Post One Hundred Sixteen: Crucifying dishonest plaintiffs' attorneys is fun

Yesterday, I attended a hearing on the parties' respective Motions for Clarification and the Plaintiffs’ Fifth and Sixth Motions to Compel in one of my cases. This was one of those hearings that really had the potential to make me feel guilty about being paid to do my job.

The primary focus of the hearing stemmed from the Court’s signing of an order submitted by plaintiffs’ counsel that purported to compel the production of various records and corporate representative depositions from our client. The problem with the plaintiffs’ proposed order was that the court had made no such rulings. The judge, stating that he did not remember what rulings had been made, decided we had to go through the plaintiffs’ order to determine what he had decided. It was a shame for plaintiffs’ counsel, however, that we had a transcript of the parties’ understanding of the Court’s rulings which made it very easy for him to decide what was what.

As we went through the plaintiffs’ proposed order, no fewer than nine express misrepresentations of the Court’s rulings were uncovered. As you might guess, the judge was very disturbed by this (even leaving the courtroom at one point), particularly after he learned that I had written plaintiffs’ counsel setting out my objections to their proposed Order, copied the Court, yet plaintiffs’ counsel did not note these objections when they submitted the order. One of the two plaintiffs' attorneys repeatedly attempted to play ignorant, saying "he wasn’t at the original hearing," yet this only succeeded in throwing his partner under the bus (who was sitting right there). The judge repeatedly asked why these "rulings" were included in the order, which were met with explanations that they "thought" that was what was ruled. Again, the transcript put the lie to this proffered explanation.

The judge also expressed incredulity at the fact that the plaintiffs have done nothing to work up substantive aspects of this case, instead focusing on rabbit trails like a patient tracking system, various allegedly missing electronic medical records (which there aren't), and the emergency room log. The judge emphasized that there would be no continuance of our current trial date, and that at the rate they were going that the plaintiffs would not be ready to go.

Plaintiffs’ counsel moved on to their Fifth Motion to Compel which sought to compel several corporate representative depositions and, incredibly, authorization to send their own computer expert into our client's offices to search for records on their client. With respect to the corporate representative depositions, plaintiffs’ counsel quickly settled (no doubt due to the fact that they really wanted to get out of there) for a single representative regarding a very narrow topic. This was an immense (and quite favorable) narrowing of the scope of the originally sought topic that was incredibly overbroad. All other corporate representative depositions plaintiffs sought to compel in this motion were abandoned without an attempt at argument.

With respect to the computer expert, the Court again expressed bewilderment about what the plaintiffs actually expected to find from this. The judge held that if the plaintiffs really wanted to go forward with this, they would have to tender this alleged expert at a future hearing to explain exactly what it was they expected from him, but that he was not inclined to allow this to happen.

Finally, the plaintiffs argued their Sixth Motion to Compel, which sought patient information from 200+ patients that presented to the ER the same day as their client. The intent, as explained by plaintiffs’ counsel, was to second-guess the urgency status of each patient in relation to their client's medical status. As I explained to the Court, if this rabbit trail were followed we would be in trial forever in order to develop testimony from every patient, nurse, and doctor detailing each patient’s medical condition and presentation as well as the decision-making process on the urgency status. Unsurprisingly, the Court agreed and denied the motion to compel in its entirety.

This was a really good day for my firm and our client in front of the judge, who will no doubt not forget plaintiffs’ counsel’s actions up to this point. Tack on the fact that these two plaintiffs' attorneys (moreso one than the other, to be fair) have been condescending assholes up to this point, and it was a very good day for me.

I need more days like that.