California / Diversity
Hi!
So, we've been involved in the usual federal litigation fun. You know, exhausting, revolting, seemingly endless... etc., etc.
The opposing counsel, in our view, has been playing it pretty fast and loose. My father is a lawyer, semi-retired, but still active in the Bar, and he has been involved in helping out from the start.
His perspective is that it has been just amazing. He was a comp lawyer, and even by the rather rough and tumble standards of that specific field, he's been blown away by the antics in this litigation.
We (me, my business partner, and my father) all sat through the three main depos as observers, and there had to be something like 18 abrupt walk-outs by opposing counsel, many with question pending. Then a huge number objections, including tons of speaking objections. Then arguing with the interpreter, and/or correcting her translations, even though she was the only certified court translator in the room. In our view, just a total circus.
On top of that, amazing behavior regarding written discovery. For example, initially answering all RFA's with a single, boilerplate objection. Designating as "confidential" or "Attorney's Eyes Only" every single document in the first volume of their production (including our own emails that we had sent to the opposing party!!).
You get the idea.
Anyway, just focusing on the depositions for the moment, I'm really curious how other professionals in the field might view the conduct.
Frankly it is way past time for anything like Rule 37 sanctions, but still would like to know if we're the ones who are crazy for thinking the conduct has been outrageous.
If I can figure how to post the transcripts, I will. Or maybe a link?
Hi!
So, we've been involved in the usual federal litigation fun. You know, exhausting, revolting, seemingly endless... etc., etc.
The opposing counsel, in our view, has been playing it pretty fast and loose. My father is a lawyer, semi-retired, but still active in the Bar, and he has been involved in helping out from the start.
His perspective is that it has been just amazing. He was a comp lawyer, and even by the rather rough and tumble standards of that specific field, he's been blown away by the antics in this litigation.
We (me, my business partner, and my father) all sat through the three main depos as observers, and there had to be something like 18 abrupt walk-outs by opposing counsel, many with question pending. Then a huge number objections, including tons of speaking objections. Then arguing with the interpreter, and/or correcting her translations, even though she was the only certified court translator in the room. In our view, just a total circus.
On top of that, amazing behavior regarding written discovery. For example, initially answering all RFA's with a single, boilerplate objection. Designating as "confidential" or "Attorney's Eyes Only" every single document in the first volume of their production (including our own emails that we had sent to the opposing party!!).
You get the idea.
Anyway, just focusing on the depositions for the moment, I'm really curious how other professionals in the field might view the conduct.
Frankly it is way past time for anything like Rule 37 sanctions, but still would like to know if we're the ones who are crazy for thinking the conduct has been outrageous.
If I can figure how to post the transcripts, I will. Or maybe a link?
