Thursday, April 01, 2010

A chronological timeline of discovery events

The Defendant’s lawyer issues discovery.

The Plaintiff's lazy attorney forgets about it.

The Defendant’s lawyer file a motion to compel Plaintiff’s Lawyers to respond to Defendant’s Discovery

The Plaintiff’s lawyers recognizes the Defendant’s lawyer is a dickd and wait until the day before to respond to the discovery requests. By Messenger. Arriving 3 minutes before the close of business.

The Plaintiff’s lawyer talk to the Plaintiff after responding to discovery.

The Plaintiff’s lawyer learns that there are instant message and e-mail conversations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

The Plaintiff’s lawyer read these conversations and discover that they contain the Defendant admitted to fault.

All of the Plaintiff’s lawyers do a little jig of happiness.

The Plaintiff’s lawyer supplement the responses to Defendant’s discovery. (Without drawing any attention to the Defendant’s admissions.)

The Defendant’s lawyer writes the Plaintiff’s lawyer this letter:

Dear Mr. Pamby:

I have received your supplemental response to Plaintiff’s discovery. I have had an opportunity to review the disclosed documents and find them to have no relevancy whatsoever bearing on the issues. What you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Quite frankly, I am uncertain why these documents were produced but be advised that I will motion the court in limine to bar production of any of these documents at trial.

Very truly yours,

Opposing counsel
The Plaintiff’s lawyer writes back:
Dear Opposing:

I’m a bit puzzled by your letter. I may be a young attorney, new to this whole “reading” thing. I also know the evidentiary rule of relevance. I’m not sure if it was covered at your law school, but I am also keenly aware of the court’s view on party admissions.

I may be mistaken, but I do believe a party saying “It’s all my fault, I made the mistake and I caused the accident” is relevant, admissible and subject to your production request asking for all statements of the Defendant (FYI: that’s your client)

If you are aware of some law, fact or coherent rambling that says differently, please let me know. I am eager to learn.

Very truly yours,

The Plaintiff’s lawyer’s partner says no to the snark.

The Plaintiff’s lawyer sends an innocent letter. But punches the buttons of the fax machine with all of that pent up snark.