![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
twisted court case twist
Mar. 24th, 2007 10:52 pmJust when I think this can't get any stupider, it does. In today's mail I got a copy of a document that his attorney filed on the 21st. It's basically a shopping list for documents and people. There are no names, addresses, phone numbers, individually identified documents, no stipulation as to what--if any of it--is in his posession. And yes, the rules require this level of detail, which she completely fails to provide. And the kicker is the insurance stipulation.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that govern discovery (Rule 26(a) for those playing along at home) require that all parties declair if they have insurance to cover any potential liability incurred in the course of the case. Instead of saying if he has insurance or not, she points out that I had homeowner's insurance, and then says "and lacks standing to bring the instant action".
Now, there's no "therefore" or other overt word or phrase linking that final statement to the fact that I have homeowner's insurance in any sort of conclusitory or cause and effect manner, but the presentation makes her intentions unmistakeable. And unbelieveably stupid.
Now, in the counter claim, one of the allegations is that I don't have standing (legal basis) for my complaint. But, of course, there's no reasoning as to why I don't, it's just a statement in a vacuum. Until now. At the earliest, she didn't have to bring this up until June 21, which is the deadline for Dispotive Motions and the last day she has to file a Motion to Dismiss. Instead she shows her hand now, which means I can quash this arguement immediately in my reply to the counter claim.
So, time to switch gears. I have to write a Motion to Compel to ask the Court to make her to produce a list of actual names and addresses and to admit what documents he's actually holding--if any, and if that's the case, get him to make a definitive statement about that too. If I write that tomorrow and file it on Monday, then by Wednesday or Thursday I can call her office and ask if she wants to settle. And the best part is I can legitimately do this before she even sees my reply to the counter claim.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that govern discovery (Rule 26(a) for those playing along at home) require that all parties declair if they have insurance to cover any potential liability incurred in the course of the case. Instead of saying if he has insurance or not, she points out that I had homeowner's insurance, and then says "and lacks standing to bring the instant action".
Now, there's no "therefore" or other overt word or phrase linking that final statement to the fact that I have homeowner's insurance in any sort of conclusitory or cause and effect manner, but the presentation makes her intentions unmistakeable. And unbelieveably stupid.
Now, in the counter claim, one of the allegations is that I don't have standing (legal basis) for my complaint. But, of course, there's no reasoning as to why I don't, it's just a statement in a vacuum. Until now. At the earliest, she didn't have to bring this up until June 21, which is the deadline for Dispotive Motions and the last day she has to file a Motion to Dismiss. Instead she shows her hand now, which means I can quash this arguement immediately in my reply to the counter claim.
So, time to switch gears. I have to write a Motion to Compel to ask the Court to make her to produce a list of actual names and addresses and to admit what documents he's actually holding--if any, and if that's the case, get him to make a definitive statement about that too. If I write that tomorrow and file it on Monday, then by Wednesday or Thursday I can call her office and ask if she wants to settle. And the best part is I can legitimately do this before she even sees my reply to the counter claim.
