Monday, April 23, 2012

You Mean There Are Deadlines in that Mag's Scheduling Order?


When Magistrate Judge Simonton enters a Scheduling Order that has language that is both bolded and underlined, does that mean anyone should really pay any attention to it?

I certainly don't think so:
The Order Setting Trial and Pre-Trial Schedule (DE # 11, the “Scheduling Order”) entered in this case establishes expedited procedures with respect to discovery motions. This requirement is set forth in bold and underlined at page three of the Scheduling Order.
Ok ok, but my office staff screwed it up:
First, defense counsel in the Verified Motion has attributed his failure to comply with the bold and underlined briefing requirements in the Court’s four-page Scheduling Order to his lack of knowledge of its contents, and otherwise points to clerical staff in his office as the responsible parties. The Verified Motion states that the Court’s briefing requirements were “never documented. This resulted in [defense counsel] being unaware that an expedited response to Plaintiff’s discovery motion was required” (DE # 25 at 4-5) (emphasis added). This statement is, at best, discouraging; counsel states that he had no knowledge of the Court’s deadlines because others in his office failed to properly review and summarize the Scheduling Order for him.
 Ok ok ok, so maybe I should have read the darned thing too.

But what about the fact that CM/ECF spit out a different deadline?

That's gotta mean something!
Moreover, the undersigned rejects out-of-hand Defendant’s secondary explanation that CM/ECF had generated a later due date for the response to Plaintiff’s Expedited Motion to Compel, which Defendant attaches as Exhibit 1 to its Verified Motion. In this respect, the undersigned observes, in the same bold and highlighted paragraph on page three of the Scheduling Order containing the briefing requirements, the immediately concluding sentence, which states, “Any contrary deadlines that may appear on the Court’s docket or the attorneys’ deadline report, generated by CM/ECF, cannot serve to modify this Order” (DE # 11 at 3).
 Oh boy.

7 comments:

  1. I am generally quite happy to see an insurance company lose, but this one seems a bit unfair.

    First, the client did nothing wrong, the lawyers did.

    Second, how about helping out the law firm on this one...why subject them to a malpractice case if there is a way around it.

    Cold blooded decision - it makes you wonder if the judge would have done it to one of the bigger guns in town.

    Will be interesting to see if Altonaga does not overrule it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Who was the lawyer?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Seems like the Mags get nastier and nastier with their orders.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Seems like the Mags get nastier and nastier with their orders.

    ReplyDelete
  5. SIMPLY AMAZING!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Federal practice. rules more important than substance.

    ReplyDelete