A local drone pilot violated FAA regulations. Is this going to be a new practice area? [LasVegasNow]
Paul Padda’s Sue My Boss billboards are getting attention. [WXYZ]
Here’s an article about how the Strava app revealed locations of military bases. Is tech like this going to have an impact on legal offices? [Scientific American]
Drone/UAV law already is a burgeoning area of practice on the coasts. I have taken 4 hours of CLE on it in the last 18 months. It is an interesting area.
Opinion of the masses: Case pending for 4.5 years. You have a trial starting in 2 weeks. Discovery has been closed for a year. Pretrial Disclosures and PTM filed 60 days ago. Calendar Call is done.
This morning you find something on the Internet which is damning to the opposing party and really helpful to your case– Plaintiff had a preexisting, undisclosed car accident. Do you disclose it in a Supplemental Disclosure? Do you try to get it into evidence even though it is a late disclosed exhibit after all of the exhibit binders are at the Court already? Or do you figure it is too late to disclose it and just bury it?
Disclose, and try to get it in. You might have a shot at it if the Plaintiff was asked about this during discovery and failed to disclose or lied about it. If the right questions weren't asked during depo or in interrogatories then you might be out of luck but there is no reason not to try.
Too relevant to stay out. The court might question why you did not find it earlier. But NRCP 26(e) states that you not only have the right but the duty to supplement when you find relevant documentation.
(e) Supplementation of Disclosures and Responses. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 16.1 or 16.2 or responded to a request for discovery with a disclosure or response is under a duty to supplement or correct the disclosure or response to include information thereafter acquired, if ordered by the court or in the following circumstances: (a) if the party learns that in some material respect the information disclosed in NRCP 16.1 Disclosures is incomplete or incorrect and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing. (b) a prior response to an interrogatory, request for production or request for admission where the response is in some material respect incomplete or incorrect and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.
This is relevant and important. I think you HAVE TO bring it to the Court's attention and get it into evidence. And is the other side really going to claim unfair surprise over information that the other side had in their possession and never disclosed to you?
Seriously, if the other side failed to disclose something so incredibly relevant during discovery when asked about it, this would potentially be grounds for terminating sanctions, not just late admission. But if you didn't ask and there was no duty to disclose, it's a harder argument. You'll have to show it wasn't reasonably available until now.
Pick up the phone and call the other side. Tell them what you've got and see if they'd like to take your last offer. Do this without telling the carrier what you've found. This way you will look like a hero to the carrier, the other lawyer gets out of a bad spot (and now owes you a favor), and you get to go on vacation in two weeks instead of sitting in a courtroom wasting hours and days of your life that you will never get back. Problem solved.
@12:33 It was available on the Internet but somehow just was discovered by us. On the other hand, Plaintiff has known this fact since it happened and never disclosed it.
@1:01– Did that. They aren't moving because they do not believe that we will be able to get it in.
1:01 here. Well, that was kind of dumb of them, because there is a very good chance that it will come in regardless of the circumstances. And for all I know this could have been an accident from years ago involving completely different body parts, etc., but juries don't like it if they think someone is trying to pull a fast one by concealing something like that.
Did the plaintiff have a duty to disclose this if he or she wasn't asked? I have zero personal injury experience, but to the extent something analogous to a preexisting injury exists in the commercial world, I would expect to be SOL if I didn't ask about it during discovery.
I don't know anything about this particular case, but I've been in enough personal injury litigation to know that there's no way this gets to trial without it being asked at some point — either in written discovery, at a deposition, or by the defense medical expert. If somehow it slipped through without being asked, I would be very concerned about keeping this client if I were the defense firm.
Guest
Anonymous
February 2, 2018 6:00 pm
Momot would be outstanding. Figler would be fine. But a resounding "No" to Rob Walsh.
Obviously, can't speak for any other members of the Bar, but that's how I feel.
Guest
Anonymous
February 2, 2018 6:10 pm
Props to Dayvid Figler, who has always been a good dude to me and whose commitment to the community is pretty well known.
You are completely misguided on Figler or you are Dayvid. Which wouldn't be surprising considering he created and maintains his own wikipedia page. He was a nightmare as a muni pro tem, he spends too much time talking and just sits up there and lets you know how smart he is, 9th Circuit opinion notwithstanding. Anybody who spends that much time with the company he keeps is clearly misguided and suited for things other than criminal.
