Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerry
I have to say this part sucks big time. Since one of the major points of issue here is "good faith efforts on the part of the Sonics" you would like to keep that language used by the Judge out of everything you do. If she says it once she can say it again. The attorneys for the Sonics should be going out of the way to be as accommodating as possible and let the City and Ballmer be the obstructionist. They had the perfect chance to do this with the "FAO" requirement from the Ballmer group’s evidence but the Sonics seemed to have missed an opportunity to show just how uncooperative the City of Seattle has been.
Finally, if you agreed to a 10 day waiting period why would you try and file a motion before the 10 days was up? That seems kind of amateur. If you are going to file early then you need to put in your motion why think the 10 days waiting period will hurt your case. This is the first time in the whole case that I have been discouraged.
|
I disagree. This stuff is no big deal. Discovery disputes are par for the course in civil cases, particularly where there are big law firms on both sides. Here is where the big hours get billed.
The judge's ruling that documents marked "for attorney's eyes only" remain sealed is nothing really surprising. If those documents met the requirements for attorney/client privilege, then they're going to be sealed and that's all there is to it.
My guess is that there's plenty out there already to prove a conspiracy by the city. Lots of circumstantial evidence at the minimum.
Why that's important is that for Seattle to be asking for an equitable remedy, they must have "clean hands." Which means that Seattle, et. al., can't have participated in bad conduct themselves if they are asking the court to unwind the bad conduct of the PBC in this case.
Whether the PBC attorneys show good faith in discovery is really irrelevant to the disposition of the case. It has bupkiss to do with the merits.