As reported by the ABA and bloggers, "Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker “strode off the bench” as lawyer Stephen Bomse was beginning a new sentence in his argument on behalf of civil rights groups that were fighting production of documents, the Legal Pad blog reports. Bomse remained at the lectern for a second before turning to collect his things, the blog says."
Though the judge did not say why he left the bench, bloggers speculated that he "did not appear to be pleased to be reminded of the several times the 9th Circuit has overruled his orders in this case." More than a matter of pride, such tactics undermine the attorney's credibility and ultimately his client's best interests.
Moreover, this event illuminates the value of discovery -- the process of information exchange between the parties -- and the distaste all courts have for games during it.
Under California's Civil Discovery Act, the parties are required to exchange relevant information to avoid "trial by ambush" and safeguard against gamesmanship, surprise, and delay. The Discovery Act is also designed to provide an effective means of detecting and exposing false and sham claims and defenses (citations omitted).
When the parties argue about these things, they undermine this purpose usually before the very person who is to decide the ultimate issues in the case. Rarely is this done to protect legitimate interests, and so is a tactic leading to an inference of hiding something. As such, argument about burdens in discovery are best kept narrow and specific, rather than broad allegations of relevance.
I don't know the specifics of the arguments here, but I can feel the judge's exasperation!
No comments:
Post a Comment