From Judge Ana Reyes' (D.D.C.) Standing Order, a Helpful Guide to the Judge's Allusions

A judge's standing orders generally include various instructions to lawyers about procedural matters; here's an item from p. 4 of the 10-page standing orders from Judge Ana Reyes, newly appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; I include some of the preceding material for context:

f. Pre-Motion Conference. If a party wishes to file a dispositive motion, it must request that the Court schedule a pre-motion conference. To so request, the moving party shall submit a short notice via ECF, not to exceed six double-spaced pages in length, setting forth the basis for the anticipated motion, including the legal standards and the claims at issue. Other parties shall respond by filing, within one week, a document of similar length setting forth their anticipated responses to the proposed motion. The Court will review and discuss with counsel any anticipated summary judgment motions at the premotion conference. This requirement shall not apply to incarcerated pro se litigants.

g. Oral Argument.

i. A party may include a request for oral argument in its motion, opposition, or reply papers and, if this request is granted, counsel will be advised of the argument date. See LCvR 7(f). See supra ⁋ 6(d) for further information concerning oral argument.

ii. The Court understands that, for reasons passing understanding, not all counsel are fans of the Boston Red Sox. Counsel should be aware, however, that the Court may reference key moments in Red Sox history during oral argument. References may include: (a) Dave Roberts's steal; (b) Carlton Fisk's walk-off homerun; (c) Ted Williams's final at-bat; and, inter alia, (d) David Ortiz's "this is our [bleep] city" speech. Any reference to Game 6 of the 1986 World Series is strictly prohibited….

Thanks to Arthur Spitzer for the pointer.

Comments

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don't know why people who weren't funny before they took the bench think that putting on the robe will change that.

[Bored Lawyer]

Have you never noticed that lawyers tend to laugh at judges' jokes, even when they are not funny? It's an easy way to suck up to the judge.
So it's more a matter of having a captive audience that wants to please you, than actually becoming funnier.

[Pettifogger]

Bingo.

If they choose to leave the bench, I'll bet they find others don't laugh as much.

Correspondingly, I was in a firm that was joined by a federal district judge who stepped down from the bench. When he was on the bench, people would nod and say, "Yes, your honor" when he proclaimed "The law is X." But in our firm, one of us sometimes said, "You know, I don't think that's right." One has to make adjustments in life.

[santamonica811]

NaS,
But how does your (certainly correct, in general) point relate to this particular OP, where the judge in question *was* being fairly clever, IMO?)

[Noscitur a sociis]

I've got bad news for you, santanonica811.

[santamonica811]

Well, it can't be that I'm wrong about the humor quotient. If I find a joke funny; it's funny. Period. Full stop. If I find a comment unfunny, then how dare anyone else take it as humorous.

QED. Simple 2023 logic.

[CJColucci]

I've long wanted to be a judge because when you're a judge, all your jokes are funny. . . . I said, when you're a judge all your jokes are funny.
I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip the wait staff.

[Bob from Ohio]

Red Sox comment is merely pathetic, the requirement to file a motion before filing a motion seems very stupid and a huge waste of time and money.

[David Nieporent]

It's not a motion, and it's pretty standard in federal practice. It's a request to schedule a conference at which the proposed motion can be discussed. Sometimes the judge will read the letter and response and say, "There's nothing to discuss; go ahead and file your motion." Sometimes the judge will hold a conference, at which some of the issues can be resolved without motion practice. (For example, if the defendant intends to move to dismiss on Twiqbal grounds, the plaintiff can respond by saying that it will file an amended complaint that fixes the alleged deficiencies in the complaint. That saves the defendant the effort of filing a motion.)

[Carlos Inconvenience]

It's not a motion per se, but it does seem to contrary to the notions of efficiency and economy to have to file an up to six page document in order to have a conference to discuss a possible motion.

[David Bremer]

This. I understand requiring parties to submit a brief letter or have an informal conference before a discovery or other non-dispositive motion. But this does strike me as a mini-motion to file a motion.

