05/22/2017 0309.0_Rossi_Motion for Additional Discovery re Murray and requesting new Rossi expert
Rereading the relevant Order, it seems that Rossi and counsel don’t get it.
The Judge ruled that they were responsible for the problem with Murray’s expert qualifications, by delay, but tossed them a bone, i.e., Altonaga required that IH provide the necessary documents. It was not her intention to provide an endless regress. I consider it somewhat possible that she will allow them to depose Murray again, or engage in some form of discovery, but next to impossible that she will allow them to introduce a new expert, expert report, and then what? More depositions, discovery by IH, and yet more motions?
I don’t think so.
IH, responding to the Rossi appeal of the Magistrate’s ruling on the Zalli document privilege, has moved for sanctions, due to the additional cost of litigation caused by repeated Rossi cantankerousness (and blatant, deliberate, in-your-face Chaiken violation of the Protective Order). I would guess that Altonaga will herself look at the Zalli document, and unless she sees a smoking gun (i.e., justification for lifting the attorney-client privilege), she will throw the book at Rossi counsel.
The Judge took about two hours to Order denial:
05/22/2017 0310.0 ORDER (no doc) denying 309 Motion for Leave to File. Plaintiffs, somewhat inexplicably, continue to overlook and violate the deadline for filing pretrial motions, which has long since passed. Further, Plaintiffs continually fail to comply with the conferral requirements of the Local Rules. Future non-compliance will result in the imposition of sanctions. Signed by Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga (CMA)
I don’t find it inexplicable, but if the Judge figures out what is going on, Rossi’s case may be toast. Indeed, what would be unfortunate is if she over-reacts, creating an appealable error. She really bent over backwards to be fair to Rossi. She will be faced today with an IH request for sanctions over Chaiken’s blatant violation of the Protective Order, in the Darden deposition, where he showed Darden a copy of the Zalli email, accidentally disclosed and “clawed back,” according to procedure, supposedly turned back over and destroyed, no copy kept. And he was deliberately defiant, “I’m doing this to make you object.” That’s along with Yet Another Appeal by Rossi from what was clearly decided multiple times on that email. Yes, Rossi has the technical right to appeal. That doesn’t make it wise.
you wonder whether all this is Annesser (who must know the score?) pushed by Rossi into doing something, or whether Annesser has some deep game plan like store up things for Appeal.
The motion was signed by Chaiken. The provocative violation of the Protective Order was by Chaiken.
Annesser & Chaiken, the firm might be called Birds of a Feather, given Annesser’s provocations, his saber-rattling letter at the end of 2015. A good attorney will never throw gas on the flames like that. That’s what an amateur or noob might do, to prove he is tough. But we imagined that Chaiken would be the adult supervision. Apparently not.
I suspect that PBY&A kicked them out. We will probably never know, attorneys don’t talk about issues like this. Ethics. It’s an aspect of attorney-client privilege.
… Does anyone know how long Annesser has been practicing law? It could be that he’s still learning on the job.
From the Wayback Machine: Chaiken.
Brian W. Chaiken is a partner at PBY&A. He has about 20 years of extensive litigation and transactional experience. He has helped companies work through a wide variety of legal and business issues, including entity formation, corporate finance, SEC reporting, employment law, corporate management, and intellectual property matters. Previously, Mr. Chaiken was general counsel and CFO for a publicly traded agricultural company, as well as general counsel for a South Florida-based telecommunications company with operations in Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic. He has worked with domestic and foreign regulatory bodies, as well as boards of directors and other external experts/professionals.
I’m not seeing substantial expertise (“intellectual property” might seem related, but not necessarily), but rather long experience. He ought to be seasoned. However, maybe Rossi has him hypnotized. Kullander and Essen should have known better, too!
Which of Rossi’s lawyers filed a ‘motion to quit the case’ ? Was it allowed or still to be ruled on?
Ah, these users who dismissed CFC as some sort of useless appendage, my private echo chamber, who don’t simply look at Rossi v. Darden docket and case files.
Contrary to what some thought at the time, there wasn’t an accusation of misbehavior alleged, there was merely reference to the rules (which allow a series of reasons).
Those swivel-heads surely don’t know when to stay low. Of all days, they chose 5/22 & 5/23 to piss off the Judge – Itailianlawyer must be advising them.
I suspect they would rather piss off the Judge than their client. That deposition behavior took the cake.
The rules are clear about the Protective Order. Return or destroy if clawback is requested. It’s all obvious, sensible. It’s based on lawyers trusting each other to follow the rules. That seems to be missing with Annesser and Chaiken, and it was visible previously with Annesser.
Chaiken may think he has a “reason” for violating the order, but there is a prescribed remedy for handling that, it would be going to the Magistrate and obtaining an order to compel. In fact, Chaiken was attempting to intimidate Darden with the document, I’d think. Altonaga will see this today, we expect.
Even if Chaiken was correct, if the email showed criminal behavior, how he handled it was highly offensive.