If you wish to help support the ongoing costs of running this blog and you haven't purchased anything through Amazon on this site, please consider a small donation to defray basic costs. It isn't free to me to keep this site current. I have to pay for bandwidth, costs of duplicating documents when they exist only in paper form, and keep printer ink around to read lengthy documents, and the time to do the research. Thank you. Marc Feldesman, site owner and publisher.
Oregon PERS Information is Copyright Marc R. Feldesman (c) 2003 - 2017 All Rights Reserved. Posts may not be reprinted without prior consent.


Please don't post your comments more than once. I moderate all comments and a delay between posting and appearing is part of the drill here. I get to all comments in due time. Please don't continually repost the same comment. Only one will be posted. Thank you.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

What Are Their Names?

The witnesses, the various people covered by the plaintiffs' (PERS Coalition in White) motion for discovery. The ubiquity of technology is on display as the attorneys go for broke in trying to gain access to all the various ways the lawyers, the PERB, and the employers communicated in the run-up to the settlement agreement culminating in the White case now. The web site for the Coalition Attorneys (here), is ripe with every document produced so far for this trial. Of course, we won't get to see all the good stuff uncovered in discovery until the trial. But you can bet that the defendants are scrambling right now to either ditch crucial technology (at some risk, I might add), or are madly trying to assemble it in an order that won't reveal their true motives in rushing the settlement agreement out of the door. Stay tuned. This is bound to get a lot more interesting and exciting as time rolls on. It will be "fright night" on display in Judge Kantor's court just before Halloween. I'll be there complete with costume.

2 comments:

xqqme4 said...

Ah, the wonder of it all... reading betwixt the lines of the discovery request is an interesting vital tactic: attorney-client communication isn't priveledged IF IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SHARED WITH OTHERS.

To whom was it sent?
Who got copies?
Drafts, amended drafts, second drafts, edited drafts, and final documents...?

There is a great big fence around communications between attorneys and clients, but other communications don't have that protection, and one can often see through such a fence... knotholes are for peeking.

mrfearless47 said...

Indeed! I've wondered why it has taken so long to see a discovery motion like this - even in the Strunk consolidated cases. I'm truly excited to see what the defense will provide and what excuses they come up with to not provide certain things. Bet they are scrambling now.