Extract from Isha Marathe’s article “E-Discovery Lesson in Danny Masterson Trial: Spoken Orders Are Orders Nonetheless”
Two celebrity defense attorneys were hit with financial sanctions on June 7, when Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charlaine F. Olmedo determined that they had disobeyed the court’s protective order by leaking discovery materials to an attorney in a separate civil case.
However, the lawyers—Thomas Mesereau and his co-counsel Sharon Applebaum, who at the time were representing actor Danny Masterson in People vs. Daniel Peter Masterson in the Supreme Court of the State of California, Los Angeles—argued that the judge had neglected to issue a formal protective order in writing that explicitly prohibited the sharing of discovery materials.
In response, Judge Olmedo said that her “words” stating that the confidential information unearthed during discovery ought not to be shared, which were reflected in court transcripts, were as good a “lawful orders,” reported The Hollywood Reporter.
The disagreements between the judge and the attorneys brought up a few unique questions. For one, why might a judge not just issue a written protective order if the discovery materials are in fact so sensitive? And which words does a judge have to utter for them to take the place of a formal order?
