“. . .ORDER: THE LAW FIRM KATTEN, MUCHIN ROSENMAN, LLP shall respond to Mr. Shkreli’s Motion to Compel THE LAW FIRM KATTEN, MUCHIN ROSENMAN, LLP To Comply With a Document Subpoena Served by Defendant Martin Shkreli in this action by 12 p.m. on November 4, 2016.”
[End, Updated Portion.]
This comes from a filing just this past Friday morning, a Motion To Compel, now available in the USDC in Brooklyn — as to materials Mr. Shkreli believes the government hasn’t yet seen — and upon which, his decision to seek a solo federal eight count felony criminal trial — separate from Mr. Greebel — may well hinge:
“. . . .[T]he documentation maintained by Katten will show that Mr. Shkreli provided the Katten lawyers with complete and truthful information relative to the transactions alleged in the indictment. In addition, the documentation maintained by Katten will show that the Katten attorneys provided legal advice and services to Mr. Shkreli based on the complete and truthful information made known to them. As a result, the documents requested in the attached Subpoena are relevant to establish that Mr. Shkreli acted in good faith and without criminal intent in regard to these transactions in that he sought the advice of one or more of Katten’s highly experienced lawyers and followed that advice. . . .
Additionally, the requested material is not in Mr. Shkreli’s possession. Moreover, Mr. Shkreli believes that the Government is not in possession of this material, and, in any event, the Government has not disclosed such as part of the discovery in this case. Accordingly, the instant subpoena is not an unwarranted circum- navigation around the well-established discovery process. Rather, the instant subpoena is a good faith attempt to have access to actual documentation – in the forms outlined in the subpoena and above – in the possession of a third party (Katten) that is plainly and directly relevant to issues central to the upcoming trial. . . .”
Things tend to move more rapidly in high-profile federal criminal cases like this (due to the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial) — than in the garden variety federal civil actions — so I might expect an answer pretty shortly from the able judge. We will keep the readership posted.
And to be fair, I do agree Mr. Shkreli is entitled to see all of this, especially so since he has waived his attorney client privilege — which means the government may see it all, as well.
What I don’t think is likely, is that Mr. Shkreli provided completely accurate information to Katten, and it is highly unlikely that they advised him to do some of the things the government can now amply document he in fact did.
So it remains to be seen — whether this “the lawyers TOLD me it was okay” defense will fly.
Onward, on a flawless Halloween’s Monday morning, here. . . as I truly am “the ghost with the most, babe. . .” smile. [Ref.: BeetleJuice, and Michael Keaton]