"I Will Not Stand for Being Jerked Around … by Any Lawyer Who Practices Before Me"

From Judge Colleen McMahon in Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney (S.D.N.Y.) Monday:

My order requires no clarification. It is perfectly clear. Counsel for Ms. Freeman do not get to set the rules.

Ms. Freeman will answer EVERY question that is put to her—whether or not the question was asked previously.

If Ms. Freeman asserts attorney client privilege with respect to a question that was not previously asked, you are to call my chambers immediately to obtain a ruling.

If I have to rule on more than one frivolous attorney client privilege objection, there will be consequences, in the form of sanctions, adverse inferences, referrals to the court's Grievance Committee with the possible revocation of pro hac vice admission to practice or admission to the Bar of this Court, and the possibility of a civil contempt holding. Please understand—this is not an idle threat. I am tired of this. I do not believe that Ms. Freeman's counsel is acting in good faith and I will not stand for being jerked around—and I am indeed being jerked around—in this manner by any lawyer who practices before me.

FYI: I will not be in chambers after 5 PM EDT on Wednesday. If there are privilege objections asserted after that hour, you will have to come back on Thursday morning at noon (9 AM PDT) so that I can rule on them. There will not be any deferred procedures for resolving privilege issues. At that point the deposition will be completed in my (telephonic) presence. I do not care if this does not accord with your schedule. My schedule has not been of any particular interest to Ms. Freeman and her attorney up to now; my schedule controls now.

A related filing from Ms. Freeman's lawyer defending his position is here.

Thanks to James Creigh for the pointer, and to Seamus Hughes for apparently first flagging the order.