Re: "You are completely misguided on Figler or you are Dayvid." I follow David on Twitter, but I've never met him IRL.
I think it's lame that any time somebody on here compliments another attorney, somebody pops in and tears them down. It's just lame. Your opinion is just your own individual opinion, 12:05 PM, and isn't enough to justify offering a rebuttal to a compliment.
This is such a rotten profession. A sincere, anonymous compliment on this blog has potential to really make somebodies day. But there are people that just can't allow anyone to escape the misery of the profession, so they reflexively shit on it.
12:05 Here. Sorry I disagreed with you and your testicles, but I have met Dayvid in real life and I genuinely find him entertaining, I've had a couple of beers with him too, HOWEVER I have also experienced Dayvid on a professional level and that is not fun. Dayvid reminds me of Professor Frink from the Simpsons but with a much more condescending tone. That is not what is needed on the bench. So while I appreciate your props to someone you do not know other than through Twitter, much like Trump voters, I am going to tell you that you are inexperienced and incorrect. But I still love you as a 'merican.
I love Momot. I hope he gets it. I like Figler, too. However, I have never had a case with Figler. Both are nice men. There is your duo compliment.
Guest
Anonymous
February 2, 2018 6:52 pm
Paul Padda is brilliant LOL. Billboards are expensive for advertising but the message got him FREE advertising through local news, giving the message legitimacy. It doesn't get any better than that.
Except Padda advertises on Channel 13, who will do favorable stories for their advertisers.
Guest
Anonymous
February 3, 2018 7:31 pm
There was some discussion about the SFR1 ruling on Thursday, which really did not seem like that big of a surprise to me. However the Castillo ruling on Thursday on class actions I think will have some interesting impacts on pending classes.
I just read Castillo case and can anybody explain what was that. Appellant stopped paying her car so it was repossessed and because bank tried to collect per loan now has to pay her twice more for dare to collect? Do I read that correctly?
Drone/UAV law already is a burgeoning area of practice on the coasts. I have taken 4 hours of CLE on it in the last 18 months. It is an interesting area.
top link is dead.
should work now.
Opinion of the masses: Case pending for 4.5 years. You have a trial starting in 2 weeks. Discovery has been closed for a year. Pretrial Disclosures and PTM filed 60 days ago. Calendar Call is done.
This morning you find something on the Internet which is damning to the opposing party and really helpful to your case– Plaintiff had a preexisting, undisclosed car accident. Do you disclose it in a Supplemental Disclosure? Do you try to get it into evidence even though it is a late disclosed exhibit after all of the exhibit binders are at the Court already? Or do you figure it is too late to disclose it and just bury it?
Disclose, and try to get it in. You might have a shot at it if the Plaintiff was asked about this during discovery and failed to disclose or lied about it. If the right questions weren't asked during depo or in interrogatories then you might be out of luck but there is no reason not to try.
Too relevant to stay out. The court might question why you did not find it earlier. But NRCP 26(e) states that you not only have the right but the duty to supplement when you find relevant documentation.
(e) Supplementation of Disclosures and Responses. A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 16.1 or 16.2 or responded to a request for discovery with a disclosure or response is under a duty to supplement or correct the disclosure or response to include information thereafter acquired, if ordered by the court or in the following circumstances: (a) if the party learns that in some material respect the information disclosed in NRCP 16.1 Disclosures is incomplete or incorrect and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing. (b) a prior response to an interrogatory, request for production or request for admission where the response is in some material respect incomplete or incorrect and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.
This is relevant and important. I think you HAVE TO bring it to the Court's attention and get it into evidence. And is the other side really going to claim unfair surprise over information that the other side had in their possession and never disclosed to you?
Seriously, if the other side failed to disclose something so incredibly relevant during discovery when asked about it, this would potentially be grounds for terminating sanctions, not just late admission. But if you didn't ask and there was no duty to disclose, it's a harder argument. You'll have to show it wasn't reasonably available until now.