Judges do this stuff, then bemoan how expensive it has become to try cases and how parties are always asking for extensions. Well judge, I could have saved at least 2 weeks of delay and 10+ hours of attorney time not having a separate pre-motion process.

[Bored Lawyer]

See my comment below. I don't think the time is wasted, though, because the research and much of the writing can go into the brief. If you spent 10 hours on the letter, that's (about) 10 hours less you would have done on the brief.

[David Nieporent]

If you're spending 10+ hours of attorney time on your pre-motion letter, you're doing it wrong. You're not supposed to be arguing the motion; you're just supposed to be setting forth an outline of your arguments, so the court and your adversary know the basis for the motion. Sometimes the judge can tell from the letters that your motion will be futile, and will strongly urge you not to make it. That saves time. Sometimes the judge can tell from the letters that — as I alluded to above — the motion will be successful. Then the plaintiff can go ahead and amend the complaint to plead additional facts, or dismiss one of the counts, or whatever, without the need for a formal motion. That saves time.

I don't think I've ever spent more than two hours on a PML.

(And as Bored Lawyer says, any work you do do for the motion can be used for the brief itself.)

[Bored Lawyer]

In my experience, the usefulness of a pre-motion letter depends on how much time a judge is willing to invest in dealing with it. I have had judges who read the letters, did the research and were thoroughly prepared for a conference. That often worked well to either eliminate the motion altogether, or narrow the issues.

Other times, judges just read the letter and then order, go brief it. In those situations, the added delay and time is not worth it.

[Scribe]

Laughing at the judge's jokes is not sucking up. It's preserving your client's chances of winning.

I guess Yankee fans ought not come to her courtroom. I wonder whether being a Yankee fan is enough to support a motion to recuse.

[Krychek_2]

According to her official Web page, she is often joined in chambers by her Golden retriever Scout, who has his own juris dogtor summa cum laude.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is this legal?

I know that judges (like professors) tend to consider themselves gods not answerable to mere mortals, but I can see some more senior judge on the DCDC with a bureaucratic streak saying "we have rules...."

Unless she has a psych disability and the dog is trained to help her.
But is a Judge with a psych disability "otherwise qualified"?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Do you think it's illegal to bring a dog into an office building?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm, yes....

[David Nieporent]

You should go back to veterinary law school.

[Pettifogger]

Q: How many federal judges does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Just one. He holds up his hand and the world revolves around him.

[Bored Lawyer]

"she is often joined in chambers by her Golden retriever Scout"

Great opportunity. Slip the dog some doggie snacks. Good way to get the judge on your side. 😉

[Jett's Pop]

OTOH, in SDNY and EDNY, discussion of Game 6 of the 1986 WS is probably required.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" (d) David Ortiz's "this is our [bleep] city" speech"

Notwithstanding questions of appropriateness in a Federal courtroom, the underlying incident was one of the few times that a Federal bureaucrat actually exercised good judgement.

It was a week after two Muslim immigrants had detonated two bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, a surreal week when much of the city had literally been under martial law. Nerves were shattered, and this was the first Red Sox home game after all of this. "Big Papa" was -- at the time -- one of the most popular players on the lineup and here is what he said:

"Alright, Alright Boston
This jersey that we wear today
It doesn't say Red Sox, it says Boston.
We want to thank you Mayor Menino, Governor Patrick and the whole Police Department
For the great job they did this past week.
This is OUR FUCKING CITY, and nobody gonna dictate our freedom.
Stay strong, thank you." [emphasis on those three words]

This was broadcast live on all the AM/FM radio stations which cover Red Sox Baseball games -- a network which literally extends all the way to Canada -- and then by other broadcast stations as news as this was some special event with politicians and such present -- it's a decade ago and I don't remember all the details, but this this went out with the verboten word, and EVERYONE said "YES"!!!

