third party in lawyer James Webb's libel lawsuit

against The Citizen and local activist Steve

Brown has responded to demands for his records

with some legal maneuvering of his own.

John

Mrosek, a Peachtree City resident who also is a

lawyer practicing in Fayetteville, filed a motion

Friday to quash a subpoena that Mrosek said is

not only an unnecessary invasion of his own

privacy, but requires him to improperly violate

attorney-client confidentiality.

"I

can be disbarred for breaking attorney-client

privilege," Mrosek said Monday. "That's

something I take very seriously."

To

support that argument, Mrosek filed a six-page

motion and a 21-page brief Friday in Fayette

County Superior Court.

copy of the original deposition notice was

included in Mrosek's supporting materials. A

March 3 letter from Stephen Ott of Webb, Stuckey

and Lindsey advised Mrosek that he would be

required to give a deposition April 25 and

"may be subject to discovery procedures

under the laws of the state of Georgia regarding

the newspaper articles that appeared in The

Citizen newspaper regarding James H. Webb Jr. and

Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey."

Webb's

lawsuit stems from two letters Brown wrote

earlier this year suggesting that Webb's position

on the board of a new local bank along with

developers and builders involved in past and

present litigation against the city could be

construed as a conflict of interest. Webb and his

firm have served as city attorneys for Peachtree

City since 1992.

After

those letters appeared in The Citizen, Webb

responded with his own letter demanding a

retraction. When that did not happen, he filed

suit against Brown, The Citizen and

editor-publisher Cal Beverly.

Mrosek

was advised by Ott to back up his computer files

twice and store the material in a safe place so

that it would be available later to the

plaintiffs.

In

the formal discovery request, Ott asked for

"all documents authored by, sent by,

received by and/or read by you from any one or

more of the following: John or J.W. Mrosek,

Stephen Fodor, Stephen Brown, Calvin Beverly,

anyone on behalf of Fayette Publishing Inc.,

anyone on behalf of The Citizen, anyone on behalf

of The Peachtree Citizen Review, Michael Hyde,

Betsy Tyler, Nancy Faulkner, Mike Hyde and/or

Mildred Harris."

Mrosek

has put the plaintiffs and the court on notice

that he considers this "an extraordinarily

broad, burdensome, unnecessary, unjustified and

invasive discovery," as he stated in his

motion to quash the subpoena.

"I

don't believe this is germane or ordinary,"

he added Monday. "This goes well beyond the

bounds of what is expected in litigation."

Nothing

in the plaintiff's motion specifically states why

Mrosek might be a relevant party to the lawsuit,

but Mrosek thinks the action against him is

because he has submitted competitive bids for

legal services for Peachtree City, and he makes

no apologies for being a friend of Brown's.

Mrosek

has been involved in litigation against the city

in the past, filing in U.S. District Court in

1997 concerning a property damage issue. That was

settled "favorably," Mrosek said.

But

Mrosek sees no reason for the plaintiffs to

involve him in this lawsuit to this degree.

"Webb

is going to be disappointed when he finds out

there's no far-flung conspiracy against

him," Mrosek said.

To

emphasize what he considers the inappropriate

scope of the discovery request, Mrosek said in

his motion that "given the breadth of

plaintiffs' requests... [Mrosek] will risk

contempt of court if he does not produce all

client letters, back issues of Newsweek and a

videotape of the Cracker Barrel 500."

Mrosek

summed up his argument by saying, "The

discovery requests should be quashed in their

entirety."

Despite

having to spend a considerable amount of his own

time preparing these materials, Mrosek said that

does not bother him, since he is trained to deal

with precisely such a situation as this.

"I'm an attorney. I can take care of

myself," he said.

What

does worry him is the thought of other third

parties who are not attorneys and must

nevertheless take the same measures to defend

themselves, he said.

<!--

-----------