Pick up the phone and call the other side. Tell them what you've got and see if they'd like to take your last offer. Do this without telling the carrier what you've found. This way you will look like a hero to the carrier, the other lawyer gets out of a bad spot (and now owes you a favor), and you get to go on vacation in two weeks instead of sitting in a courtroom wasting hours and days of your life that you will never get back. Problem solved.
@12:33 It was available on the Internet but somehow just was discovered by us. On the other hand, Plaintiff has known this fact since it happened and never disclosed it.
@1:01– Did that. They aren't moving because they do not believe that we will be able to get it in.
1:01 here. Well, that was kind of dumb of them, because there is a very good chance that it will come in regardless of the circumstances. And for all I know this could have been an accident from years ago involving completely different body parts, etc., but juries don't like it if they think someone is trying to pull a fast one by concealing something like that.
No it is supposedly the same body part involved in both. I cannot see how it stays out, even with us discovering it so late and close to trial.
Let us know how it goes.
Did the plaintiff have a duty to disclose this if he or she wasn't asked? I have zero personal injury experience, but to the extent something analogous to a preexisting injury exists in the commercial world, I would expect to be SOL if I didn't ask about it during discovery.
I don't know anything about this particular case, but I've been in enough personal injury litigation to know that there's no way this gets to trial without it being asked at some point — either in written discovery, at a deposition, or by the defense medical expert. If somehow it slipped through without being asked, I would be very concerned about keeping this client if I were the defense firm.
Momot would be outstanding. Figler would be fine. But a resounding "No" to Rob Walsh.
Obviously, can't speak for any other members of the Bar, but that's how I feel.
Props to Dayvid Figler, who has always been a good dude to me and whose commitment to the community is pretty well known.
You are completely misguided on Figler or you are Dayvid. Which wouldn't be surprising considering he created and maintains his own wikipedia page. He was a nightmare as a muni pro tem, he spends too much time talking and just sits up there and lets you know how smart he is, 9th Circuit opinion notwithstanding. Anybody who spends that much time with the company he keeps is clearly misguided and suited for things other than criminal.
Re: "You are completely misguided on Figler or you are Dayvid." I follow David on Twitter, but I've never met him IRL.
I think it's lame that any time somebody on here compliments another attorney, somebody pops in and tears them down. It's just lame. Your opinion is just your own individual opinion, 12:05 PM, and isn't enough to justify offering a rebuttal to a compliment.
This is such a rotten profession. A sincere, anonymous compliment on this blog has potential to really make somebodies day. But there are people that just can't allow anyone to escape the misery of the profession, so they reflexively shit on it.
Suck my balls, 12:05 (and your ilk).
2:30 is right. There's no reason this blog needs to be a bucket of crabs.
12:05 Here. Sorry I disagreed with you and your testicles, but I have met Dayvid in real life and I genuinely find him entertaining, I've had a couple of beers with him too, HOWEVER I have also experienced Dayvid on a professional level and that is not fun. Dayvid reminds me of Professor Frink from the Simpsons but with a much more condescending tone. That is not what is needed on the bench. So while I appreciate your props to someone you do not know other than through Twitter, much like Trump voters, I am going to tell you that you are inexperienced and incorrect. But I still love you as a 'merican.
I love Momot. I hope he gets it. I like Figler, too. However, I have never had a case with Figler. Both are nice men. There is your duo compliment.
Paul Padda is brilliant LOL. Billboards are expensive for advertising but the message got him FREE advertising through local news, giving the message legitimacy. It doesn't get any better than that.
Except Padda advertises on Channel 13, who will do favorable stories for their advertisers.
There was some discussion about the SFR1 ruling on Thursday, which really did not seem like that big of a surprise to me. However the Castillo ruling on Thursday on class actions I think will have some interesting impacts on pending classes.
can i get a cite for the castillo case?
Go to Nevada Supreme Court website and it's on the list of Advanced Opinions
I just read Castillo case and can anybody explain what was that. Appellant stopped paying her car so it was repossessed and because bank tried to collect per loan now has to pay her twice more for dare to collect? Do I read that correctly?
Well I can't really tell because you don't write correctly. I have no idea what you are saying.
Rena Hughes's Disciplinary Hearing is set.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/disciplinary-hearing-set-for-family-court-judge/