Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Let's Have A Meet and Confer!



Has anyone heard about that case involving the (alleged) toe-tapping lawyer?

Well for you junkies and obsessives, in rolled the defendants' response to an attempt by the plaintiffs to cancel an evidentiary hearing (not the toe-tapping one, which I believe is still on).

Plaintiffs allegedly filed their notice of cancellation without conferring first with the defendants, prompting this love note:
OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE

Plaintiffs failed to confer with INA regarding their Notice in violation of Local Rule 7.1.A.3.  Had Plaintiffs done so, INA would have informed them of the pending Court Orders, Plaintiffs' obligations pursuant to those Orders, and the lack of any basis upon which Plaintiffs could conceivably attempt to unilaterally cancel a COURT ORDERED evidentiary hearing.  INA would further have informed Plaintiffs that their actions were sanctionable.  Due to the Plaintiffs' failure to confer with INA regarding this relief, Plaintiffs violated Local Rule 7.1.A.3 and this Court should strike the Notice.
Boy, that would have been some conference!

I'm not singling anyone out, but I often say it's pointless to have a "conversation" with someone who is unwilling to entertain the possibility that they could be wrong, that maybe they missed something, who is unwilling to be persuaded through open and collaborative inquiry, and who is just waiting for you to stop talking so they can continue their argument.

That's why I find so much of the political intertubes chatter to be so utterly lame.

However, through intertubular magic, we now bring you the missed "conference" described by defendants above:

Plaintiffs' Counsel ("PC"):  Hi, we're thinking about cancelling that big evidentiary hearing and wanted to confer with you about that.

Defendants' Counsel ("DC"):   (silence)

PC:  Hello, is this thing on?

DC:  (building.....)

PC:  Aaah well, ok, just wanted to let you know.   Have a nice.....

DC:   (slowly, through clenched teeth)  There are two pending Orders.  You have obligations pursuant to those Orders.  There is a lack of any basis upon which you could conceivably attempt to unilaterally cancel a COURT ORDERED evidentiary hearing.  Your actions are sanctionable. 

PC:  So glad we had a chance to talk!

DC:  Wait, did you see Glee last night?

PC:  (click)

10 comments:

  1. the whole meet and confer requirement is such a waste of time. I get it in theory, but all it does is provide one more opportunity for gamesmanship.

    ReplyDelete
  2. i want to meet and confer with kimmie.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Professionalism is the last refuge of scoundrels

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wholly aside from the fact that you cannot "notice" the cancellation of a court-ordered hearing, does L.R. 7.1 require a meet and confer prior to the filing of a "notice?". I thought it applied to certain delineated motions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Noticing the cancellation of a court ordered hearing is a new one even for this ridiculous case.

    ReplyDelete
  6. State court hacks don't get it. You neither notice, nor cancel a hearing in federal court. The Judge holds hearings when he/she wants. That's it. Not up to you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Some of the federal Mags in Miami have insituted procedures where by parties can notice discovery disputes for hearing; never seen those procedures used for an evidentiary hearing. But this may be a hearing the was in fact noticed by a party. I hate to think any compotent lawyer would think the could simply cancel a court ordered hearing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As I understand it, the argument is that the evidentiary hearing is an agreed-upon method to resolve disputed issues informally(?) via an ADR-type process. Thus, if one party breached the agreed-upon terms for having that informal evidentiary resolution, the other can back out and insist on a jury trial.

    Or something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The ass award, however, goes to Charles De Leo of Fowler White Burnett in Miami. This man has the personality of a car accident. For him to be voted to manage that firm reflects how some boards will unknowinlgy drive their own company into the ground. A bigger ass cannot be found in Miami.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What's up it's me, I аm also vіѕiting this website regularly,
    thіs site is truly nice and the visitors аre
    genuіnely sharіng fastіԁious thoughtѕ.


    mу ωeb site ... Chemietoilette

    ReplyDelete