Perfect For A Friday: Magistrate Judge Brown Offers "Diatribe" on "Speedbumps"!

Hey, I don't write this stuff.

But I'm sure glad to be able to share it, so let's dig into a nice Friday lovenote from Magistrate Judge Brown on that elusive "meet and confer" rule we always seem to be talking about:
First, the Court will address compliance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). It was not properly complied with in this situation. Indicative of how this case is being litigated is the statement by plaintiff that there is no “authority for the proposition Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) requires counsel to discuss every detail of an anticipated request to the Court with the opposing party.” (Reply p. 5).  What part of “good faith” is counsel missing? It’s not “an anticipated request to the Court” that this rule is about, it’s about a discovery disagreement between the parties that, in most cases, should be worked out/compromised between professional parties without the need for the Court to act as referee. It is not “anticipated” until after the parties are unable, using the aforementioned good faith,to compromise. The rule does not exist as some speed bump counsel must travel to run to the Court - it exists because problems should be worked out wherever and whenever possible before coming to the Court. This rule exists so the parties will discuss exactly and entirely what their problems are to try to resolve them before running to the Court . . . not to go through some charade so as to cross the “speed bump” and run to litigate some more. While this diatribe is directed to plaintiff’s counsel, given the history of this case, it is not one-sided. The Court must agree that the parties can’t agree on who is signing this order, much less anything else. Were it not for that fact, this motion would be denied without further comment.
 'Nuff said!

BTW, did the Judge say "speed bumps" or "my humps"?

Oh well it's Friday:


  1. plaintiff's counsel is represented by:

    Jin Zhi Star Lt. LLC represented by Jeffrey N. Golant
    1000 W McNab Road
    Suite 150
    Pompano Beach, FL 33069

  2. This judge likes to see his name in lights. Unless your last name is Scalia and you are a member of that Supremes group that did not make "Stop In The Name of Love" famous, your legal opinions should be well written without any sarcasm directed at the litigants or in this case, the audience that might read them on some blog. This piece, and his other opinions that have been publicized in this blog, leave the impression of a jurist who is bored to tears and is playing to the peanut gallery.

  3. Judge Brown has lost respect for the power of his post. He wields that power with whim and self-interest, and that negatively impacts public perception of the integrity of the Federal courts.

  4. The power of the peanut.

  5. Nothing wrong with Judge Brown that would not be remedied by a larger brain, better command of the law, and about four more inches in height. Thank God he will be gone soon.

  6. Slow down folks. Ok, so he is a little melodramatic sometimes in his orders, but he was 100% right here. Don't be bitter because you are guilty of the very offense that the magistrate is bashing in the order.

  7. I actually agree with 9:01 here -- why is it so hard to have a meaningful meet and confer?

  8. While biting, the order makes no sense. In bitterly contested litigation where the parties can't agree on anythin, the meet and confer rule is a speed bump, it is that simple. It would be all well and good if the nice lawyers would just work togather and the judges could play golf, but clients' pay us to be advocates, and it is an adversarial system after all.


Post a Comment