Must be the remains of two lawyers who crossed a Mississippi judge. Background: a casino owner’s resistance to discovery in a bus-crash suit [Freeland, court order]
Posts tagged as:
discovery
Trial courts should do more to police “oppressive” discovery requests, according to one state’s high court. [Abnormal Use]
{ 1 comment }
Reader John B. alerts us: “If you haven’t already seen it, there’s excellent Overlawyered-type rhetoric from Justice Kennedy in Monday’s Supreme Court opinion on debt collectors’ liability under federal statutory law. Unfortunately it’s in the dissent (PDF).”
Wrote Kennedy:
[The Court's decision today] aligns the judicial system with those who would use litigation to enrich themselves at the expense of attorneys who strictly follow and adhere to professional and ethical standards.
When the law is used to punish good-faith mistakes; when adopting reasonable safeguards is not enough to avoid liability; when the costs of discovery and litigation are used to force settlement even absent fault or injury; when class-action suits transform technical legal violations into windfalls for plaintiffs or their attorneys, the Court, by failing to adopt a reasonable interpretation to counter these excesses, risks compromising its own institutional responsibility to ensure a workable and just litigation system.
{ 2 comments }
Is the Japanese company super-extra-resistant to discovery demands, or is it just behaving the way other automakers would, backed up by a Japanese legal environment that is less oriented than ours toward compulsory disclosure-on-demand managed by hostile lawyers? Michael Fumento: “it’s clear from the article that the ‘experts’ upon whom the journalists relied aren’t just lawyers, aren’t just trial lawyers, but are trial lawyers suing Toyota.”
{ 6 comments }
And a train wreck results, after a Massachusetts lawyer “allowed the client to dictate a misguided strategy involving excessive and improper discovery requests that did not materially advance the client’s cases but did generate large hourly-based fees for the respondent.” [Legal Profession Blog]
{ 1 comment }
- Already-infamous Coakley-for-Senate rape-ad mailer: did they really line up all those photo permissions? [Lopez, NRO] Earlier on photo-permissions legal exposures here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.
- “Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Peyton Thomas: Blame the Libertarians!” [Balko, earlier]
- Georgetown lawprof Robin West takes such a rude tone with homeschoolers, it’s enough to make you wonder who brought her up [Common Room, Izzy Lyman/Big Journalism, "The Harms of Homeschooling" (PDF)] Parents charged with child endangerment for homeschooling their kids without submitting lesson plans [Albany Times-Union]
- Videogames and the ADA: “Sony Launches Defense to Gamer’s Equal Access Suit” [OnPoint News, earlier]
- Regulations may spell end for independent New England fishermen [AP/MSNBC, earlier]
- Veteran California pol Willie Brown criticizes civil service entrenchment [Kaus] Government employment has its privileges [Stuart Greenhut, Reason]
- New Jersey appeals court reverses $260K award over student’s fatal window fall at Fairleigh Dickinson U. [Star-Ledger]
- Georgia federal judge orders plaintiff to pay $268K costs of discovery for stretching patent claims [Fulton County Daily Report]
{ 9 comments }
You may have seen some of them before, but probably not all six unless you hang out on YouTube a lot. [Erin Geiger Smith and William Wei, Business Insider]
{ 1 comment }
Tampa: “When medical malpractice lawyer Michael J. Trentalange asked St. Joseph’s Hospital for every ‘adverse incident’ report made since the hospital opened in 1934, the hospital pushed back hard. In July, the hospital sued him, and Trentalange sued right back, the Web site Health News Florida reported.” (AP/Sarasota Herald Tribune via White Coat).
{ 1 comment }
Boston lawyers recall a very strange sexual harassment lawsuit in which the defendant’s CEO “wore a different Halloween costume to each day of his [six-day] deposition”. [Zach Lowe, AmLaw Daily]
John Steele at Legal Ethics Forum finds much to unpack in a lawyer’s statement defending his zealous advocacy in a California discovery dispute.
According to LawDork, proponents of California’s Proposition 8 are planning to engage in some seriously broad discovery [PDF, see pages numbered 11-12] in their defense of the law against constitutional challenge:
We plan to develop evidence that many gay and lesbian individuals desire to have biological rather than adopted or foster children, and that many satisfy these desires with the assistance of technology or by other means. We will seek discovery of the names of Californians in registered domestic partnerships with the parents listed on birth records from the Department of Health’s Office of Vital Records (which maintains birth records) and the Secretary of State’s Office (which maintains domestic partnership records). We may also seek discovery from companies and organizations that offer assisted reproductive technology and services to develop evidence on this issue.
