Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Second Amended Complaint Filed by Evans, Finnerty, Seligmann Attorneys; After Judge Beaty Allows Amended Complaint
Topic Started: Feb 20 2010, 12:35 AM (1,261 Views)
Quasimodo

duke09parent
Mar 10 2010, 07:37 PM
Amazing to me how slow this case is moving. In my state (Virginia) the guideline in state court is to try a case within a year of its filing, which is sometimes breached for difficult cases. In Federal court the fuse is shorter.

No trial date set?
886 days since Evans v. Durham was filed (Oct. 5, 2007)

And still no decision on whether or not there are grounds for the case to proceed and not be dismissed.


Quote:
 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 1. - Scope and Purpose
These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81. They should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.


It appears that anyone without substantial independent resources would never be able to sue and bring their case before a jury in this district. (JMOO)

How would a person without means ever be expected to be able to sue a city or county government in NC in a federal court?


Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 10 2010, 08:08 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
(a) Required Disclosures.
(1) Initial Disclosures.


(A) In General. Except as exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties:

(i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information — along with the subjects of that information — that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;

(ii) a copy — or a description by category and location — of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;

(snip)

(C) Time for Initial Disclosures — In General. A party must make the initial disclosures at or within 14 days after the parties' Rule 26(f) conference unless a different time is set by stipulation or court order, or unless a party objects during the conference that initial disclosures are not appropriate in this action and states the objection in the proposed discovery plan. In ruling on the objection, the court must determine what disclosures, if any, are to be made and must set the time for disclosure.

(snip)

(E) Basis for Initial Disclosure; Unacceptable Excuses. A party must make its initial disclosures based on the information then reasonably available to it. A party is not excused from making its disclosures because it has not fully investigated the case or because it challenges the sufficiency of another party's disclosures or because another party has not made its disclosures.

---------------------

IIRC, Plaintiffs have asked for a Rule 26 (f) conference and that has not been granted yet. . . Still. . . After 886 days...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
And still no decision on whether or not there are grounds for the case to proceed and not be dismissed.


And let me repeat that this isn't rocket science. A single photo of Nifong demonstrating the non-existent choke hold is enough to
pierce his alleged immunity as DA.

'nough said.

(It doesn't require 886 days to figure that out...)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply