EDD: Issues, Law, and Solutions: Lawyer Files Motion So He Won't Miss World Series

Monday, November 1, 2010

Lawyer Files Motion So He Won't Miss World Series

Poor guy - all this is for naught with the Giants up 3-1 in the series- GO GIANTS

Most legal motions are pretty dry documents -- but not this one.

Dallas attorney Darrell Cook has asked an Irving judge to postpone a routine hearing because he has tickets to Game 1 of the World Series -- and the judge granted Cook a continuance based on the following.
"To put it bluntly, Darrell must be in San Francisco to attend to very important baseball matters and really, really needs to not be obligated to attend the hearing scheduled for Oct. 27, 2010, as he has no one to cover for him so that he can see to his business in San Francisco," his heartfelt emergency motion for continuance states.
Cook explains how he had no way of knowing the Rangers would be in the World Series when the court date was set.

"So when this setting was received, Darrell was convinced he would be in attendance, as it was unimaginable that anything the Rangers could do would interfere with such setting," the motion states. "But then suddenly and without warning, the Rangers began a steady march toward credibility."
In the motion, Cook describes how his love affair with the Rangers began when the club moved to Arlington in 1972 when he "was but a lad of 13." He goes on to recap this year's roller-coaster season, from the revelations about Ron Washington's drug test to the team's bankruptcy filing to the signing of Cliff Lee to the utter defeat of the "Evil Empire known as the New York Yankees" just last week.
It could be the best legal motion ever filed. After all, what other legal document will ever say, "It should be pointed out that A-Rod, also known as A-Fraud, took a called third strike to end the series and secure the pennant for the Rangers?"
As the motion goes on to say, "It has no significance to this motion, other than the fact that Darrell likes to point it out as much as possible."
He ends by making a plea for justice.
"The continuance is not sought merely for delay alone, but so that justice may be done," the motion states. "In particular, so that Darrell can be present in San Francisco for Game 1 of the World Series while Cliff Lee wields his usual style of postseason justice to the hapless souls otherwise known as Giants lineup."
Cook, who hopped on a plane for San Francisco Wednesday, arranged for another lawyer to be at the court just in case. Turns out that wasn't necessary.
"That's how lawyering go," Cook tweeted Wednesday, while paying homage to Rangers manager Ron Washington's now famous analysis of the team's 8th inning Game 1 meltdown to the Yankees where he said, "That's the way baseball go."

Cook's twitter feed is well worth a look if you are a world series fan; dwcook at Twitter

No comments:

Post a Comment

Sedona Principles 2nd ed.

1. Electronically stored information is potentially discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 or its state equivalents. Organizations must properly preserve electronically stored information that can reasonably be anticipated to be relevant to litigation.
2. When balancing the cost, burden, and need for electronically stored information, courts and parties should apply the proportionality standard embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) and its state equivalents, which require consideration of the technological feasibility and realistic costs of preserving, retrieving, reviewing, and producing electronically stored information, as well as the nature of the litigation and the amount in controversy.
3. Parties should confer early in discovery regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information when these matters are at issue in the litigation and seek to agree on the scope of each party’s rights and responsibilities.
4. Discovery requests for electronically stored information should be as clear as possible, while responses and objections to discovery should disclose the scope and limits of the production.
5. The obligation to preserve electronically stored information requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that may be relevant to pending or threatened litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step to preserve all potentially relevant electronically stored information.
6. Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.
7. The requesting party has the burden on a motion to compel to show that the responding party’s steps to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information were inadequate.
8. The primary source of electronically stored information for production should be active data and information. Resort to disaster recovery backup tapes and other sources of electronically stored information that are not reasonably accessible requires the requesting party to demonstrate need and relevance that outweigh the costs and burdens of retrieving and processing the electronically stored information from such sources, including the disruption of business and information management activities.
9. Absent a showing of special need and relevance, a responding party should not be required to preserve, review, or produce deleted, shadowed, fragmented, or residual electronically stored information.
10. A responding party should follow reasonable procedures to protect privileges and objections in connection with the production of electronically stored information.
11. A responding party may satisfy its good faith obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information by using electronic tools and processes, such as data sampling, searching, or the use of selection criteria, to identify data reasonably likely to contain relevant information.
12. Absent party agreement or court order specifying the form or forms of production, production should be made in the form or forms in which the information is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form, taking into account the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party where appropriate or necessary in light of the nature of the information and the needs of the case.
13. Absent a specific objection, party agreement or court order, the reasonable costs of retrieving and reviewing electronically stored information should be borne by the responding party, unless the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business. If the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business, then, absent special circumstances, the costs of retrieving and reviewing such electronic information may be shared by or shifted to the requesting party.
14. Sanctions, including spoliation ﬁndings, should be considered by the court only if it finds that there was a clear duty to preserve, a culpable failure to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information, and a reasonable probability that the loss of the evidence has materially prejudiced the adverse party.
Copyright © 2007 The Sedona Conference®. All Rights Reserved.
Reprinted courtesy of The Sedona Conference®.
Go to http://www.thesedonaconference.org/ to download a free copy of the complete document for your personal use only.