|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:woop woop i'm a primary examiner as of next monday Does this mean you get the "allow lovely patents on first action because you don't care" brain implant over the weekend?
|
# ? Nov 12, 2014 21:52 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 15:48 |
|
the milk machine posted:FRCP 12(f) definitely grants the court the discretion to strike material from pleadings, but there's no reason a motion to strike would be limited to pleadings. I've seen it a couple times in regards to non-pleading filings in federal jurisdictions. The rule says the court may strike "from a pleading" certain stuff. Section 2, which deals with the time limit, is also limited to pleadings (file before responding to pleading or 21 days after being served with pleading). Also, rule 7 categorizes filings into pleadings, motions, and other papers. Logically, a rule that speaks only to striking pleadings shouldn't be extended to motions or other papers. Some courts allow it, but I don't like it. If something can't be considered, just say so in the response or reply--trying to strike the offending document just adds another motion to be decided with no benefit. It essentially turns some evidentiary consideration into a separate motion for no reason. We auto deny them (usually in a paragraph or footnote) unless the motion attacks a pleading. I have strong feelings about civil procedure. I'm broken.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2014 21:59 |
|
yeah, normally I would have waited for argument and just made the point then, but since the briefs and appendices are matters of public record (and we are now creating an online brief database for every brief that's filed in the state...because why?), I wanted it gone all together. (very nasty, irrelevant, and outside of the record personal attacks on trial defense counsel with "supporting documentation." Trial defense counsel is actually a pretty stand-up guy, and I found inclusion of all his irrelevant dirty laundry distasteful.)Omerta posted:I have strong feelings about civil procedure. I'm broken. I played Age of Empires all through civil procedure. That is how strongly I feel about it. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Nov 12, 2014 |
# ? Nov 12, 2014 22:04 |
|
Omerta posted:I have strong feelings about civil procedure. I'm broken. The primary indicium of autism in lawyers.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2014 23:01 |
|
Plan confirmation hearing on January 9, 2015. Other side just submitted a discovery schedule that basically has expert depositions taking place on Christmas day. Going to be a fun holiday. I hate this job sometimes.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2014 23:04 |
|
blarzgh posted:The primary indicium of autism in lawyers. The secondary indicium of autism in lawyers is using "indicium" instead of "indicator"
|
# ? Nov 12, 2014 23:10 |
|
Well, autists do tend to have sociopathic tendencies and lawyers have more sociopaths per capita than any other profession.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2014 23:11 |
|
mikeraskol posted:Plan confirmation hearing on January 9, 2015. Other side just submitted a discovery schedule that basically has expert depositions taking place on Christmas day. Going to be a fun holiday. pays to be jewish
|
# ? Nov 12, 2014 23:14 |
|
Omerta posted:The rule says the court may strike "from a pleading" certain stuff. Section 2, which deals with the time limit, is also limited to pleadings (file before responding to pleading or 21 days after being served with pleading). Ok, but there's nothing that says you have to move under 12 (f) to strike, or that that's the court's only source of authority to do so. We're not limited to whatever motions the federal rules happen to mention in passing, and there's all sorts of things the rules don't touch at all. I guess I agree 12 (f) is not a proper authority to strike a non-pleading, but I don't think you can reasonably read that to mean there are no other cognizable motions to strike or similar relief.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2014 23:17 |
|
the milk machine posted:Ok, but there's nothing that says you have to move under 12 (f) to strike, or that that's the court's only source of authority to do so. We're not limited to whatever motions the federal rules happen to mention in passing, and there's all sorts of things the rules don't touch at all. You're the kind of person that relies on the All Writs Act, aren't you?
|
# ? Nov 12, 2014 23:19 |
|
Soothing Vapors posted:The secondary indicium of autism in lawyers is using "indicium" instead of "indicator" Latin is loving classy.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2014 23:27 |
|
blarzgh posted:Latin is loving classy. I have a ba in Latin. I'm the classiest loving legal aid attorney ever.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2014 23:59 |
|
I find it amazing how similar latin is to native american dialects. For latin I add -ium to the end of every word, and for navajo I add -um.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 00:06 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:I played Age of Empires all through civil procedure. That is how strongly I feel about it. My civil procedure classes were at 8am. At this point I would like to say "gently caress that noise, am I right people?" But no, I went to every one of them.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 01:47 |
|
Lol even the prosecutors in Canada have to be nice. It's like a national requirement.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 02:28 |
|
Dude, Defleshed, you may want to pop in over at the LT Kaffee thread in GiP... someone is claiming that "an actual military prosecutor" told him that plea agreements are viewed disfavorably in mil jus and military judges don't like them used. uh...whut? because I'd say about 80% of my cases both as trial and defense counsel ended in a PTA.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 03:57 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:Dude, Defleshed, you may want to pop in over at the LT Kaffee thread in GiP... If it's only 80%, then comparatively speaking . . .
