I can't believe we made it to Friday.
Let's get right to it:
I Scribd this so you can click on the link, but Magistrate Judge Brown has scheduled a hearing on whether or not the plaintiffs in the toe-tapping lawyer case can unilaterally cancel a Court-ordered hearing.
Can this get any better?
(I'm thinking YES IT CAN)
Here's a highlight:
Plaintiffs are completely disingenuous when they claim they will not waive any matter that is properly before the jury ... they already have!Ok, sounds like the Court has already determined the issue -- so why is there a half-hour hearing on the hearing again?
Unfortunately, plaintiffs wish to "kill an ant with an elephant". The real issue is the scope of the hearing. Filings of proposed testimony to be offered by defendant (which may or may not be allowed at the hearing) do not change the scope of the hearing. It will be governed by the Joint Motion of the parties (D.E. 698) and subsequent Order of the Court (D.E. 706). In large part, plaintiffs are correct -the hearing is to resolve question(s) surrounding the documentation supporting claims. Defendant will not be permitted to take a position at this hearing that it has not taken prior to the filing of the Joint Motion. However, the task of determining whether the items at issue are covered under the policy clearly is an issue at this hearing. Undoubtably, plaintiffs have understood this all along. See, e.g, D.E. 964.
In other news, you need to be at the right place at the right time, oy with this Carl Paladino, and salt turns out to be good for you.
Have a great weekend!