|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 7, 2008 10:18:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Jul 7, 2008 10:28:02 GMT -6
HEY guess who gets to pay Helm to deposition Daescher? US!
Anywho, I hear he likes to "speak his mind" and "tell it like it is" so I'm sure it'll all go swimmingly. Unless there is a ditch out front.
|
|
|
|
Post by sluggo on Jul 22, 2008 14:17:38 GMT -6
Any news on this?
Does anyone know the status?
|
|
|
|
Post by specailneedsmom on Jul 22, 2008 16:36:02 GMT -6
Translating this into simple English, does this mean that they are saying that the SD is refusing to pay fees that BB considers customary even though they incurred the same fees, and by deposing Dash they will find this to be true? And the reason Dash is ignoring the deposition is because he will have to disclose as much?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 22, 2008 16:45:53 GMT -6
I can't speculate into why someone refuses, but my read was that yes, the SD is trying to say certain fees should not be compensated for even though the SD engaged in the same activity or things and accrued charges themselves....and B is trying to show that these activities are 'normal' for lawsuits by showing the plaintiffs in the condemnation did similar activities.
This, of course, is only my read from the cheap seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Jul 22, 2008 17:33:40 GMT -6
My translation after reading the court documents is the same. I'm wondering where this is at in the court system.
Anyone know what is the next decision date?
|
|
|
|
Post by rew on Jul 22, 2008 17:58:02 GMT -6
I thought it was in the paper that the hearing was July 10. Perhaps it was delayed?
|
|
|
|
Post by macy on Jul 22, 2008 18:33:59 GMT -6
I thought there was something to be decided on July 10th as well.
I believe that was the date Dr. D was supposed to be deposed prior to the district stating he wasn't going to appear.
I'm sure there has been a continuance, and yet another in this case. Regardless, I'll be paying attention until the case ends.
I hope many others will as well.
|
|
