It was the wrong thread

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Really? I read it as Reinhardt being pissed that a district court ruling he surely likes will have to be dismissed for lack of standing at the appellate level so that it cannot be given broader application outside California.

I'll wait for Atticus to weigh in, but whom exactly were they supposed to sue other than state officials, when only state officials are charged with implementing the law? They could sue Atticus's kids, but wouldn't they have been dismissed as defendants for not being proper defendants?

It seems like the strategy was entirely explicable--they knew that the state wasn't going to defend the law so you sue the defendants that you know are going to lie down anyway.

I agree, sort of. If Boies and Olson view their clients as gays in California, they took an approach more likely to assure them a victory.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Wholly disagree. First, the attorney that said she knew it was privileged but did nothing, violated established CA law that she had to notify and return the inadvertently disclosed information. Second, they lie. They are attorneys. Even the taint equals stink. And that story made G&R stink.

2.

"I realized it was probably privileged, but . . . did nothing" because it was no big deal, but some information derived from the privileged communications ended up in the Complaint.

Bad, bad, bad.

S_A_M

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Really? I read it as Reinhardt being pissed that a district court ruling he surely likes will have to be dismissed for lack of standing at the appellate level so that it cannot be given broader application outside California.

I'll wait for Atticus to weigh in, but whom exactly were they supposed to sue other than state officials, when only state officials are charged with implementing the law? They could sue Atticus's kids, but wouldn't they have been dismissed as defendants for not being proper defendants?

It seems like the strategy was entirely explicable--they knew that the state wasn't going to defend the law so you sue the defendants that you know are going to lie down anyway.

Why not seek a writ of mandamus to require the government officials to take action on the state's behalf?

I ask this question blissfully unburdened by any of the facts surrounding the controversy.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Really? I read it as Reinhardt being pissed that a district court ruling he surely likes will have to be dismissed for lack of standing at the appellate level so that it cannot be given broader application outside California.

I'll wait for Atticus to weigh in, but whom exactly were they supposed to sue other than state officials, when only state officials are charged with implementing the law? They could sue Atticus's kids, but wouldn't they have been dismissed as defendants for not being proper defendants?

It seems like the strategy was entirely explicable--they knew that the state wasn't going to defend the law so you sue the defendants that you know are going to lie down anyway.

"Waaah! I'm Steven Reinhardt, and I wish everyone would litigate their cases in the specific manner that minimizes the power of the legislative and executive branches, and makes the judicial branch the ultimate decider of all controversies of our time! Waaah!"

As for a writ of mandate, there are all kinds of abstention doctrines that make it hard to go to a federal court to order a state official to do a particular thing. There are allowances for state court writs in California law, but these also show respect for the idea that judges decide things after they happen and are very bad at directing things to happen -- something Reinhardt apparently missed in judge school. But the plaintiffs here were in federal court and can't rely upon the Cal. Code Civ. Proc. sections on trial court writ practice.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Secret_Agent_Man

2.

"I realized it was probably privileged, but . . . did nothing" because it was no big deal, but some information derived from the privileged communications ended up in the Complaint.

Bad, bad, bad.

S_A_M

hmmm, could simply be bad dep prep. the one smoking gun is whatever caused them to know the date of the meeting. if they actually used the email, that's bad.

and PS, color me bad but when someone inadvertently discloses priv. shit I think the duty is on the discloser to find out and raise it. most protective orders I've seen do not put a burden on disclosee to look careful to make sure it's okay to keep.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

"Waaah! I'm Steven Reinhardt, and I wish everyone would litigate their cases in the specific manner that minimizes the power of the legislative and executive branches, and makes the judicial branch the ultimate decider of all controversies of our time! Waaah!"

As for a writ of mandate, there are all kinds of abstention doctrines that make it hard to go to a federal court to order a state official to do a particular thing. There are allowances for state court writs in California law, but these also show respect for the idea that judges decide things after they happen and are very bad at directing things to happen -- something Reinhardt apparently missed in judge school. But the plaintiffs here were in federal court and can't rely upon the Cal. Code Civ. Proc. sections on trial court writ practice.

since that all took place under DADT didn't the Ps have a duty to STFU anyways, or they lose standing or something?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

and PS, color me bad but when someone inadvertently discloses priv. shit I think the duty is on the discloser to find out and raise it. most protective orders I've seen do not put a burden on disclosee to look careful to make sure it's okay to keep.

The ethical rules of the jurisdiction in question may reverse that burden though.

At this point, I have a hard time keeping MN, WI, DC and NY straight, but at least one of them has such a rule.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

At this point, I have a hard time keeping MN, WI, DC and NY straight, .

That's too many bars to have. Obvious of sign of overcompensation for a small penis, no offence; which explains other issues. Hank takes Extenze. Talk to him.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

That's too many bars to have. Obvious of sign of overcompensation for a small penis, no offence; which explains other issues. Hank takes Extenze. Talk to him.

I'm not a member of the WI bar, or yet MN, but I recent went to a CLE that covered this issue for both states.

Also, I have a tiny pecker.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm not a member of the WI bar, or yet MN, but I recent went to a CLE that covered this issue for both states.

Oh, carry on then.

Originally Posted by Adder

Also, I have a tiny pecker.

I know. Hank told me.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

and PS, color me bad but when someone inadvertently discloses priv. shit I think the duty is on the discloser to find out and raise it. most protective orders I've seen do not put a burden on disclosee to look careful to make sure it's okay to keep.

You too can have a Court kick you off a case:

For cases following State Fund, HN18there is an ethical duty immediately to disclose inadvertently received privileged information. More precisely, an attorney who inadvertently receives plainly privileged documents must refrain from examining the materials any more than is necessary to determine that they are privileged, and must immediately notify the sender, who may not necessarily be the opposing party, that he is in possession of potentially privileged documents.

Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 116 Cal. App. 4th 51, 69 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2004)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

You too can have a Court kick you off a case:

Can someone ask Hank if MI actually has no law about this? I'm actually curious, and he has me on ignore.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Can someone ask Hank if MI actually has no law about this? I'm actually curious, and he has me on ignore.

Well, I'll quote you. Even though he "put" me on ignore at the same time as he put you on, I think he must have been drinking and mistyped, because every time I post he won't shut up.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Can someone ask Hank if MI actually has no law about this? I'm actually curious, and he has me on ignore.

I'm a mod. Ignore is more a restraint thing. Other than being sworn in I've never worked in state court. I assume 6th circuit rules would apply in the mi part of my docket but of course my practice is national in scope.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'm a mod. Ignore is more a restraint thing. Other than being sworn in I've never worked in state court. I assume 6th circuit rules would apply in the mi part of my docket but of course my practice is national in scope.

Wrong. You are governed by the MI rules of professional conduct.