The law firm representing the entities behind an attempted takedown of Evolution has again filed an appeal against a court order requiring it to disclose the identity of a client.
The law firm representing the anonymous entities behind an attempted 2021 takedown of Evolution has again filed an appeal against a court order requiring it to disclose the identity of a client.
The appeal, submitted by Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP (CK) to the New Jersey Appellate Division on 12 March, seeks to overturn a 28 February ruling by Superior Court Judge John C. Porto, ordering that the client’s identity be disclosed in discovery.
The case stems from a 2021 report that the white collar law firm forwarded to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE), alleging that Evolution was conducting business in prohibited jurisdictions.
Evolution subsequently sued CK for defamation and trade libel, claiming the report contained false information that damaged its reputation.
After limited discovery, Judge Porto ruled in February that the report was false, based largely on a DGE letter stating it found “no evidence” supporting the allegations against Evolution.
The judge ordered CK to disclose its client’s identity within seven days and later denied a stay pending appeal.
CK said in its appeal: “The trial court’s ruling, which it refused to stay for even a weekend to enable CK to seek a stay from this court, was based largely on (a) its demonstrably erroneous assertion that the DGE found that the report is false; (b) its decision to defer an assessment of the work CK did to find the report credible until after ordering disclosure of confidential information.”
The firm argued revealing its client’s identity would violate attorney-client confidentiality protected under Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6.
CK’s attorneys added: “Once confidential information is released, it cannot be undone. As the saying goes, the bell cannot be unrung.”
Here we go again…
This marks the second time the case has reached the Appellate Division.
In January 2023, the appellate court vacated an earlier order requiring disclosure, directing Judge Porto to first determine whether Evolution’s claims had “sufficient weight to overcome the strong policy interests underlying RPC 1.6’s general rule of nondisclosure.”
CK argues Judge Porto misinterpreted both the appellate court’s instructions and the DGE’s findings.
The firm added that the DGE merely said it was “unable to confirm” the report’s allegations, not that they were false.
Additionally, CK claims the judge failed to properly assess whether the firm acted with negligence or actual malice when forwarding the report, which is required for defamation claims.
CK said: “Submitting to law enforcement a report whose accuracy could not later be confirmed — which is all that happened here — is decisively different from publishing a ‘false’ report.”
The case raises significant questions about attorney-client confidentiality and whistleblower protections.
The law firm argued forcing disclosure would have “a distinct chilling effect on the flow of information to law enforcement.”
This, it said, would undermine New Jersey’s strong public policy in support of citizen cooperation with law enforcement.
Evolution’s lawsuit claims the report was deliberately false and damaged its business relationships.