Rising above the quacking
A tree branch scratched the lower part of my left upper arm last summer when I capsized a kayak. The wound stung. Swelled into a welt. But didn't bleed. Almost a year later there is definitely a scar still there. My real skin is getting thinner with age. My mental skin is not.
A few weeks ago we needed to bring a discovery motion against a Seattle tourism company. Andrew had tried to work things out with them but it was a no go. So we drafted a motion. In order to show the judge why this information was so important I had to lay out the other pieces of the puzzle. This exercise the defendant did not like.
In real life (thanks to lessons learned in Kindergarten) if you want to disprove your opponent's puzzle creation you could engage in various tactics such as: a) show them their pieces are not really fitting together - they are just mashed up pretending to fit together; b) demonstrate how the pieces really should fit; c) show that the missing piece is totally a different shape.
Or you could just throw the puzzle on the ground and challenge the other person to a duel.
The latter is what pretty much happens here. This is the list of the personal accusations and insults charged by this company's lawyers in throwing my puzzle board to the ground.
- failed to follow the rules
- "mislead" the court
- presented a "false" issue to the Court
- have "sprinkled misrepresentations" throughout their filing
- "blatantly misrepresented"
- used the motion to" circumvent" the court's previous order regarding dissemination of discovery materials
- used the motion as a "vehicle to publish sensationalized material"
- "injected otherwise unpublishable material discovery materials into the Court record"
- have done this for "sensationalism not legitimate argumentation"
- the argument "is, quite frankly, ridiculous"
- "do not have a legitimate reason" for their request
- "counsel are disingenuous here
Oh bad bad bad bad Karen.
How to respond. Do I get out my sword and run them through. Ah hold that thought. Tempting though that may be...Andrew Garth and I take the higher ground. Stick to our message. And at the end of the day win the motion.
Attached: the winning order. Order Granting Motion to Compel