Oops

  • Law

  • After Judge Cadish carefully took her time to review and redact previously sealed search warrants, one missed redaction resulted in the reveal of the name of the other person of interest in the October 1 shooting.  [NY Times; RJ]
  • Meet one of the lawyers using Facebook to find October 1 victims. [Amplify]
  • The Nevada Gaming Control Board has opened an investigation into the allegations of sexual misconduct by Steve Wynn. [TNI]
  • A 9th Circuit panel ruled that immigrant children are not entitled to an attorney paid for by the government when facing deportation. [Las Vegas Sun]
34 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2018 4:13 pm

I think it was on purpose. Adobe has a redaction feature, folks!

NewlyMintedAttorney
Guest
NewlyMintedAttorney
January 31, 2018 4:45 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Unless you also use the flatten feature, it doesn't always work as well as you might hope. Some years ago, when I was but a newly minted law clerk, I was reviewing document production in a case that involved one rich company trying to avoid paying another rich company. The production included redactions made by opposing counsel. I observed that when I scrolled down quickly, the redacted words were clearly legible, and the redactions didn't "catch up" until the scrolling ended. This experience taught me two things. 1. OC's redactions were largely pointless. 2. Be careful what technology you use.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2018 7:36 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

That probably wasn't the redaction tool being used by the other attorney, which wasn't a regular staple until version 10 of the software, but rather just drawing a black box over what was there. The two tools are not the same. The redaction tool from version 10 forward works well, but I think it may only exist in the "Pro" version of the software, and of course be careful the redactions are actually applied before saving and sending in a production set; the tool starts by just "marking" for redaction.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2018 8:26 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

…and this is exactly why his name was supposed to be redacted.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2018 5:06 pm

Sometimes you should just use good old-fashioned redaction tape!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2018 5:33 pm

There is some bad shit going on at Route 66, I mean Dept. 6.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2018 5:54 pm

Although I'm sure Haig doesn't want the publicity, if he truly only sold the guy ammo, then he's only a person of interest until they determine that what he did was not illegal.
The CBS News 'teaser' has him stating that he was approached by the guy to buy ammo at a gun show, a deal didn't work out, the shooter then called him to do a deal, they met as Haig's house and Haig sold him ammo. It wasn't selling bombs, grenades, missiles, etc; it was common 7.62 and/or 2.23 ammo like I can buy in bulk online (bulkammo dot com for example.)
Unlike a business that sells firearms, BATFE doesn't require a special BATFE license if one is just selling ammo as a business.

The stories I've seen appear intentionally to imply that this guy is a suspect for potential criminal charges, but unless I'm missing something (which I may be) how would that be possible?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2018 6:35 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

9:54 I was thinking the same thing, though not as articulately.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2018 7:53 pm

I hope Cadish's f up does not negatively impact the investigation. I am concerned about the victims.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2018 10:58 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

How does failure to redact a name negatively impact the investigation and harm the victims? I will take your answer off of the air.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2018 11:03 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Ask LVMPD and FBI.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 4:34 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I have read the LVMPD pleadings. They do not indicate any problems per se, just the standard generalized stuff. So I ask you again, since you made the argument that it might negatively impact the investigation, tell us how failure to redact a name negatively impact the investigation and harm the victims? If you don't have an answer, just say that you don't have an answer.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 8:28 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

They did answer.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2018 8:08 pm

I hope you all can make it to the Wild Wild Law gala this weekend, where we will honor distinguished guest Troy Fox with a well-deserved lifetime achievement award.

Unknown
Guest
Unknown
January 31, 2018 9:43 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Will BH Hottie be presenting the award, or will it be double-kickstands guy?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 12:12 am
Reply to  Anonymous

blog is TooMeta4Me

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2018 11:51 pm

It is nice that Elissa Cadish blames it on staff error, instead of taking responsibility. Even if it is Tim Kelly.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 5, 2018 6:40 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

This is the largest problem with this. No attorney appearing before her would get away with problems by blaming staff. This is not acceptable.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2018 11:56 pm

On an unrelated note I just got my new "permanent" bar card from the good old SBN. On top of that they didn't even make it a full size card either.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 12:16 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I considered making this comment, but thought people wouldn't care. You aren't the only one who thinks the square card sucks ass.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 1:08 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Square card is dumb. What a weird choice.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 5:02 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

This is utterly ridiculous. Already falling out of my wallet. This ridiculously stupid idea has Kim Farmer written all over it.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 5:13 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

While I tend to think the issuance of a permanent bar card could be a good idea, not in the least that it cuts down on the cost, I see several problems with the "permanent Card".

First: The design is terrible. Why a square card? The square tag doesn't fit in anything. In prior years you had a normal sized card with key tag break offs. If you needed to cut costs to have only the normal size card, then eliminate the breakoff keytag and make it an optional extra.

Second: The durability of prior cards hasn't been excellent. My keytags break off by the end of the year and the text wears poorly. This wasn't an issue with the yearly card as they were reissued about the time they wear out. I can see this additionally being an issue with the breakoff key tag if you choose to try and have a normal sized card.

Third: how much is the replacement fee going to be? Can my replacement card not be an oddly sized card of dubious quality.

Fourth: The state bar runs surveys on all sorts of things of marginal utility and doesn't seek or elicit opinions regarding a design change?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 5:16 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Take a photo of the card, and save it on your phone. Security will accept the photo on your phone, I have been doing that for years. What else do you need it for?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 6:46 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Guessing the cost of materials for the card is like .0005 cents so the replacement cost will be $49.95.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 8:21 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

But 9:13, they might've hired an independent consultant to redesign cards that, in most respects, ain't broke–but now are broke.

But their consultant said all the right buzzwords to assuage all concerns, like "nobody really cares what the membership thinks" and "you're in charge, what do the members know?".

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 1:06 am

Question for the Cadish haters. If you appear before her regularly and you hate her so much, wouldn't you want her to get voted on to the Supremes? It seems this would lessen your interactions with her AND lessen any impact she'd have on your cases.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 1:27 am
Reply to  Anonymous

No. She should not be on the bench at all.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 4:34 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Care to explain why she shouldn't be on the bench? Been before her since 2011 for both plaintiffs and defendants in all kinds of cases. Never had a problem with her nor seen any problems with her from other attorneys who appeared before her.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 6:43 am
Reply to  Anonymous

8:34 I agree. She is smart and fair and works hard. She explains her rulings so even if you lose, which no one likes to do, you and your client know why. I'm not sure you can ask a lot more.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 4:48 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

8:34. The answer is she once said something pre-D.C. v. Heller that wasn't a ringing endorsement of fully unencumbered gun rights, which, combined with the fact that she is wicked smaht and an excellent jurist, makes her public enemy #1 to a small but vocal segment of our society.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 6:58 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

What is "smaht?" If you think she smart, then you are not that bright yourself. I feel sorry for your clients.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 7:05 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

is

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
February 1, 2018 7:40 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I think 8:48 wrote "wicked smaht" was intended to be written as a Boston accent would be spoken. Or just a typo.