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' NOTICEBoy, that would have been some conference!
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.
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?
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?