Steiger v. Superior Court for Maricopa County
| Decision Date | 04 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 11752,11752 |
| Citation | 536 P.2d 689,112 Ariz. 1 |
| Parties | Sam STEIGER, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona FOR MARICOPA COUNTY, the Honorable Warren McCarthy, and Sportservice Corporation, a New York Corporation, Arizona Sportservice, Inc., an Arizona Corporation, Florida Sportservice, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Everglades Sportservice, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Sports Palace, Inc., a Florida Corpoation, Golden Gate Sportservice, Inc., a California Corporation, Louisiana Sportsystems, Inc., a Louisiana Corporation, Air Terminal Services, Inc., a Virginia Corporation, District Sportservice, Inc., a District of Columbia Corporation, Colorado Sportservice, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Dominion Sportservice, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, Detroit Sportservice, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, DRT Sportservice, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, H. P. Sportservice, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Michigan Sportservice, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Cahokia Sportservice, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Chicago Sportservice, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Illinois Sportservice, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Maywood Sportservice, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, Missouri Sportservice, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, Twin-City Sportservice, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, New Mexico Sportservice, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation, Emprise Corporation, a New York Corporation, Michael A. Jarvis, and CMS Management Corporation, an Arizona Corporation, Respondents. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Evans, Kitchel & Jenckes by Earl H. Carroll and Philip C. Tower, Phoenix, for petitioner.
Lewis & Roca by John P. Frank and Brian Goodwin, Phoenix, for respondent Sportservice.
Jennings, Strouss & Salmon by Gary L. Stuart and F. William Sheppard, Phoenix, for respondents Jarvis and CMS Management Corp.
This case comes before us by a Petition for Special Action, challenging the order of the Superior Court of Maricopa County requiring a witness to answer certain questions propounded in a discovery deposition.
The witness, Michael A. Jarvis, is a former aide to Sam Steiger, a member of the United States House of Representatives from Arizona. The Congressman has asserted the privilege of Article I, § 6 of the U.S. Constitution (the Speech or Debate Clause) to prevent Jarvis from answering certain questions asked in a deposition conducted by the real parties in interest in a pending civil action against the Congressman, Jarvis, and others.
The civil action by Sportservice Corporation and its parent company, the Emprise Corporation, alleged that the defendants conspired to damage the business of the plaintiffs for the defendants' own private gain. Congressman Steiger filed an answer denying the allegations, and he filed a counterclaim asserting a claim for damages against respondents for defamation.
The respondents sought to depose Jarvis concerning his knowledge and activities in relation to the matters alleged in the action. Respondents were especially interested in questioning the witness Jarvic concerning a meeting at a San Diego hotel room between a Harold Nunn and Robert P. Leacy. The respondents allege that the conversation was recorded by Jarvis with the consent of Nunn but without the knowledge of Leacy who was a former attorney for Sportservice Corporation.
At the deposition of Jarvis, the attorney for Representative Steiger claimed the privilege under the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and Jarvis refused to answer any question to which the privilege was invoked. The respondent corporations sought an order of the superior court requiring that Jarvis answer the questions propounded in the deposition. The superior court denied the claim of privilege and ordered Jarvis to answer the questions. This special action followed.
The Congressman, in his answer to the amended complaint and in his present petition, alleges that all the acts done or performed by him, or by Jarvis for him, were done in his capacity as a member of Congress and in furtherance of his legislative duties, and, by reason of legislative privilege and immunity, and claims or inquiry into those acts are barred.
When a privilege is asserted, the burden of establishing that a matter is privileged is upon the party claiming the privilege. 23 Am.Jur.2d Depositions and Discovery § 169. It is necessary to review the record to determine whether the inquiry sought by respondents was precluded by the privilege asserted by petitioner.
The privilege sought to be applied protects Senators and Representatives of the Congress in that 'for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.' U.S.Const. Art. I, § 6. The petitioner claims that the subject matter of inquiry related to a legislative investigation contemplated by him as a member of the House Select Committee on Crime, and he urges that he is entitled to invoke the privilege.
For purposes of construing the Speech or Debate Clause, a Congressman and his aide may be treated as one, given their intertwined duties in performing complex legislative tasks. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 92 S.Ct. 2614, 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972). Thus, if the Congressman could legitimately assert the privilege under the circumstances of this case, then so could his aide, Jarvis.
The original purpose of the Speech or Debate Clause was to permit the People's representatives to execute the functions of their offics without fear of prosecutions, civil or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ARIZONA IRC v. Fields
...may not be made to testify about those activities, including the motivation for his or her decisions. Id.; Steiger v. Superior Court, 112 Ariz. 1, 3, 536 P.2d 689, 691 (1975); Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 84-85, 87 S.Ct. 1425, 18 L.Ed.2d 577 (1967) (noting legislators "should be pro......
-
Mesnard v. Campagnolo
..."in any way related to the legislative process" is afforded absolute immunity as a legislative function. See Steiger v. Superior Court , 112 Ariz. 1, 4, 536 P.2d 689, 692 (1975) (discussing the evidentiary privilege stemming from legislative immunity); see also Brewster , 408 U.S. at 516, 9......
-
Fann v. Kemp
...Senate's privilege log.I.A. ¶8 The party asserting a privilege has the burden of proving each of its elements. Steiger v. Superior Court , 112 Ariz. 1, 3, 536 P.2d 689, 691 (1975). The existence of an evidentiary privilege is a question of law which we review de novo, Fields , 206 Ariz. at ......
-
Fann v. Kemp
...asserts the legislative privilege, the legislator has "the burden of establishing that a matter is privileged." Steiger v. Superior Ct. , 112 Ariz. 1, 3, 536 P.2d 689, 691 (1975). We narrowly construe constitutional, common law, and statutory privileges because they are "in derogation of th......