And the FCC wisely decided not to prosecute. Something about the emotion of the times and Ortiz "speaking from the heart" although it really was a wise decision on the part of the FCC...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkrhVAViL-E

[Noscitur a sociis]

"Big Papa”

Come on man.

[santamonica811]

re Big Papa [sic].
How to tell everyone that (a) you're not at all a sports fan, and (b) you have never been in Boston during baseball season, without actually saying those words.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Another mass shooting, and the Official Blog Of Right-Wing Gun Nuts wants to talk about . . .

this.

If gun enthusiasts do not help to find a way to improve this situation, better Americans will do it for them, and in ways the gun nuts probably won't like. Being on the losing end of a culture war and the wrong side of history will have consequences for clingers.

[Pettifogger]

Who's on first?

[Dr. Ed 2]

And eight Illegal Aliens killed by a SUV, not that Kirkland cares...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/seven-waiting-bus-stop-texas-bordertown-killed-struck-vehicle-rcna83263

[Noscitur a sociis]

From earlier in the order:

a. Format. Motions and submissions should be double-spaced, in 12-point, Times New Roman font, with page numbers and margins of no less than 1 inch, and two spaces between sentences.

I am now unironically angry.

[Bored Lawyer]

A lot of judges do things like that because lawyers try to circumvent page limits by playing games with margins, spacing, etc.

IMO, a word limit, which is the norm in federal appeals' courts, as well as a few other places (NY Supreme Court, Commercial Part) is a better way to go. You just certify at the end that you have no more than the limit in words. (Certain things -- captions, tables, certifications, signature blocks, don't count).

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don't have a problem with formatting requirements. But if you're going to be this detailed (and I can't recall seeing anything this strict before), then you should at least impose requirements that will produce a good-looking result, instead of a terrible one.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, the "two spaces between sentences" should be an impeachable offense, but otherwise this isn't unusually detailed at all.

[Bored Lawyer]

That's how I was taught. When you end a sentence with a period, you then type in two spaces. As I have done here.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It's how a lot of people were taught, including me. It's still wrong, unless you're using a monospaced font (and if you're doing that for a court filing, you've got bigger problems, and are violating Judge Reyes's rules anyway).

Have you ever seen a book, magazine, newspaper, or other professionally-typeset product that uses two spaces?

[David Nieporent]

Were you taught on a typewriter, with a monospaced font? If so, fine. Otherwise, no. You are bad and should be ashamed of yourself.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Oh also—while you might have typed two spaces when you were composing the post, you'll note that even Reason's abyssmal commenting software was sophisticated enough to fix it for you.

[John F. Carr]

"Plaintiffs' reply brief responded to my motion to dismiss about as well as Bill Buckner responded to Mookie Betts."

[David Nieporent]

Um, surely you meant Mookie Wilson.

[John F. Carr]

I surely do. I curse the GM who brought a second Mookie into Red Sox history. Since then I never remember which was which.

[ReaderY]

If the Boston Red Socks were a party to a case, would she have to recuse herself?

[David Nieporent]

"Socks"?

[Bill Poser]

Isn't it rather inefficient for individual judges to impose lots of detailed requirements? I understand this at, say, the circuit level, but surely it is a pain in the neck for lawyers to have to adapt to each judge's whims. I can see the occasional special case, e.g. a judge with a vision problem who wants a large font, but otherwise this seems like pandering to judge's egos at the expense of greater expense to clients and anxiety for lawyers and their staff.

[David Nieporent]

It may be inefficient for those attorneys running an assembly line practice, but that's usually a state court thing. In federal court there are a limited number of judges and regular practitioners get to know their rules pretty quickly (not to mention that they're all right there on the court's website). You check at the outset of the case and before you file something. It's not a big deal.

[Noscitur a sociis]

That is indeed my primary objection - I'm actually fine with Times New Roman (although I think 12 point is a little smaller than I'd like for screen reading, and if it's a gaming-the-page-limit thing, you don't need to prohibit making things bigger...).

[George]

I gotta love a fellow baseball fan, unless they are a Yankees or Giants fanatic.