If law is a sport, welcome to the Super Bowl with Freeland v Rideout shooting word-filled cannons down field like they were Manning and Farve.
Rideout held Team Moultie scoreless in the first quarter and Moultie came back in the second.
The score was even at the half.
While the “devil is in the details,” Carothers and Moultrie apparently agree that the correct statement of the test to be applied by the court is that quoted by Carothers in its original Memo and likewise quoted in full by Moultrie in his Memo. As stated by the Court in United States v. Ball:
[I]n order for the court to authorize Rule 17(c) subpoena, the moving party must be able to describe specific documents, or, at least specific kinds of documents. [cit.] Moreover, the moving party must specify why the materials are wanted, what information is contained in the documents, and why those documents would be relevant and admissible at trial. (citations omitted). Without detailed information on the requested documents, a court is only left ‘to speculate as to the specific nature of their contents and relevance.’ (citing United States v. Arditti, 955 F2d 331, 346 (5th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added)
With the butt-kicking rebuttal filed today, Rideout has pulled Team Carothers so far ahead in the third, it’s going to be hard for Moultrie to catch up. Continue reading “Carothers files rebuttal to Moultrie's response and makes it a ballgame!”