| More examples of inefficiency; --a judge allowing discovery! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 10 2010, 10:44 AM (319 Views) | |
| Quasimodo | Mar 10 2010, 10:44 AM Post #1 |
|
More examples of inefficiency! (from Nov., 2008) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NORTHERN DIVISION NO. 206-CV-49-F BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC and BLACKWATER LODGE AND TRAINING CENTER, INC., Petitioners, RICHARD P. NORDAN, as Ancillary Administrator for the Separate Estates of STEPHEN S. HELVESTON, MIKE R. TEAGUE, JERK0 GERALD ZOVKO, and WESLEY J. K. BATALONA, Respondent. ORDER This matter is before the court on a petition for order directing arbitration [DE-11 filed by Petitioners Blackwater Security Consulting, LLC and Blackwater Lodge Training Center, Inc. [collectively, "Blackwater"] and a motion to dismiss the petition [DE-61 filed by Richard P. Nordan, as Ancillary Administrator for the separate estates of Stephen S. Helveston, Mike R. Teague, Jerko Gerald Zovko and Wesley J. K. Batalona [collectively, "Decedents"]. These matters are now ripe for disposition. (snip) Since the stay was lifted, the Superior Court has not ruled on Blackwater's motion to dismiss,but has allowed a motion by Nordan to proceed in discovery with the deposition of a witness in Alaska (snip) Since removal of the stay, the state court has allowed limited discovery and entered a temporary restraining order preventing further steps toward arbitration. The state court has not ruled on Blackwater's motion to dismiss, which includes as grounds for dismissal the fact that Nordan's claim for recision is subject to arbitration. Analyzing these circumstances from a practical perspective, the state court action was initiated first, but has not progressed on the issue of arbitration. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 10 2010, 10:46 AM Post #2 |
|
Another one! This is the html version of the file http://beckermanlegal.com/Documents/elektra_doe_080702Order.pdf. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIYISION NO.5:08-CY-115-FL ELECTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC, CAPITOL RECORDS INC., SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, UMG RECORDINGS, INC, WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN DOE, Defendant. ) ORDER Plaintiffs have filed nearly identical complaints against this defendant, and others named as defendants in the prior pending action, and many of these actions have been assigned now to me. In this case, and one other, bearing court file number 5:08-CY-116, defendant has moved to dismiss, to strike plaintiffs' affidavit, to quash subpoena, and to stay enforcement ofthe subpoena addressed to North Carolina State University. (snip) In all cases before this court, the undersigned has allowed plaintiffs' expedited motion for discovery. Several of the cases assigned to me, all originating out of the prior pending action, recently have been closed upon voluntary dismissal. (snip) While motion to dismiss was raised on behalf of defendants denominated as Does # I, # 18, #19, #26, #31, #33, #35, and #38, and denied, it is unclear whether defendant in either court file number 5:08-CY-115 or court file number 5:08-CY-116, were among those Does in the prior action, and, moreover, the basis for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12 is argued in these cases on grounds not fully raised in court file number 5:07-CY-298. Accordingly, a fresh look at the arguments in support of and in opposition to the motion to dismiss before the court, and attendant motion to strike, is called for. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 10 2010, 10:53 AM Post #3 |
|
http://www.tribune-democrat.com/local/local_story_323233959.html Published: November 18, 2008 11:39 pm Murtha seeks immunity from suit By KIMBERLY HEFLING THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON — A Marine who sued U.S. Rep. John Murtha for defamation urged a federal appeals court Tuesday to order the Johnstown Democrat to testify under oath in the case. (snip) Zaid said he wanted to find out what Murtha said to other people, such as his neighbors and fundraisers, about the Haditha slayings. He said the deposition would last about three or four hours, but he said it wouldn’t be a fishing expedition. “We don’t know what we don’t know,” Zaid said. (snip) Last year, a federal judge ordered Murtha to give a sworn deposition in the case. Murtha appealed, and at issue also during Tuesday’s hearing was whether it was appropriate for the case to even be before the appellate court. [How does anyone in the lax case know whether or not the entire actions of the city of Durham do not constitute malice sufficient to pierce their immunity, if they are not allowed to ask questions about what those actions were? Maybe depositions need to be permitted before deciding the immunity issue? Those depositions would not be a fishing expedition, but would focus on extremely narrow periods of times and on specific actions--taken or not taken.] |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 10 2010, 10:56 AM Post #4 |
|
[why not the following order for the present cases?] "In the instant case, given the defendants' demonstrated propensity for loss and or destruction of evidence; inability or unwillingness to produce discovery; and attempted concealment of exculpatory evidence; and the heightened concern therefore for the preservation of evidence relevant to this case over the course of this litigation, limited discovery will therefore be permitted." |
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 10 2010, 12:06 PM Post #5 |
|
Damn, Quas. You better stop that. You might become a cynic like me and conclude that the metanarrative was what counted more than the impartial administration of The Law. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |






7:14 PM Jul 10