There was just one new court filing in the matter of USA v Raniere et al in recent days. It was a routine request for an extension of time for parties to file motions regarding what materials they claim to be privileged.
It looks like the judge approved the request.
The letter, written by Kathleen Cassidy, the same lawyer who accompanied Clare Bronfman on her recent two-day excursion to Clifton Park, reads, “We write jointly on behalf of Defendants Bronfman, Raniere and Nancy Salzman, and the Government, in response to the Court’s direction to file a joint letter setting forth a briefing schedule for privilege motions by today (ECF No. 162).
“Each of the affected Defendants have (sic) conferred with the Government’s privilege review attorney regarding the Government’s privilege review. On October 22, the Government requested additional information from Defendants to clarify the nature and scope of the privileges being asserted by each Defendant. Defendants are working to respond to the Government’s request and will respond next week. The parties jointly propose that we continue working to narrow the areas of potential dispute and that we will update the Court as to the status of our discussions by next Friday, November 2, 2018.”
While some might read something into the fact that the request was written by one of Clare Bronfman’s attorneys on behalf of “…Defendants Bronfman, Raniere and Nancy Salzman…” as well as on behalf of the government, I believe this is merely procedural, not substantive cooperation.
While I’m not 100 percent sure why the request didn’t include the other three defendants – i.e., Allison Mack, Lauren Salzman, and Kathy Russell – my guess is that the primary issues of privilege relate much more to Raniere, Bronfman and Nancy Salzman since the former two were the ones pursuing litigation against any and all and that the documents that relate to potential privilege came from computers mainly seized from Nancy Salzman’s home.
Lauren, Allison, and hapless Kathy had little to do with the litigation and did not have a battery of lawyers where privilege issues might come into play.
Although it’s interesting, it likely means absolutely nothing.
Here is the pdf of the letter by Bronfman attorney Kathleen Cassidy: