Curiosity Never Kills the Cat: Legal Questions for VERIFIED LAWYERS- ~No Discussion~

[Ausgirl]

Could someone please give me a For Dummies version of what all the Zahaus' Protection Order is all about, and why Dina would oppose it?

TIA.

 

[bourne]

Could someone please give me a For Dummies version of what all the Zahaus' Protection Order is all about, and why Dina would oppose it?

TIA.

I'm not a lawyer but Zahau lawyer already answered the second half of your question in their request for this motion of protective order. Dina's motive for opposing the order is to tie the case up with excessive time, effort and fees on *irrelevant, redundant* matter of some 130 items so that the Zahaus will run out of money before the trial starts. Yes, that's the type of amoral defendant we have here. Someone who's so afraid of the truth coming out, she'll do anything including using all the legal mumble-jumble technicalities to hamstring the Zahau case from moving forward. Since the Judge has granted the motion, I'd say the Judge agrees with the Zahau lawyer and so do I.

 

[K_Z]

Could someone please give me a For Dummies version of what all the Zahaus' Protection Order is all about, and why Dina would oppose it?

TIA.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'll provide some additional information from the web, and the Register of Actions, until a verified attorney stops by.

Restraining orders and civil protection orders may be ordered in a civil proceeding, whereas a temporary protection order arises out of a criminal proceeding.

A restraining order is an order requiring the parties to the lawsuit to do or not do certain acts. For instance, a party may be restrained from transferring bank accounts or disposing of assets. It may order a party not to harass the other party or come upon property, such as the marital residence or a party's place of employment.Requests for Ex Parte restraining orders, if needed, are usually made upon the initial filing of the underlying lawsuit, but may also be filed while the case is pending. "Ex Parte" means that one party is requesting the court to act on the request for the restraining order without notice to the opposing party and without the opposing party having an opportunity to come before the court and explain their side of the issue. In actuality, requests for the court to act on Ex Parte basis are the unusual rather than the usual. Normally the court prefers to notify all parties prior to issuing any orders to permit all parties to set forth their position before the court through the presentation of evidence. A court may or may not grant a request for a restraining order or for an Ex Parte restraining order. If an order is granted Ex Parte, the other party is generally permitted to request a hearing to present further information. The likelihood and the circumstances under which a court will issue any kind of restraining order may differ from court to court and even from judge to judge. Therefore it is important to consult with an attorney who is familiar with the court in which the lawsuit is filed.A restraining order filed in a lawsuit is not enforceable by the police. It is a civil matter and must be enforced through civil proceedings.

- See more at: http://corporate.findlaw.com/litiga...emporary-protection.html#sthash.4wLLqNrB.dpuf

So as not to clutter up this thread, I'll post some detail on the specific back and forth entries related to the interrogatories and order of protection from the Plaintiffs and DS on the Register of Actions over on the WDS lawsuit thread. (The total pages are in excess of 100 all together.)

My layperson interpretation is that the Judge heard 5-6 back and forth replies, and then ruled that the plaintiffs need not reply to these particular 130 interrogatories (only), and instructed defendant DS and attorneys to more closely word and follow the statute in future discovery requests. The Judge appears to have granted a specific request for a $2580 fine (a very specific amount) to be paid to the plaintiffs by DS and her attorneys, possibly to reimburse plaintiffs for their time and costs over this matter.

A question I have for AZlawyer is whether one defendant and their attorney is considered to be speaking for all three in unison in this matter? It does not appear so from the language, as the other defendants and their attorneys are not mentioned.

Do multiple defendants often collaborate as a team and decide only one of them will file potentially contentious motions such as these 130 interrogatories, etc? The language in the 130 interrogatories is specific to DS only. It would not seem to be in the individual interests of each for one to speak for all of them. It also would put one defendant and attorney on the spot if there were sanctions, etc. It seems like it would be best for each of them to speak for themselves? But then, the plaintiffs are united as a group in their motions.

Thanks for interpreting the details here!

 

[*Lash*]

Hi AZLawyer!

Quick questions, I hope. How common is it for a lawyer to go so grossly (130) over the recommended 35 special interrogatories? Is there a known or common strategy in doing this?

TIA

 

[K_Z]

When there is a court ordered fine such as this one, and both the defendant and their attorney are listed in the sentence imposing the fine, who actually has to pay it? Is the attorney responsible, since he/ she perhaps should have known to do something differently, more in compliance with rules? Or is the defendant responsible, since they are the responsible party being represented by the attorney? Do they split it down the middle, each paying half?

And how exactly is a fine paid? Does it get paid to the court, who then gives it to the receiving party? Or does the client or attorney cut a cashier's check, or similar, and mail it directly to the attorney of the one receiving it? Or is it typically an electronic funds transfer? Is there a time limit? Can a fine be appealed?

Another question. Documents (in the other thread) state that DS's attorneys have scheduled 41 depositions in the last 90 days or so, and then cancelled all of them (apparently without properly notifying the Zahau attorneys of the cancellation, once it was on their schedule.) This seems pretty excessive. I could understand some scheduling conflicts, but that not one of the 41 went forward seems like harassment and dirty game-playing to me. I get the gamesmanship aspect-- the scheduling of the depositions makes it LOOK like they are cooperating, and the last minute cancelling is the "jerking around" part.

How can depositions be compelled to actually go forward? Otherwise, it seems like if one party was determined to "not cooperate" with the process, all they'd have to do is keep on scheduling and cancelling, and nothing would ever get accomplished. That might be their agenda, but can the court do anything about it, to keep cases from dragging on for years and years?

My professional association filed 2 lawsuits that took over 10 years to conclude (one finally settled in excess of $10 million). I can see the "dragging out" strategy for a corporate lawsuit, but it seems to me that these "smaller" personal lawsuits should be able to be concluded in a year or two. But maybe that's pie-in-the-sky optimism?

 

[MaybeNotToday]

I just want to say thank you in advance to AZ Lawyer for taking the time to sift through and answer all of our questions.

 

[kittychi]

^Absolutely. Thank you so much, AZ Lawyer, really appreciate it.

 

[AZlawyer]

Could someone please give me a For Dummies version of what all the Zahaus' Protection Order is all about, and why Dina would oppose it?

TIA.

It looks like the Zahaus object because Dina has asked for 130 questions to be answered in writing, instead of the presumptive limit of 35, and the Zahaus believe this is just an effort to burden them.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'll provide some additional information from the web, and the Register of Actions, until a verified attorney stops by.

- See more at: http://corporate.findlaw.com/litiga...emporary-protection.html#sthash.4wLLqNrB.dpuf

So as not to clutter up this thread, I'll post some detail on the specific back and forth entries related to the interrogatories and order of protection from the Plaintiffs and DS on the Register of Actions over on the WDS lawsuit thread. (The total pages are in excess of 100 all together.)

My layperson interpretation is that the Judge heard 5-6 back and forth replies, and then ruled that the plaintiffs need not reply to these particular 130 interrogatories (only), and instructed defendant DS and attorneys to more closely word and follow the statute in future discovery requests. The Judge appears to have granted a specific request for a $2580 fine (a very specific amount) to be paid to the plaintiffs by DS and her attorneys, possibly to reimburse plaintiffs for their time and costs over this matter.

A question I have for AZlawyer is whether one defendant and their attorney is considered to be speaking for all three in unison in this matter? It does not appear so from the language, as the other defendants and their attorneys are not mentioned.

Do multiple defendants often collaborate as a team and decide only one of them will file potentially contentious motions such as these 130 interrogatories, etc? The language in the 130 interrogatories is specific to DS only. It would not seem to be in the individual interests of each for one to speak for all of them. It also would put one defendant and attorney on the spot if there were sanctions, etc. It seems like it would be best for each of them to speak for themselves? But then, the plaintiffs are united as a group in their motions.

Thanks for interpreting the details here!

KZ, I can't find the actual order anywhere in the links you posted on the other thread, and I don't see it on the list of documents on the court website either. Do you have a copy?

If the Defendants have separate lawyers, each lawyer is only speaking for his or her own client.

Normally, though, if the Defendants were in a collaborative relationship (i.e., if they are not in conflict with one another), they would file a joint motion to strike with all the lawyers listed.

Hi AZLawyer!

Quick questions, I hope. How common is it for a lawyer to go so grossly (130) over the recommended 35 special interrogatories? Is there a known or common strategy in doing this?

TIA

In Arizona, it's very uncommon, because there is a rule in AZ State Court that, very early in the case, both sides have to turn over everything they have or know, good or bad. In CA, they don't have that rule. So IMO it must be pretty common to have to exceed the presumptive number of interrogatories.

When there is a court ordered fine such as this one, and both the defendant and their attorney are listed in the sentence imposing the fine, who actually has to pay it? Is the attorney responsible, since he/ she perhaps should have known to do something differently, more in compliance with rules? Or is the defendant responsible, since they are the responsible party being represented by the attorney? Do they split it down the middle, each paying half?

And how exactly is a fine paid? Does it get paid to the court, who then gives it to the receiving party? Or does the client or attorney cut a cashier's check, or similar, and mail it directly to the attorney of the one receiving it? Or is it typically an electronic funds transfer? Is there a time limit? Can a fine be appealed?

Another question. Documents (in the other thread) state that DS's attorneys have scheduled 41 depositions in the last 90 days or so, and then cancelled all of them (apparently without properly notifying the Zahau attorneys of the cancellation, once it was on their schedule.) This seems pretty excessive. I could understand some scheduling conflicts, but that not one of the 41 went forward seems like harassment and dirty game-playing to me. I get the gamesmanship aspect-- the scheduling of the depositions makes it LOOK like they are cooperating, and the last minute cancelling is the "jerking around" part.

How can depositions be compelled to actually go forward? Otherwise, it seems like if one party was determined to "not cooperate" with the process, all they'd have to do is keep on scheduling and cancelling, and nothing would ever get accomplished. That might be their agenda, but can the court do anything about it, to keep cases from dragging on for years and years?

My professional association filed 2 lawsuits that took over 10 years to conclude (one finally settled in excess of $10 million). I can see the "dragging out" strategy for a corporate lawsuit, but it seems to me that these "smaller" personal lawsuits should be able to be concluded in a year or two. But maybe that's pie-in-the-sky optimism?

I'm still not sure the court has actually ordered anything. I would need to see the sentence to see who was ordered to pay. Certainly the court can order the attorney to pay. If both are ordered to pay, normally the client and lawyer decide between themselves. Normally fines are due immediately and are just paid by regular check delivered to the other law firm. They can be appealed but there would be little point unless it is a huge fine and there is clear legal error (not just a bad judgment call on the part of the judge). Most appellate courts would not care otherwise.

The court will (or perhaps already has) set a deadline to complete depos. So if one party keeps cancelling their own scheduled depos, then they will arrive at that date unprepared to try the case.

I don't know the "normal" time for concluding a case like this in this particular state court. 2-3 years for a civil case of medium complexity would not be unusual in the courts in which I practice.

 

[*Lash*]

AZlawyer, you're awesome! Thank you for answering our questions

Here is the motion for the Protective Order. Very lengthy, 55 pages. The Hon. Judge Katherine Bacal's proposed order granting the motion begins on page 52. TIA

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...Motion_for_Protective_Order_1418273857216.pdf

 

[*Lash*]

As well, here is KZ's post referring to the 41 depositions scheduled by Dina's defense wherein all 41 depositions did not go forward.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-2013-in-California-2&p=11296222#post11296222

Documents-

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face..._Special_Interrogatories_Se_1418399183950.pdf

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...1_12-02-14_Opposition_Other_1418399188716.pdf

 

[MaybeNotToday]

AZlawyer, you're awesome! Thank you for answering our questions

Here is the motion for the Protective Order. Very lengthy, 55 pages. The Hon. Judge Katherine Bacal's proposed order granting the motion begins on page 52. TIA

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...Motion_for_Protective_Order_1418273857216.pdf

That's an unsigned proposed order. I think lawyers can draft that up for the Judge to sign if agreed.

 

[MaybeNotToday]

Anyway, what I'm wondering now is: (1) if the interrogatories were duplicative enough to become so burdensome, why didn't they respond with "see answer to Interrogatory # 3". I've seen that done in other cases as questions do have a natural tendency to overlap. That would take no time. Answer it one time, see that it's asked another 3 times and repeat "See interrogatory answer number so and so". You could wrap up that pleading rather speedily IMO.

Maybe they'll get that order signed and not have to respond this time. But, surely they know that the Court doesn't like to babysit over things like this. And I don't think defense counsel will take too kindly to plaintiffs counsel calling them malicious. Not the best foot to start off on. I hardly think one or two emails attempting to resolve this warranted a plea to the Court because defense counsel is being a big meanie.

I know plaintiffs are ready for a trial (because a jury has heart!) but discovery has to happen before that. Both sides are entitled.

IMO

 

[bourne]

AZlawyer, you're awesome! Thank you for answering our questions

Here is the motion for the Protective Order. Very lengthy, 55 pages. The Hon. Judge Katherine Bacal's proposed order granting the motion begins on page 52. TIA

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...Motion_for_Protective_Order_1418273857216.pdf

I just had the chance to review your attachment. The order indicates it's "Proposed" which to me means it hasn't been officially approved/ordered by the Judge yet. Is there another document in which the Judge has signed off on this?

If it's still in the prelim stages, I'm wondering how the Zahau lawyer arrived at that exact fee of 2500 something dollars? That is interesting...

 

[AZlawyer]

AZlawyer, you're awesome! Thank you for answering our questions

Here is the motion for the Protective Order. Very lengthy, 55 pages. The Hon. Judge Katherine Bacal's proposed order granting the motion begins on page 52. TIA

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...Motion_for_Protective_Order_1418273857216.pdf

That's an unsigned proposed order. I think lawyers can draft that up for the Judge to sign if agreed.

I just had the chance to review your attachment. The order indicates it's "Proposed" which to me means it hasn't been officially approved/ordered by the Judge yet. Is there another document in which the Judge has signed off on this?

If it's still in the prelim stages, I'm wondering how the Zahau lawyer arrived at that exact fee of 2500 something dollars? That is interesting...

Yeah, that's just a proposed order. The $2500+ is the amount of attorneys' fees the Z lawyers say the Zs spent on the issue.

Anyway, what I'm wondering now is: (1) if the interrogatories were duplicative enough to become so burdensome, why didn't they respond with "see answer to Interrogatory # 3". I've seen that done in other cases as questions do have a natural tendency to overlap. That would take no time. Answer it one time, see that it's asked another 3 times and repeat "See interrogatory answer number so and so". You could wrap up that pleading rather speedily IMO.

<respectfully snipped>

IMO

Yes, that's an option, but it's also an option to object to the whole "package" as excessive. In addition, I think they're saying the questions are burdensome for more reasons than just being duplicative.

 

[*Lash*]

Thank you all for the correction.

So am I understanding correctly, neither has been granted? The defense motion to compel the plaintiffs to answer and the plaintiffs motion on the protective order. Neither document is signed. TIA

Bourne- breakdown of fees from the Zahau motion.

The filing fee for this motion is $60.00, my hourly rate is $210.00, and I spent eight (8) hours preparing this motion and anticipate I will spend an additional four (4) hours preparing a reply to an opposition and in preparing for and appearing at the hearing on the instant motion for a combined total oftwelve (12) hours, totaling $2,580.00 spent in preparation ofthis motion.

 

[K_Z]

I apologize for my misinterpretation, and thank you all very much for the correction. Proposed orders are confusing.

