The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"There Will Be No Rambo Tactics, Acerbic Shrillness, or Other Forms of Elementary School Behavior"
From Judge Fred Biery's Court Advisory, this one from Nine Line Apparel, Inc. v. Sergio, but apparently normal for his cases:
As this case begins, the Court wishes to apprise counsel and the parties of the Court's expectations concerning the conduct of discovery and other matters:
- Subject to matters of privilege, the Court expects the parties to engage in full and open discovery, laying all cards on the table with the goal being the early and less expensive resolution of this dispute for the benefit of the parties. See generally FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1) and W. DIST. LOC. R. CV-16 and CV-26 through CV-37.
- There will be no Rambo tactics, acerbic shrillness, or other forms of elementary school behavior. Simply put: Do not play games.
- Make time for earspace, i.e. talking and listening as opposed to texting and emailing.
- If necessary, the Court will require the party wishing to withhold information to present those items in camera to the Court. Should it be determined that discovery of those items should have been made, the Court will impose appropriate penalties.
- The Court observes, and counsel are well aware, that a trial, appeal and reversal and remand for new trial would result in each side being aware of the opponent's evidence. It would appear to be more efficient and less costly for the clients simply to make discovery early in the case, regardless of whether the information is hard copy, computerized, etc.
- In this modern environment of artificial intelligence, counsel are reminded of traditional obligations of professional responsibility to be honest with the Court and opposing counsel, regardless of drafting methodology employed. The signature of counsel on all pleadings constitutes an affirmation that all of the pleading contents have been validated for accuracy and authenticity.
This is followed by an excerpt from the Texas Lawyers' Creed, promulgated by the Texas Supreme Court in 1989:
I am passionately proud of my profession. Therefore, "My word is my bond." I will be courteous, civil, and prompt in oral and written communications.
I can disagree without being disagreeable.
I will conduct myself in court in a professional manner and demonstrate my respect for the Court and the law.
I will treat counsel, opposing parties, the Court, and members of the Court staff with courtesy and civility.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Strong agree, if there is actually bite to that bark.
90% of discovery disputes are wasted energy and posturing. Gamesmanship in search of a solution. But the reason it continues is both because of the adversarial nature of litigation, and because judges almost never bother to appropriately penalize attorneys for discovery shenanigans.
To be clear, those shenanigans go both ways: withholding things that should've been disclosed, and demanding an absurdly burdensome amount of disclosure.
One tends to feed off the other. Lawyers for recipients of discovery requests interpret them narrowly, and lawyers propounding discovery know that. So they draft very broad requests.
IMO, the discovery system is broken and needs an overhaul.
One judge that I was once before said, "I don't do discovery. Everyone just produce everything relevant. If you don't produce it, you can't use it."
It's not the right approach, but it's an approach.
If you don’t produce it, you can’t use it
Did it actually work, though?
That's already Rule 37, but it only works for half of the equation. If Party B wants to use something, precluding it because Party A failed to produce it isn't actually a sanction.
No Rambo tactics? after I spent all that time getting qualified with the M72 LAW???
Frank "THERE ARE NO "FRIENDLY" CIVILIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Frank, I don't know how they shot those movies, but there is NO WAY you could possibly fire a .50 cal auto without it bolted to something weighing a few tons.
Video showing M2 being fired from a 34 pound tripod not bolted down to anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PSkA0P7OgY
I’m sure the See Generally will benefit greatly.
It should read "benefit of the parties. See generally".
That is one of the several places where there is not a complete sentence. As this was written by a judge, I like to think that some of this got truncated.
You don't have to wonder. The actual document is linked, and the actual document is written correctly. The excerpt is truncated and incorrect.
Yes, sorry for the error, fixed.
Prof. Volokh's recent focus on civility seems difficult to square with his operation of a blog that features a nonstop stream of various forms of bigotry*, calls for violence**, etc. -- with nary a discouraging word from the proprietors about the incessant bigotry and disgusting threats, except when a Volokh Conspirator occasionally censors a liberal for saying something mean about conservatives.
These guys seem to have a severe problem navigating the nuances of normal human interaction.
Carry on, clingers.
* Racial slurs, trans-bashing, misogyny, antisemitism, Islamophobia, immigrant-hating, gay-bashing, etc., with a special emphasis on vile racial slurs, a recurring feature of the Volokh Conspiracy (roughly one a week this year, so far)
** Calls for liberals to be placed face-down in landfills, gassed, shot in the face as they open front doors, exterminated, raped, sent to Zyklon showers, shoved through woodchippers, etc.
Only one a week? You post several times a day.
There has been roughly one episode (post with comments) each week of publication of a vile racial slur by the Volokh Conspiracy this year. That's 37 exchanges, not just 37 racial slurs -- many of the exchanges included multiple vile racial slurs.
You figure it is my fault that Prof. Volokh and his fans habitually launch vile racial slurs?
No, I figure it is your fault that you habitually launch such vile slurs.
Antisocial, disaffected bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties . . . and the target audience of a white, male, polemical right-wing blog with a scant academic veneer.
Yes, because you're such a prick. How a disgraced former Foo-Bawl Coach (and not even a Head Coach) from a mediocre conference (more like sub-mediocre) has the Co-Hones to call anyone a "Klinger" is beyond my Spock-Like powers of logic.
Frank
There appears to be some words missing from this part of the blog post after the word opponents. Missing period also.
"The Court observes, and counsel are well aware, that a trial, appeal and reversal and remand for new trial would result in each side being aware of the opponent's It would appear "
Item 6 mentions AI and talks about "validated for accuracy and authenticity". That sounds like they are expected to use AI to validate. I suspect that the intention was the opposite, to forbid AI from authoring or validating.
I've said before that this lacks a definition of AI. An AI can perform spell checking., and future spell checkers can reasonably be expected to merge with other AI abilities. Surely, the judge did not mean to forbid spell and grammar checking.
The intention was neither. The intention was to say that the attorney must validate anything s/he submits, including stuff generated by AI.
I don’t see any indication the judge meant to forbid anything (which is why a definition of “artificial intelligence” isn’t necessary). Rather, I take his point to be a reminder that, regardless of how a filing is generated, the attorney who signs it is responsible for its content.
No dark sarcasm
In the classroom
Hey, teacher!
Leave those kids alone!
You forget that the line before is "we don't need no thought control.'
This same judge who now decries "elementary school behavior" and invokes a creed's references to "conduct[ing] myself in court in a professional manner" and "demonstrat[ing] my respect for the Court and the law" said the following during a hearing last year: "I follow Judge [Lucius Desha] Bunton’s rule about 5th Circuit opinions: ‘They can reverse me if they want to, but they can’t make me read it,’ which I’m glad you all have read it. But I also—if my recollection is correct, none of those fine judges have ever tried a case or dealt with what we deal with on the street. But, anyway, what do I know?"
https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/texas-federal-judge-proclaims-that-he-doesnt-read-5th-circuit-opinions-before-second-reversal
Medice, cura te ipsum.
He means “sardonic”, not “acerbic”. Judges like acerbic.