Monday, July 06, 2009

This is the letter I wanted to send

A little background about this one is needed in order to understand what's going on here. This case is an object lesson of what can happen to you when you fail to note the warning signs that your boyfriend or girlfriend is not really the one you want to stay with (though it was been suggested that it is also a cautionary tale about internet dating that starts in the naughtier areas of Craigslist).

What should have been a little case of one side or the other acknowledging their mutual stupidity has become a full blown debacle in the courts, complete with its very own Judge Ito character. What the actual dispute is about, at this point, is irrelevant for what this has become.

As part of this, there has been, as in every litigation case, discovery. Lawyer D, for the other side, sent over some discovery requests. Lawyer D practices in an area of law where there is not much formal discovery. Parties tend to have to turn over stuff by law, unlike most other areas of law. Now, I've been doing civil litigation for a little while. I've seen some truly bad discovery (hell I can remember one case early one where I was spanked for some of the discovery I propounded).

But this discovery... this was truly awful. Like incomplete questions that just sort of trailed.... off. Making it very had to answer. But we did (my client and I). And just as we were about to serve the answers, we got a letter form the other side, saying that we were late and making all the usual threats.

Let me make one thing clear: we were not late. Not even close. So, with that explanation, here is the letter I wanted to send:

Nudnick, Schlemiel, and Schlemozel
Somewhere in California
California Zip

Dear Lawyer D:

I have received your letter earlier today wherein you stated that we have failed to respond to your discovery within the limits of the Code of Civil Procedure. Let me take this opportunity to meet and confer with you about this issue.

First, it is clearly apparent from your letter that you have never read any of the Code of Civil Procedure, much less the applicable portions you cite in your letter. If in fact you had, you would have noted that my client has 30 days to respond to your requests. Simply because you want the answers sooner does not mean that you are going to get them sooner.

Second, did you actually go to law school? And if so, did you actually graduate? If you had, you would have learned that just because you practice [specific type of law] does not mean that those rules apply to this area. This case is a [insert specific type of law] action. The rules you cite do not mean a fracking thing here. If you do not believe me, I will be more than happy to lend you a copy of the civil procedure. In fact, as you may have noticed, I have already photocopied and attached the relevant portions to this letter.

Third, if you are going to plagiarise my earlier meet and confer letters, you should at least take the time to understand the law and statutes which I cited.

Now, as to your demand that I produce everything you desire within 2 hours by personal service, I have to ask the following: are you smoking crack? Nowhere in the code does it require me to do anything of the sort. Try bringing this up to the discovery judge in [X] county. I will enjoy the look that the discovery judge will give you before he awards me attorney's fees and sanctions.



Unfortunately, I took out alot of the fun stuff. Sigh. Discovery judges can be such a humourless lot.

1 comment:

Colby said...

I say damn to the edit button and often wish I did not have to use mine.