Yesterday, Judge Walker issued an Order passing on Judge Senter’s marching order to Gagne as Judge Senter intended. Walker indicated he would consider the need for a similar pass along to State Farm once he reviewed Gagne’s response.
…In the Order, the Court directed the undersigned to reconsider Plaintiff’s request for certain documents and information. The Court further suggested that an in camera review of documents might serve to resolve the issues surrounding the underlying…Motion to Compel and…Motion for Review.
To this end, the Court directs Plaintiff to identify which documents he would like for the undersigned to consider for in camera inspection. In so doing, Plaintiff should identify with as much specificity as possible those documents to which he feels he is entitled but which are being withheld by Defendant.
The Court will then consider which, if any, of these requested documents should be produced byDefendant for in camera inspection.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit to the Court and counsel opposite a list of documents for which he seeks in camera review. This list shall be submitted on or before January 20, 2009, at noon.
Merlin Law, co-counsel for Gagne versus State Farm, strikes me as a firm that prepared for such an outcome before filing Gagne’s request for the Court’s review of Walker’s earlier order.
No doubt State Farm did likewise. In fact, a careful reading of their response to Gagne’s motion to compel suggests such preparation.
“Distortion of the record, by deletion of critical language in quoting from the record, reflects a lack of the candor required by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3 (1983), wastes the time of the court and of opposing counsel, and imposes unnecessary costs on the parties and on fellow citizens whose taxes support this court and its staff.”…Playing fast-and-loose with the facts is wholly inappropriate and an insufficient basis to support Plaintiff’s untimely motion.
Anyone else wish there was a camera on PACER or some other way to see the face of the person entering this in the system – surely it wasn’t done with a straight face!
On a related note, defendant Exponent filed a Motion to Strike 12 of the exhibits that Gagne included in response to the engineering firm’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Once we have Gagne’s response, we’ll dig into the specifics; but, needless to say, this is just the kind of case gutting motion that has been the subject of recent comments.