KENSINGTON, Md. -- The lawsuit brought by the $295 million Lafayette Federal Credit Union against a former CEO, Bill Brooks, and his son continues to move slowly through the courts. In the latest twist the Brookses have accused the CU of trying to deliberately slow the litigation to increase legal costs.

Lafayette has brought suit against both its former CEO and his son, also a former CU employee, over breach of contract and other complaints related to the CU's failed attempt to convert to a mutual bank.

According to a motion brought by the Brookses, they have sought to depose a sitting member of the credit union's board and a former member, only to have them either not come to the deposition at all or, when they arrive, refuse to answer any questions absent both Brookses' signatures on a confidentiality agreement.

In their motion, the Brookses charged they had a scheduled a date and location to take a deposition from Thomas Harmon, a sitting member of Lafayette's board, and that they had also scheduled a deposition from Norm Cohen, a former member. The Brookses contended in the pleading that Harmon never appeared and that Cohen refused to answer questions on the advice of the CU's attorney.

The credit union in a brief has countered that it has been the Defendants that have not cooperated in discovery. They pointed out that Harmon is a Virginia resident and that the proper procedure for subpoenaing Harmon had not been followed. The CU also complained that the Cohen deposition had not taken place because Brooks Jr. has not agreed to sign a confidentiality agreement.

Although the credit union has not filed a response to the Brookses' motion as of press time and its lawyers have not yet responded to a request for comment on the matter, documents attached to the motion indicate that the center of the CU's objection to deposition seems to be Brooks Jr.'s refusal to sign a confidentiality agreement.

Lafayette has objected to the possible release of confidential information in these depositions, which might then be shared with the press. The Brookses and their lawyers have countered with what they say is a willingness to sign a confidentiality agreement but that Brooks Jr. is not. Brooks Jr. has not been attending the depositions and has stated he has no interest in seeing any Lafayette documents. The credit union has argued to the Brookses that this is not good enough.

In their pleading the Brookses argued that the confidentiality objection is really a smokescreen that is meant to hide the real purpose of the whole lawsuit, which has been, they contended, to drain their resources and punish them for their opposition to the conversion.

The Brookses contended that the CU's litigation is meant to punish one side of a public debate and deter future opposition in similar debates, a tactic often known as a Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation or SLAPP suit. Such litigation works by running up the costs of defending a matter before the courts to such a great amount that, when the defendants usually wind up winning the case, that victory has often come at a very high price.

"Defendants cannot defend this litigation without deposing LFCU's board members, who have knowledge of the case's key issues," argued the Brookses' motion. "Recognizing this, LFCU has simply stopped producing its witnesses for deposition," the brief argued.

Brooks Sr. sought to make a similar argument in his first brief against the lawsuit earlier this year, but the judge ruled against him. The judge has made no decision on whether the lawsuit against Brooks Jr. constitutes a SLAPP action.

For its part, LFCU denied that it has filed a SLAPP suit and charged that it has followed the court's rules in trying to handle the deposition question.

The credit union contended that the deposition fracas has just been the latest part of a strategy on the part of the Brookses to stall and avoid the deposition process and to make the credit union look bad in the eyes of the court.

"Defendants' tactics are clear," Lafayette wrote in its brief. "After being told by the court that his discovery responses were evasive, delaying, avoiding, antagonizing and generally not complying with the letter and spirit of the discovery rules, and after the Court signed an Order to Compel which Defendant essentially ignored, Defendant has continued and is in fact escalating that same type of behavior by doing it in such a way as to try to make it appear that Plaintiff is the one delaying discovery. Nothing could be further from the truth."

The CU added that it has released 3,000 pages of documents in the case so far and that the CU is cooperating with trying to set up dates for the deposition of other board members.

The CU also noted in its brief that the Court has previously criticized the Brookses for not cooperating with discovery, quoting in part:

"I've read all the contested answers to interrogatories from Senior and Junior and it's clear to the court that the defendants were not legitimately and thoroughly trying to answer the questions. In fact, they were basically not answering the questions properly and being evasive, being cute, and not in any way complying with the letter or spirit of the discovery rules."

Lafayette has also sought to subpoena this reporter and the Credit Union Times in support of its case against the Brookses.

[email protected]