Earlier today, I posted a redacted version of Defendant Kimberlin’s Respose to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions in the Virginia Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. civil suit. The redactions were necessary to keep material filed under seal that had been improperly included in the motion from being published on this site. Let’s consider TDPK’s arguments.
<fisking>Paragraph 1 begins:
Plaintiff again, in the height of hypocrisy, …
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Hypocrisy is the practice of claiming to have moral standards to which one’s actions do not conform. We are all hypocrites to some extent, but Aaron Walker and his lawyer have impressed me with their consistency in sticking to the Rules. If I were TDPK, I wouldn’t invite that comparison.
… moves this Court to impose sanctions against Defendant Kimberlin for “failing to obey a court order” by not answering discovery. However, Plaintiff [sic] did comply by 5:00 pm on October 5, 2012 by sending Plaintiff’s counsel his objections to each and every discovery question. This is exactly what the Court told Defendant to do at the October 5, 2012,10:00 am hearing–either comply with discovery by turning over the requested information or object to each question/request.
I think TDPK meant to say that he had complied by 5 pm. In any case, his statement of the judge’s instruction doesn’t agree with my recollection of the hearing. I don’t remember the judge saying that all of the discovery could be objected to but only things that might be protected by some sort of privilege. For example, the request of the email traffic between TDPK and First Mate Neal Rauhauser or between him and Crew Member Ron Brynaert is certainly within the normal bounds of discovery and should have been provided.
The Court went on to advise Plaintiff’s counsel that if Defendant objected, then there would have to be a separate hearing to determine if the objections were valid.
Again, this is not consistent with my memory of what the judge said. I heard him advise TDPK that if his response to discovery was inadequate that Mr. Backer would be within his rights to call that to the Court’s attention.
<mockery>You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.</mockery>
… Plaintiff’s counsel filed objections to Defendant’s request for discovery at the same time he asked this Court to sanction Defendant for objecting to Plaintiff’s discovery
Uh, no. The sanctions motion does not complain of TDPK’s objections to discovery; it complains of his noncompliance with discovery. Those are two very different things. As we will see in a subsequent post, objecting to discovery does not necessarily bring it to a halt–nor does it relieve one of cooperating in the process.</fisking>
Tick, tock, tick, tock, …