It is especially confusing, because DS's attorneys filed their proposed order as a completely separate document on the Register of Actions (document #52), while the Zahau proposed order is attached to their "Reply to Opposition of Noticed Motion...."

 

[K_Z]

Another question!

Can you look at this post (pro hac applications imaged there):

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-2013-in-California-2&p=11305650#post11305650

I'm confused why the docket entry would say local CA Attorney Kim Schumann is not admitted to that court? He is DS's lead atty, and has been filing documents all along in both the State and Federal cases. Why would they not approve AZ attorney Benchoff?

 

[Carioca]

Another question!

Can you look at this post (pro hac applications imaged there):

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-2013-in-California-2&p=11305650#post11305650

I'm confused why the docket entry would say local CA Attorney Kim Schumann is not admitted to that court? He is DS's lead atty, and has been filing documents all along in both the State and Federal cases. Why would they not approve AZ attorney Benchoff?

KZ, I'm totally guessing here and not sure if it answers the question, but according to the docket, DS is represented by Bradley R. Mathews and Stephanie M. Tran, both of Schumann Rosenberg. The docket does not list Kim Schumann as legal counsel.

The 12/11/14 Pro Hac Vice application (Doc 56) states associate legal counsel as Kim Schumann. A new Pro Hac Vice application (Doc 57) was entered 12/15/2014 and was altered to read associate local counsel as Bradley R. Mathews.

 

[AZlawyer]

Another question!

Can you look at this post (pro hac applications imaged there):

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-2013-in-California-2&p=11305650#post11305650

I'm confused why the docket entry would say local CA Attorney Kim Schumann is not admitted to that court? He is DS's lead atty, and has been filing documents all along in both the State and Federal cases. Why would they not approve AZ attorney Benchoff?

KZ, I'm totally guessing here and not sure if it answers the question, but according to the docket, DS is represented by Bradley R. Mathews and Stephanie M. Tran, both of Schumann Rosenberg. The docket does not list Kim Schumann as legal counsel.

The 12/11/14 Pro Hac Vice application (Doc 56) states associate legal counsel as Kim Schumann. A new Pro Hac Vice application (Doc 57) was entered 12/15/2014 and was altered to read associate local counsel as Bradley R. Mathews.

View attachment 65815

Carioca, this is exactly correct. Kim Schumann is not listed on the docket as counsel. His/her name has appeared on the top of the page of the papers filed by members of his/her firm, but he/she apparently is not admitted to the district court.

 

[K_Z]

Interesting. Mr. Schumann has "acted" as lead attorney, giving press conferences, releasing statements, etc.

From his bio on his firm website:

He is admitted to practice in all State and Federal Courts in the State of California.

http://www.schumannrosenberg.com/attorney/kim-schumann

Below is the full statement from Dina Shacknai's attorney, Kim Schumann:

"The court's ruling is not a statement as to whether or not the allegations are truthful, or proper, or even have any basis in fact.


"The complaint only contains allegations, and no evidence has been presented to the court to support these allegations. These are simply unsupported assertions by the Plaintiffs who, in this beginning phase of the litigation, are able to allege almost whatever they want. The general public needs to be aware that the court did not determine or substantiate the accuracy of these allegations in making its ruling. The Plaintiffs obviously wish to portray their allegations in a light that will support their claims for recovery of money. We have no doubt that when the actual facts are made known, Ms. Shacknai and her sister will be vindicated regarding any involvement related to Rebecca Zahau’s tragic death.


"Let me be perfectly clear. This is a baseless and senseless lawsuit. Our client Dina Shacknai’s reputation has been irreparably damaged by these allegations. We intend to swiftly and aggressively put an end to this matter by every legal means necessary, and will be taking appropriate steps to remedy Ms. Shacknai’s reputational damages and the harm done to the judicial process."

Read more: http://www.azfamily.com/news/Dina-Shacknais-lawyers-respond-to-lawsuit-280227562.html#ixzz3MFbd96kT