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 04:30 |
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:pays to be jewish But how can you keep the Sabbath as a lawyer?
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 10:55 |
|
Arcturas posted:You're the kind of person that relies on the All Writs Act, aren't you? Nope, just someone who reads the rules.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 14:04 |
|
Munin posted:But how can you keep the Sabbath as a lawyer? Goyim paralegals and associate attorneys.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 14:06 |
|
the milk machine posted:Ok, but there's nothing that says you have to move under 12 (f) to strike, or that that's the court's only source of authority to do so. We're not limited to whatever motions the federal rules happen to mention in passing, and there's all sorts of things the rules don't touch at all. I don't read 12(f) in that way, but whether there's authority to strike non-pleadings is sorta besides the point. The point is there's no other reason to strike material other than pleading. If evidence is irrelevant, just say it's irrelevant. For example, say someone doesn't file a timely response to your motion to strike, then files a response after the deadline. You wouldn't file a motion to strike their response to your motion to strike. You'd file a reply saying their motion is untimely, that your motion should be deemed unopposed under whatever local rule, and then put in a snarky footnote pointing out they never moved to for leave to file an out of time response. People try to use motions to strike as supplemental briefs attacking particular evidence. Courts hate that, and that's why one of the most cited opinions written by my judge describes motions to strike as "heavily disfavored" and "time-wasters." Also, they're stupid and I feel a flicker of human emotion denying a motion that associates spent 20+ hours on in a three sentence paragraph.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 15:07 |
|
Omerta posted:Also, they're stupid and I feel a flicker of human emotion denying a motion that associates spent 20+ hours on in a three sentence paragraph. Yes. I feed on such moments. I also enjoy "I had to take your motion off the docket. You're past your motion cut-off."
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 15:45 |
|
Omerta posted:People try to use motions to strike as supplemental briefs attacking particular evidence. Courts hate that, and that's why one of the most cited opinions written by my judge describes motions to strike as "heavily disfavored" and "time-wasters." Also, they're stupid and I feel a flicker of human emotion denying a motion that associates spent 20+ hours on in a three sentence paragraph. As stated, there were reasons why it was not only warranted, but the only appropriate response in this case. Turns out the Appellate Court agrees. Granted.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 16:38 |
|
mikeraskol posted:Plan confirmation hearing on January 9, 2015. Other side just submitted a discovery schedule that basically has expert depositions taking place on Christmas day. Going to be a fun holiday. Christmas Eve filing deadline for a brief.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 17:00 |
|
The Warszawa posted:Christmas Eve filing deadline for a brief. ouch. I am increasingly grateful that our local bar tends to have a very amicable approach to waiving objections to motions for extension of time, and the courts are pretty generous about granting them. (This of course may also explain why our docket is so backlogged.) (at least that's the case on the criminal side. I have no idea what it's like for civil)
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 17:13 |
|
The Warszawa posted:Christmas Eve filing deadline for a brief. I always get the feeling deadlines like these are the judge's way of telling us he's displeased we haven't settled yet.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 17:15 |
|
The Warszawa posted:Christmas Eve filing deadline for a brief. You chose this life.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 17:20 |
|
I have a question for you criminal type weasels. In the news there's a big deal about a university president who was giving a speech about rape, and he discussed 3 falsely reported rape cases on his campus last year. Everyone is totally super mad and that guy literally committed FGM or something. I get the many reasons why what he said was lovely, but... Having spent some time in a family court prosecutor's office, I saw a pretty negative run of rape reporting. I think everything is slanted against victims and I don't think they should be doubted. But there's a sea of mentally ill people, and I saw a significant amount of prosecutorial resources devoted to investigations where stuff didn't go down how the victim said it went down. A huge % of victims recant, but that's because the boyfriend was out on bail and drove them to the courthouse. I'm not talking about any type of witness intimidation/battered wife syndrome stuff. I'm talking about cases where the events pan out as false. Are you folks seeing this with any type of regularity? Or am I a jerkfaced rear end in a top hat? (for this specific reason)
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 17:21 |
|
Omerta posted:I don't read 12(f) in that way, but whether there's authority to strike non-pleadings is sorta besides the point. The point is there's no other reason to strike material other than pleading. If evidence is irrelevant, just say it's irrelevant. I get your court doesn't like it, I was responding to your assertion that the rules prohibit it in the first place (which they clearly don't). I've personally seen them filed and granted in probably two or three matters in federal district court; I have no opinion or emotional investment in motions to strike. If the clerks didn't like those, I guess that's too bad, but they were granted just the same.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 17:37 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:ouch. evilweasel posted:I always get the feeling deadlines like these are the judge's way of telling us he's displeased we haven't settled yet. Woo appellate litigation. When the guy was like "Oh our filing deadline is December 24 but I don't celebrate Christmas so don't worry," the other associate chimed in with "Me either," and there I am, Catholic as gently caress, going "uhhhh yeah about that that's Nochebuena I'm uh celebrating but I can be available to handle as needed."
