|
|
Post by EagleDad on Apr 4, 2006 14:50:52 GMT -6
I believe WVHSparent may work in an are that has ready access to public records.
|
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Apr 4, 2006 15:28:17 GMT -6
I am not a lawyer...but....From what I do know, this is pretty standard stuff. The SB is claiming priviliged Info on some stuff. The BB trust wants to see it. I wonder if there is a way we could get a full transcript of Howie's deposition. Exactly right. BB's point is that document discovery typically has a broader reach than what may be allowed in as evidence. So, BB's argument is that the SB needs to at least let the BB people see the privileged documents even though the documents are not necessarily admissible in court as evidence. The BB people then go on to make certain arguments to show, based on certain SB statements, that the privileged documents need to be disclosed in relation to the statements made or that privilege may even have been lost. It is a very common argument when the answer to the complaint or whatever filing has been made is not as complete as the attorneys would like. Which is basically all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Apr 4, 2006 15:34:39 GMT -6
What sort of priviledged documents could they be? Is this just stall tactics?
|
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Apr 4, 2006 16:18:57 GMT -6
It is not necessarily stall tactics. Just standard par for the course. It is a lot of procedure that is followed in almost any litigation.
You ask for documents. I say no. You go to the judge and explain to him why you should get your way. I write to the judge and say why you should not get your way. The judge then decides how much or little that I will have to provide.
At least some of the documents are called out in the message. You will have to read through it to see which docs are being requested.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Apr 4, 2006 16:45:23 GMT -6
WVHSparent how do you know these things? How does a lay person find out this kind of information? It helps when one works for the County ;D I think anyone who wants, can go to the courthouse and get these documents. |
|
|
|
Post by bookworm on Apr 4, 2006 16:50:21 GMT -6
I'm confused. I know nothing about law. What kind of priviledged documents can our district possibly have? Since they are a public entity I would think they can't keep anything private. I would also think that the SB would not want to participate in stalling tactics as they want the new school to be built ASAP. What does the district have to gain by dragging their feet?
|
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Apr 4, 2006 21:58:16 GMT -6
The district is not the one possibly dragging their feet, it is the BB people. But, I do not think they are. It is the nature of litigation.
If you read through wvhsparent's post of the transcript, you'll see the BB attys make reference to certain documents and the waiver of atty-client privilege and request for executive session meeting notes. There are too many other things to write down--reading the transcript will tell you more.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Apr 5, 2006 7:25:11 GMT -6
I'm confused. I know nothing about law. What kind of priviledged documents can our district possibly have? Since they are a public entity I would think they can't keep anything private. I would also think that the SB would not want to participate in stalling tactics as they want the new school to be built ASAP. What does the district have to gain by dragging their feet? It's mostly executive session minutes which is not done in public and any other documents where BB may have been discussed. |
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Apr 26, 2006 22:45:55 GMT -6
I suppose it all depends on trial techniques. We always fought production requests pretty hard. I had a copyright infringement case in Homewood a number of years ago and we were given the green light to fight tooth and nail against the production request.
As was said in the documents, there is a greater degree of latitude given when requesting documents than those that are actually let into evidence. That is basic CivPro. And, motions to dismiss are not always just based on defective initial pleadings. Maybe as a first shot, but those are almost always without prejudice, and wastes of time in my opinion.
It has been years (almost a decade) since I litigated, so maybe I do not recall things very clearly, but I think nothing seems too far removed from the ordinary.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 1, 2006 9:29:58 GMT -6
As of today..no new info on hearing...It has been placed on the Court call for both tomorrow 5/2 and Wed 5/3 @ 9am Courtroom 2008.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 8, 2006 9:41:17 GMT -6
Just pulled up a motion by the SD to compel the BB trust to provide proof that they have offers over the $257K for the land.
and
To allow the SD on the property now to conduct site surveys.
The BB trust denied access to the property, and refused to provide information on offers for the property.
Hearing on the motions are scheduled for May 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on May 17, 2006 22:38:58 GMT -6
Just pulled up a motion by the SD to compel the BB trust to provide proof that they have offers over the $257K for the land. and To allow the SD on the property now to conduct site surveys. The BB trust denied access to the property, and refused to provide information on offers for the property. Hearing on the motions are scheduled for May 10. parent - It would be fascinating to see if there is an offer and who made the offer. Probably won't be made public, right? |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on May 20, 2006 7:17:32 GMT -6
I have heard from several informed people that the district has hit a snag with the BB land. I am hearing that this will delay the aquisition by another year. Does anyone have any information on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 20, 2006 8:01:29 GMT -6
Well what is the snag?
Why the delay?
Could this be anymore vague?
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 20, 2006 8:39:44 GMT -6
I think it is normal laywer tactics right now.... I am trying to keep an eye on the proceedings.
|
|
