Defendant makes defamatory statement about the plaintiff in answer to discovery

[Thelitigator]

I have a question about a clause in the stipulated agreement that the plaintiff is to not do a laundry list of communication towards the defendant. After all of this, it says one line that the obligations are mutual for both parties. Would the way that it's written cause a judge to be biased towards the defendant if this ever were to come to court? It looks very accusatory and hostile towards the plaintiff even though the line after everything makes it legally mutual.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Would the way that it's written cause a judge to be biased towards the defendant if this ever were to come to court?

No, unless you get a very bad judge.

 

[quincy]

I have a question about a clause in the stipulated agreement that the plaintiff is to not do a laundry list of communication towards the defendant. After all of this, it says one line that the obligations are mutual for both parties. Would the way that it's written cause a judge to be biased towards the defendant if this ever were to come to court? It looks very accusatory and hostile towards the plaintiff even though the line after everything makes it legally mutual.

You could ask that the clause be re-worded to say something like "neither plaintiff nor defendant should do [laundry list].

 

[Thelitigator]

You could ask that the clause be re-worded to say something like "neither plaintiff nor defendant should do [laundry list].

The language gets rather messy when using the 'neither plaintiff nor defendant' describing contact with each other's mother and extended family. It makes it confusing as to whether or not one would be able to still have contact with one's own extended family and mother without additional language.

"....Plaintiff, are permanently enjoined from contacting, harassing, and communicating with, by any means, Defendant, her Mother, her immediate and extended family members, Defendant’s employer,"Any tips how to deal with this or does the last line about mutual obligation really make this 100% mutual in the eyes of the court?