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 18:00 |
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I have a question for you criminal type weasels. I've heard it explained that the process of prosecuting a rape allegation lends itself to tons of attention for the alleged victim. Rape/sexual assault tends to leave a person not wanting to be scrutinized and exposed, whereas the main reason someone would falsely claim they were sexually assaulted is specifically for the attention. According to my family/criminal sources here in Texas, a lot of the allegations don't stand up, and are pretty transparent cash/custody/attention/power grabs.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 18:01 |
|
The Warszawa posted:Woo appellate litigation. the trial judges are somewhat flexible too (though not once the jury's been picked.) I'm one of those weirdos that switch hits when it comes to appellate vs. trial (but I'd say I'm about 70% appeals, 20% habeas trials, 10% jury trials, though lately the trial end has been picking up speed) But again this is criminal, I have no idea what fresh hell you civil fucks live in.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 18:10 |
|
The Warszawa posted:Nochebuena Please don't make up words
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 18:11 |
|
The Warszawa posted:Christmas Eve filing deadline for a brief. gvibes fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Nov 13, 2014 |
# ? Nov 13, 2014 18:13 |
|
ActusRhesus posted:the trial judges are somewhat flexible too (though not once the jury's been picked.) I'm one of those weirdos that switch hits when it comes to appellate vs. trial (but I'd say I'm about 70% appeals, 20% habeas trials, 10% jury trials, though lately the trial end has been picking up speed) Yeah this is a federal civil appeal, but I've actually had worse - TRO enforcement on New Year's Eve. gvibes posted:A trial schedule (now dismissed, thank god) had three pretrial deadlines falling on 12/24 and four more on 12/26. Fuuuck that. mikeraskol posted:Please don't make up words Pitch better, fat boy.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 18:24 |
|
I guess this is the good thing about rural law, for the two weeks I remain in it: deadlines are flexible, and no one works between December 20 and January 2 (unless you're a criminal law type).
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 18:47 |
|
woozle wuzzle posted:A huge % of victims recant, but that's because the boyfriend was out on bail and drove them to the courthouse. I'm not talking about any type of witness intimidation/battered wife syndrome stuff. I'm talking about cases where the events pan out as false. Are you folks seeing this with any type of regularity? Or am I a jerkfaced rear end in a top hat? (for this specific reason) In my short but horrifying tenure doing family law I had the pleasure of handling false rape accusations, false abuse accusations and false child molestation accusations. I'm betting anyone who does family or criminal law has had at least one. But thanks to the Tumblr crowd you're not allowed to ever say victims might be lying, that dude should have known better.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 18:57 |
|
Yeah, both you and blarzgh's statement ring true with my experience. It's lovely because discussion of this empowers the rabid MRA crowd and could have a chilling effect on victims reporting. But... I saw a pile of mentally ill people that wanted negative attention. I don't doubt that the university president actually did have 3 cases of false reporting. It's better that the pendulum swing in the politically correct direction, rather than the opposite status quo. But it's weird as hell to me. Now I know how my racist grandpa felt as he witnessed the civil rights movement.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 19:15 |
|
the milk machine posted:I get your court doesn't like it, I was responding to your assertion that the rules prohibit it in the first place (which they clearly don't). I've personally seen them filed and granted in probably two or three matters in federal district court; I have no opinion or emotional investment in motions to strike. If the clerks didn't like those, I guess that's too bad, but they were granted just the same. It's sort of pedantic. The result under what you're saying and what I'm saying are exactly the same; difference is how the order phrases it. Also, I figured that it wasn't right because I've never seen a court rely on authority other than rule 12(f) or cases interpreting rule 12(f) when deciding a motion to strike. (Sometimes, courts erroneously strike material associated with a summary judgment motion. The proper way to handle it is to disregard the evidence under rule 56(e).) It's on my list of pet peeves along with listing "failure to state a claim" or "lack of causation" as affirmative defenses and using "the document speaks for itself" in anything. Work sucks today. I've churned out like 15 drafts on R&Rs. I feel so bad for attorneys who do nothing but answer habeas petitions all day.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 19:27 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 15:48 |
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Yeah, both you and blarzgh's statement ring true with my experience. It's lovely because discussion of this empowers the rabid MRA crowd and could have a chilling effect on victims reporting. But... I saw a pile of mentally ill people that wanted negative attention. I don't doubt that the university president actually did have 3 cases of false reporting. The only right answer is that idiots on social media stay out of it, and let us do our loving jobs. Twitter is not a valid substitute for the justice system, and while 'outrage' is the flavor of the week in social currency right now, no social trend survives time and the limit of human tolerance for stagnation. Things will change, and people will eventually tire of everyone looking for 'the latest thing to get outraged about' and re-posting/hosting/commenting/trembling in unison over their proxy for a desperate bid to belong to something.
|
# ? Nov 13, 2014 19:34 |