a new dairy farm. Devin Nunes has never held any financial interest in NuStar and is not involved in its operations.

      On September 30, 2018, defendant Hearst Magazine Media, Inc. published in its Esquire magazine an article written by defendant Ryan Lizza ("Lizza") about plaintiffs and Devin Nunes ("the Article")....

      The online version of the Article was headlined "Devin Nunes’s Family Farm is Hiding a Politically Explosive Secret." The print version is entitled "Milking the System" and the text under the title, in part, asks "So why did [Devin Nunes’s] parents and brother cover their tracks after quietly moving the farm to Iowa? Are they hiding something politically explosive?" In the seventh paragraph, the Article states "So here’s the secret: The Nunes Family dairy of political lore -- the one where [Devin Nunes’s] brother and parents work -- isn’t in California. It’s in Iowa." The Article further explains the secret by discussing how Devin Nunes’s family’s move to Iowa was not publicized and was apparently obscured. The Article goes on to discuss, among other things, the Nuneses’ sale of their farm in California, the purchase of a farm in Iowa, the Nuneses’ move to Iowa, and that Iowa dairy farmers, including NuStar, employ undocumented workers....

      Your comment, buckleup, implies that Rep. Devin Nunes has nothing to do with this lawsuit. That implication is false. That he's not a named plaintiff in his own right is legally significant for many reasons, and it certainly is a cornerstone of his father's and brother's and their company's arguments.

      But you go too far, sir or ma'am, in accusing either Prof. Volohk or the previous commenters of being "fairly stupid." It's not stupid, or even incorrect, to include references to Rep. Nunes in discussions about this case like those taking place in the comments here.

      This isn't a case of mistaken identity. Shame on you for so suggesting.

      1. This isn’t a case of mistaken identity. Shame on you for so suggesting.

        In fact, you understate the issue. Devin Nunes was a named plaintiff in this case. His claims were dismissed earlier in the case (as were most of the other plaintiffs').

  7. One of the many deficiencies of the Reason comment system is that Flag Comment and Mute User can easily be pressed by casual scrolling. And while a mistaken Mute User can be undone, a mistaken Flag Comment can’t be.

    You would think they would either do an “are you sure?” button, or let you unflag.

    And of course, it could use an edit button

  8. It sure looks like an attorney attempted to intimidate a witness into not exercising his constitutional rights.

    If also looks like he basically took the position that if you’re undocumented, you’re our property. We own you. You have no rights we are bound to respect.

    While the decision whether to allow or exclude someone from the country is a soveriegn decision against which an alien has no recourse except what Congress specifies, that doesn’t mean that any private party gets to do anything they want.

Please to post comments