Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks, Bessie!
From the previous thread, IANAL, but it appears discovery hearings are a time when the judge reviews the discovery process to date, to see if all rules have been followed, etc. It's also a time when many civil cases are settled, once both sides have the opportunity to review the products of the discovery process. If the plaintiffs choose to proceed with a trial, it moves to that phase, no? That's why hearings are scheduled in February, they're the first steps in moving towards the trial phase. I'm sure AZLawyer can explain it better.
So far, the case is moving along in the standard way.
I suppose the next question will be whether Dina will participate in her deposition before the Nov. 6 hearing or if she will try to use other delaying tactics at that time. It will also be interesting to see if any of the parties move towards an out of court settlement after the Nov. 6 hearing.
Questions for AZLawyer (apologies in advance if you've answered these before):
Will the discovery hearing be public?
Will any information from the discovery process be revealed at that time?
Is it possible for any of the defendants to engage in any further tactics to stall the case and if so how would the judge likely view such efforts?
Thanks, again, for all your kind assistance and expertise!
I think the "discovery hearing" in this case was scheduled to address a specific discovery motion that was filed. I don't believe it will be a general review of the discovery progress or compliance. I also don't think it is a likely opportunity for settlement discussions.
The case will go to trial if it doesn't settle and is not resolved as a legal matter on motions. The hearing in February was scheduled to hear argument on summary judgment motions, but as far as I know none have been filed yet. The judge won't hear summary judgment arguments unless someone files a motion.
I keep hearing people say that Dina is delaying her deposition, but I don't know where that came from. Does anyone have a link for that?
To answer your questions:
Yes, the discovery hearing should be public.
I doubt the public will learn much about the substance of discovery from that hearing. Both parties already know everything about the discovery, and the judge doesn't need to know unless it relates to a pending motion.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "further" tactics to stall, because I haven't seen anything to suggest there has been any stalling thus far.
Thanks, AZLawyer, for your reply.
The stall tactics I was referring to had to do with Dina's earlier attempts to ask RZ's family to answer a long list of questions before giving her deposition. I'm getting ready to leave for a trip out of town, so don't have time to go back and retrieve some of the other problems encountered earlier this year, but I recall there was at least a couple of other attempts to slow down or stop the process.
Hmmm, I remember something about a dispute about interrogatories (the questions you mention), but not about Dina's deposition being delayed due to that dispute.
HI AZlawyer, is there a time limit by which Dina and Nina have to give their depositions? Adam had given his a long long time ago...
I'm wondering what the hold up is? How does this deposition process work? Must the plaintiffs be subjected to numerous interrogatories by the defendants before the defendant to the WDS give their depositions?
LL2, thank you for posting that. I didn't have time to go through all the pages right now--was there something in there about a request to delay Dina's depo?
Hi AZLawyer, there are over a hundred pages to go through, so I totally understand not being able to do it right this minute! It took me quite a while.
Even though I added "JMO" at the end of that first post, I went back and add "IMO" in the beginning to further clarify it is my opinion that Dina's deposition is tied to this.
I just can't imagine that Dina could answer deposition questions without having more information about the basis for the charges against her.
But I am just making a wild guess.
I look forward to your opinion on Mary's refusal to answer all of these questions. I think Kim Schumann makes very strong arguements as to why Mary should be compelled to answer, and cites many, many cases as legal precedent.
It will be interesting to see how Judge Bacal rules on this Motion.