Magistrate Judge Goodman Mines for Classic Rock Gold!

Gentlemen and ladies, please hold your groans applause until the very end:
If the well‐known, vinyl era rock bands Bad Company and Blind Faith had merged to form a super group, then the hypothetical new band might have been called Bad Faith, which would satisfy Plaintiff’s burden to obtain the spoliation sanctions he seeks. Or the imagined musical group could have chosen to combine the precursor bands’ names and called itself Blind Company. That could be a colorful, hyperbolic yet somewhat accurate description of how Plaintiff portrays Defendant Miami‐Dade County’s (the “County”) handling of his written request to preserve video surveillance footage of his arrest ‐‐ the focal point of this case ‐‐ and the circumstances leading up to his detention.
Oy veh gott im himmel!

I give the Good Judge Goodman serious props for creativity and knowledge of supergroup rock history.

(BTW, I'm partial to Beck, Bogert & Appice.)

Keep digging, Judge!

(Second BTW -- if you think you've had a bad time at MIA recently, read the allegations of what happened to Jason.)


  1. Goodman needs to edit his orders down. No need for that or any order (especially a discovery order) to be 40 pages.

  2. He needs a self-editor.

  3. DBR reads you to inform itself the news to print

  4. I love the part of the story where Wander argues that while he was being detained, "handcuffs were unnecessary because he is a member in good standing of the Florida Bar, had never been arrested before, and was not a flight risk." Ummm, he was AT THE AIRPORT loudly arguing with anyone who would listen that he should be allowed on the next scheduled flight. If that's not a "flight risk," I don't know what is!

  5. 3:11, here's proof you're right.

  6. Bad case of Robitis. Only cure is knock off trying to inject personal interests into judicial opinions.

    Humor (and rock references) in judicial orders usually falls flat.

    This is a good illustration of that principle.

  7. Ha ha Magistrate Judge! We are all greatly inpressed with your grasp of rock history.

    But the litigants feel like you are riffing away and not taking their concerns as seriously as they think you should be.

    So judge, what do we tell our clients? How do we convince them you really are taking the case seriously and not just having your fun at their expense?

    Obviously I have to post this anonymously because we know you don't appreciate having your pronouncements questioned. Sorry.


Post a Comment