Defendant Kimberlin’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions in the Virginia Walker v. Kimberlin, et al. lawsuit is a nonsensical rambling through TDPK’s made up “facts” and misstatements of the law. For example,
3. Virginia Rule 4:1(c) specifically grants a party the right to seek a protective order to stay or avoid discovery for a variety of reasons.
Yeah, so what? Then, TDPK asserts:
Of course, once such a motion is filed, it must be ruled on before discovery can commence or otherwise the rule would have no meaning.
Alas for TDPK, the Supreme Court of Virginia doesn’t agree. They make the Rules, and Rule 4:1(d)(2) says this:
Discovery shall continue after a demurrer, plea or dispositive motion addressing one or more claims or counter-claims has been filed and while such motion is pending decision – unless the court in its discretion orders that discovery on some or all issues in the action should be suspended.
Uh, huh. Discovery shall continue … while such motion is pending … That means that discovery continues uninterrupted until the judge rules in favor of the motion or otherwise orders a hold. Simply filing a motion is not sufficient to delay discovery.</fisking>
<mockery>Perhaps TDPK figures that the judge isn’t familiar with the Rules that govern the day-to-day activities in his courtroom, and that he can get away with grossly misstating the applicable procedural rule.</mockery>
My impression of Judge Potter is that he knows his stuff, and I’d bet that he will neither be swayed nor amused by TDPK’s filing. We’ll see about that tomorrow. The multi-motion hearing is scheduled for 10 am at the courthouse in Manassas. I plan to be there to report on the outcome.
Tick, tock, tick, tock, …