To read State Farm’s response, one would think that it was mere coincidence that “undersigned [State Farm] counsel discovered the omission” of documents on August 3, 2009, just hours after the subject motion was filed by the Plaintiff.
Not knowing Bossier’s counsel, Judy Guice, I can’t say for certain when she developed her eagle eye, only that she has one and it is focused on State Farm’s counsel:
Indeed, State Farm’s counsel not once, in its response or in its letter to the Court of August 3, takes responsibility for withholding the ordered documents until after Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause…
Plaintiff should not be required to have his counsel’s time spent on checking and double checking State Farm’s work to ensure that Court orders are complied with.
That this strategy is intentional is obvious by the not only unapologetic but hostile response received from opposing counsel when discrepancies and omissions are pointed out…
Not only does Bossier’s Reply in Support of Motion for Order to Show Cause for Failure to Follow Court Order take State Farm’s counsel to task, Guice holds the Court’s feet to the fire:
This Court has issued death knell sanctions against plaintiffs for allegedly failing to answer discovery and comply with court orders concerning discovery. See, e.g., Prestia v. USF&G, Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-1432-LG-RHW at ECF 38 and 39. Defendant has shown no reason why substantial sanctions should not be levied against it for disobeying a valid order of this Court.
Just in case the Court missed the point, two days later Bossier Continue reading “Closing the barn door after the horse is out does not cure the original violation – Bossier v State Farm”
