A Friendly Correction for those Man-Haters who Delve to be Single

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

She hasn't "built a world where other people want to look at her naked." She's not responsible for what you or anyone else want. She lives in a world where a lot of people -- let's just call them men, since that's really who we're talking about -- want to look at women naked.

She's a freaking model. Her entire career is based on getting people to look at her mostly naked body. She may not be responsible for what men want, but her life is based on providing what want to men in exchange for money.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

She's a freaking model. Her entire career is based on getting people to look at her mostly naked body. She may not be responsible for what men want, but her life is based on providing that want to men in exchange for money.

I know a few women who like looking at naked women, too.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

lit tricks needed. so after waiting months for documents from a company that should have produced about 200000 pages we got 150. 30 b 6 Dep scheduled in a week. People are advising me to cancel the dep and move to compel. we already won a motion, judges don't slam these guys. I am toying with going into the dep with several docs they didn't produce, and asking about them. I can get 90% of what i need, just won't have the golden eggs I know exist. I will also be taking public ads they produced and asking whether there were no underlying memos/email about the creation. taking things they did produce, say a sketchy meeting notice and asking why we got no summary notes from the meeting. In short proving the production was incomplete, then moving to compel and to fly the witness to beautiful Detroit to complete the dep.

anyone have tricks or see landmines?

I'm in federal court about 70-80% of the time. I've done this both ways. If I really don't have enough to take the deposition, I'll cancel it - but I'll make sure to let the other side know that their failure to produce responsive documents forced me to cancel it.

But I think in this instance you go ahead with the deposition and reserve your right to re-take it should additional relevant documentation be produced. Did you include in your list of 30(b)(6) topics "information related to responding to doc requests, how the search was done to locate the responsive docs, and who was responsible for gathering and reviewing the docs before they were sent to counsel"? Basically get him to admit that there are a ton of docs that haven't been produced.

Did you get a privilege log?

Is the person they have designated also a fact witness?

Is this in front of Judge Hood or Judge Friedman?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I know a few women who like looking at naked women, too.

Good point.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

She's a freaking model. Her entire career is based on getting people to look at her mostly naked body. She may not be responsible for what men want, but her life is based on providing what want to men in exchange for money.

If you keep on with your victim-blaming, I'm going to organize a slut-walk in your office.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

lit tricks needed. so after waiting months for documents from a company that should have produced about 200000 pages we got 150. 30 b 6 Dep scheduled in a week. People are advising me to cancel the dep and move to compel. we already won a motion, judges don't slam these guys. I am toying with going into the dep with several docs they didn't produce, and asking about them. I can get 90% of what i need, just won't have the golden eggs I know exist. I will also be taking public ads they produced and asking whether there were no underlying memos/email about the creation. taking things they did produce, say a sketchy meeting notice and asking why we got no summary notes from the meeting. In short proving the production was incomplete, then moving to compel and to fly the witness to beautiful Detroit to complete the dep.

anyone have tricks or see landmines?

Just an fyi as an in-house lawyer. THIS SHIT HAPPENS TO ME ALL THE TIME.

We produce everything we have. Some douchebag lawyer decides we haven't. Asks all these questions... why aren't there memos, emails, notes, etc. etc. And the honest to god answer is BECAUSE THERE AREN'T.

It's not nefarious. It's just the way it is. People don't write shit down all the time. Only lawyers do that.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen

Just an fyi as an in-house lawyer. THIS SHIT HAPPENS TO ME ALL THE TIME.

We produce everything we have. Some douchebag lawyer decides we haven't. Asks all these questions... why aren't there memos, emails, notes, etc. etc. And the honest to god answer is BECAUSE THERE AREN'T.

It's not nefarious. It's just the way it is. People don't write shit down all the time. Only lawyers do that.

Correction: Only stupid lawyers do that.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I'm in federal court about 70-80% of the time. I've done this both ways. If I really don't have enough to take the deposition, I'll cancel it - but I'll make sure to let the other side know that their failure to produce responsive documents forced me to cancel it.

But I think in this instance you go ahead with the deposition and reserve your right to re-take it should additional relevant documentation be produced. Did you include in your list of 30(b)(6) topics "information related to responding to doc requests, how the search was done to locate the responsive docs, and who was responsible for gathering and reviewing the docs before they were sent to counsel"? Basically get him to admit that there are a ton of docs that haven't been produced.

Did you get a privilege log?

Is the person they have designated also a fact witness?

Is this in front of Judge Hood or Judge Friedman?

Rule in the locality I practice in is that there is no privilege with a fact witness but corporate designee yes. Some douches like to say a guy is a fact witness to prevent binding the corporation, then we go through a painful word by word of each conversation.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen

Just an fyi as an in-house lawyer. THIS SHIT HAPPENS TO ME ALL THE TIME.

We produce everything we have. Some douchebag lawyer decides we haven't. Asks all these questions... why aren't there memos, emails, notes, etc. etc. And the honest to god answer is BECAUSE THERE AREN'T.

It's not nefarious. It's just the way it is. People don't write shit down all the time. Only lawyers do that.

But he already has documents that are responsive that they didn't produce.

I'm sure Hank is a total douchebag and asshole when litigating, to say nothing of being a tool, because that's what litigators do, and so your rant is still totally appropriate. But it sounds like he's up against some douchebag, asshole, toolish Dishonest in-house lawyers.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But he already has documents that are responsive that they didn't produce.

I'm sure Hank is a total douchebag and asshole when litigating, to say nothing of being a tool, because that's what litigators do, and so your rant is still totally appropriate. But it sounds like he's up against some douchebag, asshole, toolish Dishonest in-house lawyers.

actually I bet the in-house guy is pretty straight. I bet he gave the firm 200K pages and they're the ones who winnowed it down. I bet.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

If you keep on with your victim-blaming, I'm going to organize a slut-walk in your office.

I like watching sluts walk.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen

Just an fyi as an in-house lawyer. THIS SHIT HAPPENS TO ME ALL THE TIME.

We produce everything we have. Some douchebag lawyer decides we haven't. Asks all these questions... why aren't there memos, emails, notes, etc. etc. And the honest to god answer is BECAUSE THERE AREN'T.

It's not nefarious. It's just the way it is. People don't write shit down all the time. Only lawyers do that.

Not writing stuff down is the way to go. Then you can say whatever you want at your deposition.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Rule in the locality I practice in is that there is no privilege with a fact witness but corporate designee yes. Some douches like to say a guy is a fact witness to prevent binding the corporation, then we go through a painful word by word of each conversation.

Last time time I was in the E.D. of Michigan, I had an opposing counsel consistently tell me that his 30(b)(6) witness could only answer my question "if he knows" on behalf of the corporation even when I was asking about a specific topic in the deposition rider for which the witness had been designated. It's really frustrating to explain to two over-50 lawyers exactly how a 30(b)(6) deposition works on the record. "Given how old you guys are, you really should understand how this works."

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Isn't it exciting?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Not writing stuff down is the way to go. Then you can say whatever you want at your deposition.

sure but in a big company it's the way to get fired. everyone writes memos to say that this other guy agreed with the first guy's decision that selling this widget is a good idea. CYA