Harlingen, Texas May 18, 2007: The Great Lone Star State of Texas waged a multi-year battle against lawsuit abuse that has resulted in some meaningful tort reforms, with even more reform working its way through the legislative pipeline. This is not true of the same abuses being inflicted upon the national population. Washington D. C. has still not mustered up enough political backbone to do battle against the nation’s army of trial lawyers.
That some common sense regulation is needed to reign in attorneys on extended legal fishing expeditions, and the damage these bottom feeders inflect on others could not be more apparent than in the case of Shane Schmidt and Charles L. Sheppard III vs. Triple Canopy, Inc.
At first glance, the story of what predicated this lawsuit reads like a very poor adventure novel. As the tale is told, these two men were witness to the purported shooting and perhaps the murder of two unarmed and noncombatant Iraqi civilians by an American supervisor working for the security contractor Triple Canopy.
As told, this supervisor, along with a driver Schmidt and Sheppard were driving to Baghdad Airport to escort a new arrival into the city. Their supervisor told the heavily armed men that he was leaving Iraq in a couple of days and still hadn’t killed anyone. He boasted that was about to change and that day he would kill someone.
As they headed for the airport the supervisor ordered his driver to stop. Next, he approached a taxi and shot several times at the driver. With the victim apparently dead, he returned to his vehicle and ordered his driver to depart.
Later during the trip he is reported to have ordered his driver to pull over a second time. This time several shots were fired at the driver of a delivery van. Again he ordered his vechicle to continue down the road.
Two days later Schmidt, Sheppard and the driver reported the shootings engaged in by their supervisor to Triple Canopy administrators. Their reason for delaying the report of the incident was fear of their supervisor. They waited until he had left the country before telling authorities about the shootings. The end result of their disclosure was the named supervisor and all three subordinates had their employment terminated by Triple Canopy.
Needless to say, Schmidt and Sheppard returned to the United States, located some attorneys and filed a wrongful termination of employment suit against Triple Canopy, Inc., along with a list of other damages they want resolved through litigation. It must also be noted that this lawsuit is not about the murder of Iraqi citizens.
A story on the alleged murder incident appeared in The New York Times, written by C.J. “Chris” Chivers. Author and journalist Charles
W. Henderson, a retired Marine who resides in Colorado read the article written by Chivers, who is also a former Marine. That Times story pointed out that Schmidt was a former Marine scout sniper. Henderson saw the hint of a commentary in his initial collection of facts, so he contacted Chivers, now stationed in Moscow. In multiple emails the two journalists exchanged comments on the reported murder incident. Henderson also contacted some Special Operations people he knew, seeking information on Triple Canopy and the employees mentioned in the Times article. He also obtained character references regarding Shane Schmidt and the veracity of his claims. He contacted other journalists regarding the conduct of private security contractors in Iraq. When his research was complete, Henderson filed a commentary on the incident in Iraq.
Henderson says, “One of the persons who read my commentary on the incident forwarded it to former Marine scout sniper Shane Schmidt, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Triple Canopy. He contacted me and thanked me for my comments that basically said that Triple Canopy and other security contractor companies in Iraq like them, appeared to operate without accountability to any United States federal jurisdiction or legal oversight of their actions, enabling their personnel to commit murder in Iraq with little fear of prosecution, and it appeared that the company had likely discharged all the parties in the case simply to get rid of it. Since death in the streets of Baghdad is a quite common event, it is unlikely any Iraqi police investigation would ever pursue them. Firing all parties concerned simply flushed the toilet and they were able to move ahead with the incident behind them.”
Because Henderson had been researching a new book on the war in Iraq, he continued his contact with Schmidt. Though they talked and had email correspondence related to Iraq, Henderson asked Schmidt not to discuss anything about his pending litigation until it had been resolved. His conversations with Schmidt were primarily about Marine scout sniper operations. The journalist pointedly avoided interviewing Schmidt about his experiences with Triple Canopy.
The scene shifts back to Colorado and current time. A few weeks ago Henderson was contacted by attorneys who represent Triple Canopy. They asked what he knew about the case. He says,” I told them that I had no information for them, because I had avoided conversations about their case with any parties involved in the lawsuit. The attorneys asked if I would be willing to give them I deposition, and I said I would not. I added that it would be no use to them, because as I had stated, I had no information from anyone directly connected with their case...”
Even though Charles Henderson knows nothing about the reported murders in Iraq, or the termination of Triple Canopy employees and that everything he knows is hearsay, from second and third party sources, these Triple Canopy litigators are still demanding that Henderson be deposed. They worked through a court in Virginia and were granted a commission to depose him in Colorado. The subpoena and order demand Henderson to provide them with copies of all his research about the incident and his book, even though he had not obtained any of it from parties involved in the lawsuit. The documents demanded in the order include everything from hand written notes to graphs, schedules, letters, emails, telegrams, messages, facsimiles, records of personal conversations, meetings, conferences, videotapes, CD-ROMS, DVDs, films, voice recordings, hard drives, lap top computers, personal computers etc. The list of required documents and materials goes on for two typed pages.
All of this is being required from a person who had no stake in the lawsuit, was not involved in the Iraq incident, had limited contact with one of the Plaintiffs on an unrelated matter. This abuse extends across state lines to a party who is not even involved in the wrongful termination litigation and seeks all of the information he possesses on a forthcoming literary work.
Attorneys are always strongly claiming in court that materials in their possession are “work product” and disclosure of them is not required. However, here is a case where attorneys want the work product of a journalist through a court ordered action.
Charles Henderson has already spent significant money on legal council and he has yet to even appear for a deposition. Many thousands of dollars will be required before he is relieved of this lawsuit abuse burden. He has decided that he will fight disclosure of his book research, claiming it contains no information relevant to the unlawful termination of employment litigation.
There is strong suspicion among those who have been following this legal maneuver to obtain journalistic research. Even the attorney representing Shane Schmidt feels that the pursuit of this information has little to do with the lawsuit and more to do with possible criminal actions against Triple Canopy. It is suspected that the contractor wants to know what Henderson has discovered that may lead authorities to suspect the Triple Canopy organization of conspiring to obstruct justice by possibly covering up two apparent murders committed by their employee.
“Today, I am fighting for my rights as a journalist”, says Henderson. I refuse to allow anyone to invade my files and investigative work on a fishing expedition, as well as their efforts to intimidate me, harass me and block what I may write in my upcoming book. They are purposely deposing me and harassing me to cost me legal fees already over $1,000 and rapidly climbing in costs, to break my will.”
So, this is what has happened to date. In Colorado Springs, Colorado, on May 29, 2007 Charles W. Henderson will be deposed. By then he will have spent thousands of dollars more in legal fees, because the American rule of law supposes anyone requiring legal representation can pay his or her own way. What is required of Triple Canopy to inflict such damage and cost upon Henderson, violate his person and his “work product”? The author will receive a disposition fee of $20.