Translated, this seems to mean they will make public records officials cough up the information needed to cross-check California birth against domestic-partnership records to “catch” people whose names appear in both data sets and thus appear likely to be gay parents. In case that doesn’t do the trick, they want to force assisted-reproduction clinics to disclose information about their clientele. Wow.
P.S. In answer to several questions, no, Ted Olson and I are not related.
{ 2 comments }
There’s an old legal joke that goes: “If you’re weak on the facts, pound the law. If you’re weak on the law, pound the facts. If you’re weak on both the facts and the law, pound the table.”
Except the entrepreneurial trial bar has found an intermediate step: instead of pounding the table, pound the discovery requests. Persuade a judge that a discovery snafu was really a deliberate attempt at a cover-up, and get sanctions that prohibit the other side from defending itself. Because plaintiffs rarely have discovery obligations that are more than an infinitesmal fraction of a defendant’s discovery obligations, this can be a profitable strategy.
The strategy is not new–I saw it myself first-hand in the 1990s defending GM, and wrote a piece about a trial where John Edwards successfully used a variant. But as discovery gets more and more complex due to emails, voicemails, and instant-messaging, it becomes easier for the discovery snafu to happen, and it becomes harder for judges to distinguish between good-faith mistakes and bad-faith withholding of documents. You may recall a famous example in Florida where Morgan Stanley was precluded from introducing evidence about a transaction involving Sunbeam before the appellate court threw out the entire case.
A recent example of this sort of gamesmanship is going on now in Florida where a group of lawyers representing Ecuadorian shrimp farmers came up with a brand new implausible theory of their case–now alleging that runoff from a formulation of a Benlate fungicide that stopped being used in 1991 is what caused their damages in the mid-to-late 1990s, all so they can claim to a judge that DuPont’s failure to produce documents about this marginally relevant formulation (which was effectively identical to the other formulations, except it included two inert ingredients) deserved sanctions. And sure enough, the court ordered a civil death penalty: all of DuPont’s defenses have been stricken, even though there is no scientific evidence that fungicide runoff caused the virus that killed many Ecuadorian shrimp. (Aquamar S.A. v. DuPont, Case No. 97-020375 (Broward County, Fla.))
A similar case involving Goodyear and a civil death penalty sanction that resulted in a $30 million verdict is pending in the Nevada Supreme Court.
{ 5 comments }
Installments 3 and 4 of the ER doctor’s saga deal with his preparation for being deposed, and the deposition itself (earlier).
Because hostile lawyers will be looking for them in discovery: “We’re going to do this differently than normal,” “I don’t want to discuss this in e-mail. Please give me a call,” “Don’t ask. You don’t want to know,” and seven more. (Roger Matus’s Death By Email, Dec. 2)(& Schwartz, Sylvester/Wichita Eagle).
{ 1 comment }
If, like Eric Albritton, you’re a successful Texas lawyer who wants to claim that critical postings on the Patent Troll Tracker blog caused you “embarrassment, humiliation, mental pain and anguish,” you might actually have to document that. (Molly McDonough, ABA Journal, Nov. 3; earlier).
{ 1 comment }
- Thanks to guestbloggers Victoria Pynchon (of Negotiation Law Blog) and Jason Barney for lending a hand last week;
- Will the U.S. government need to sponsor its own motorcycle gang in order to hold on to trademark confiscated from “Mongols” group? [WSJ law blog]
- With a little help for its friends: Florida Supreme Court strikes down legislated limits on fees charged by workers’ comp attorneys [St. Petersburg Times, Insurance Journal]
- Stripper, 44, files age discrimination complaint after losing job at Ontario club [YorkRegion.com, Blazing Cat Fur via Blog of Walker] The stripper age bias complaint we covered eight years ago was also from Ontario;
- Federal judge green-lights First Amendment suit by college instructor who says he was discriminated against for conservative political beliefs [NYLJ] (link fixed now)
- Judge orders parties to settle dispute over noisy parrots after it reaches £45,700 in legal costs [Telegraph]
- How to make sure you’re turned down when applying for admittance to the bar [Ambrogi, Massachusetts]
- Questions at depositions can be intended to humiliate and embarrass, not just extract relevant information [John Bratt, Baltimore Injury Lawyer via Miller]
{ 8 comments }
When Congressional investigators come calling, or hostile lawyers begin trawling in electronic discovery, guilty and not-so-guilty alike can be caught in the net:
It’s the folks who are just chattering and venting to colleagues about normal business tensions who are most at risk. The computer doesn’t capture the wink or head nod. It doesn’t say “this is my first reaction…when I have considered everything in detail, I’ll give you my final opinion.” Etc.
(h/t Pete Warden, from whom more).
{ 5 comments }
