1)  The issue of timeliness of objection
2)  The issue of insignificance of the mistakes
3)  The fact that the mistakes are made by the plaintiff and not the defendents
3)  Rule 211



Considering the number of times that Dulberg explicitly informed Williams about the importance of Tilschner v Spangler and considering that Williams seemed to intentionally suppress a certified slip copy that was sent to her as an email attachment, Dulberg cannot take the position that Williams was acting in his interest when she did these things.

If Williams was not acting in Dulberg's best interest when she ignored his many instructions regarding Tilschner v Spangler and when she did not produce Tilschner v Spangler during document disclosures to opposing counsel and when she suppressed the slip certified copy of Tilschner v Spanger that she received from Dulberg, it is fair to ask in whose interest does it appear that she was acting when she did these things?

A reasonable person can conclude that each of these actions that Williams did worked to the benefit of the defendents.

Based on the information available to Dulberg and which Dulberg is making available to the court, it appears to Dulberg and can appear as true to a reasonable person that Williams was intentionally suppressing an important document and piece of evidence that Dulberg explicitly told her to produce repeatedly throughout the entire course of Williams representation of Dulberg.

A reasonable person can also conclude that the suppression of the certified slip copy of Tilschner v Spangler which Williams had in her possession from document disclosures, the way it did not appear in exhibit 12 and the many times and ways that Dulberg informed Williams of Tilschner v Spangler shows that Williams intentionally suppressed the document to sabotage Dulbergs case against Mast and Popovich.  From this point of view the suppression of the slip certified copy of Tilschner v Spangler was most probably not an accident.  And from this point of view Williams cannot be seen as representing Dulberg's interests at the time she took the Mast deposition (or for a long period before the Mast deposition).  It certainly is a possibility based on the evidence that has been available to Dulberg and that Dulberg is now making available to the court that Williams intentionally suppressed the document while knowing it would hurt Dulberg's case.



We are forced to release a certain number of internal documents from attorney-client privilege simply to defend ourselves from our former attorney in this case.