A former appeals unit chief suing Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane over his termination said her bid to stay the suit is just another attempt to avoid discovery in the case.
In his opposition to Kane’s motion to stay, James Barker said the pending criminal charges against Kane of obstruction of the administration of law, official oppression and perjury do not overlap to any significant degree with Barker’s claim that she fired him for testifying before the grand jury that recommended those charges. Barker further rejected Kane’s claim that testifying in the civil suit could impact any future case the Montgomery County district attorney might bring against Kane from its investigation into whether Barker’s firing violated the grand jury supervising judge’s protective order.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
