179 



maicnalj may reveal evidence to csubliih the claim that the crime/fraud 

 exception applicj. U.S. v. Zolm. yupra at 2631. 



2:olin rc<iuirts the Court to make a decision in li^t of the facts and circumslincea 

 of the particular case. In the cue at btt, the Defendant William has presented no facts upon 

 which this Court can rely upon to initiate an m <;amgra review. 



Obviously the Defendant will point to the Restraining Older issued September 29, 

 1993, as the reason for his inability to present the Court with bets. At fust bhuh, it would 

 appear dut this handicap is due solely to judiciml actioiL However, the aunner in which this 

 infortn&Don was obtained, i.e. by the Defendant and u this Coun has already stated, in violatioa 

 of the employment contract between the Plaintifir and Defendant created this "Gonlian Knot,* not 

 die Court's Order. 



The threshold showing to obtain in camera review may be met by using any 

 relevant evidence, Uwfdly obtiined that has not been adjudicated to be privileged." \}S. v, 

 Zolin. 109 S.Ct at 2632 (einphasis added). By no flretth of jtidicial nnagination can this Coort 

 find the material in question was "Irwfiifly obtained.' Whether it was obtatDod ia vioUtioB of 

 a contractual agreetneot or contrary to our penal code, this Court will not taactioo itjcii activity 

 by agreeing to an in caroera proceediag. To do to would encourage litigants to break into 

 opposing counseTs office or adimaistrative offices of the opposing party to seek allegedly 

 damaging correspondence between the attorney and client The Defmdanf i action in this case 

 clearly distinguish Plaintifrs actions ra Hiinei. where the PUintiff learocd through the CipoBong 

 v. Ugfictt Chtnu). Inc.. 683 F.Supp. 14J7 (DJ4J. 1988) of documcirts relating » her claiin igiinit 

 Liggett Group, et aL These document*, divnlgcd during discovoy in *e Cipollonc case gave rise 

 to a prrtrial discovery request in the Haine» case. The Judicial in camera irview was clearly 



• 6- 



