Is negligence called malpractice if it concerns a professional? Or is it misfeasance when legal damage is caused due to negligence or recklessness? The word we know sometimes take on different meanings in legalese. It can confuse the layperson
I mean RAs attorneys request the court to order.
What about for libel or slander? If a citizen is dragged into another's court case and labeled a child murderer with no evidence? I just can't see how that can be a protected thing. Are there no checks and balances to prevent that from happening or can defense just say whatever they want in filings and court because it may benefit their client and not have to worry about ruining someone else's reputation? The world has changed so much as far as multimedia spreading truths but lies also. The SODDI defense now can ruin lives overnight. It just seems so unfair
I’ve heard of plaintiffs being countersued for “frivolous litigation.” Nor sure how often this happens. ETA: Before filing a suit against my own lawyer’s advice, I’d figure on paying court costs and maybe the other party’s legal expenses when I got laughed out of court.
MOD QUESTION:
I'm assuming you all know just how few staff are part of Websleuths, right? So I'm assuming that you all know that there is no way for us to read every single thread on every single thread every single day. Right?
Would somebody PLEASE tell me why this thread is no longer about Abby & Libby but is about civil lawsuits? I've traveled back in time and feel like this whole thread is now off topic, but maybe I've missed something and it can be explained to me in 5 sentences or less.
Please be advised that some explanations are just plain not going to be sufficient, so take your time, check your work.
MOD QUESTION:
I'm assuming you all know just how few staff are part of Websleuths, right? So I'm assuming that you all know that there is no way for us to read every single thread on every single thread every single day. Right?
Would somebody PLEASE tell me why this thread is no longer about Abby & Libby but is about civil lawsuits? I've traveled back in time and feel like this whole thread is now off topic, but maybe I've missed something and it can be explained to me in 5 sentences or less.
Please be advised that some explanations are just plain not going to be sufficient, so take your time, check your work.
@KnittyMOD QUESTION:
I'm assuming you all know just how few staff are part of Websleuths, right? So I'm assuming that you all know that there is no way for us to read every single thread on every single thread every single day. Right?
Would somebody PLEASE tell me why this thread is no longer about Abby & Libby but is about civil lawsuits? I've traveled back in time and feel like this whole thread is now off topic, but maybe I've missed something and it can be explained to me in 5 sentences or less.
Please be advised that some explanations are just plain not going to be sufficient, so take your time, check your work.
@sunshineray
Thanks for the answer and link. That cleared up this part of the wording in the motion:In (3), the IDOC is quoting directly from Rule 26 at (C); they put (0) but the language is exact to that found in 26(C):
Rule 26 - General provisions governing discovery, Ind. R. Trial. P. 26 (“(C) Protective orders. Upon motion by any party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending or alternatively, on matters relating to a deposition, the court in the county where the deposition is being taken may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:(1) that the discovery not be had;(2) that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;(3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery;(4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters;(5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except the parties and their attorneys and persons designated by the court;(6) that a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the court;(7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way;(8) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court. If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery. The provisions of Trial Rule 37(A)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.(9) that a party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the party from whom discovery is sought must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause. The court may specify conditions for the discovery.”)
They are saying they want a protective order that insures the information they provide will not be used in matters outside of the instant case.
Gotta run for a while, I'll answer any other questions a bit later
Thank you. I've only ever heard plea bargains called plea bargains in the criminal cases I follow.
www.wthr.com
