Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I agree, sort of. If Boies and Olson view their clients as gays in California, they took an approach more likely to assure them a victory.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

2.

"I realized it was probably privileged, but . . . did nothing" because it was no big deal, but some information derived from the privileged communications ended up in the Complaint.

Bad, bad, bad.

S_A_M

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Why not seek a writ of mandamus to require the government officials to take action on the state's behalf?

I ask this question blissfully unburdened by any of the facts surrounding the controversy.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

"Waaah! I'm Steven Reinhardt, and I wish everyone would litigate their cases in the specific manner that minimizes the power of the legislative and executive branches, and makes the judicial branch the ultimate decider of all controversies of our time! Waaah!"

As for a writ of mandate, there are all kinds of abstention doctrines that make it hard to go to a federal court to order a state official to do a particular thing. There are allowances for state court writs in California law, but these also show respect for the idea that judges decide things after they happen and are very bad at directing things to happen -- something Reinhardt apparently missed in judge school. But the plaintiffs here were in federal court and can't rely upon the Cal. Code Civ. Proc. sections on trial court writ practice.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

hmmm, could simply be bad dep prep. the one smoking gun is whatever caused them to know the date of the meeting. if they actually used the email, that's bad.

and PS, color me bad but when someone inadvertently discloses priv. shit I think the duty is on the discloser to find out and raise it. most protective orders I've seen do not put a burden on disclosee to look careful to make sure it's okay to keep.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

since that all took place under DADT didn't the Ps have a duty to STFU anyways, or they lose standing or something?

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

The ethical rules of the jurisdiction in question may reverse that burden though.

At this point, I have a hard time keeping MN, WI, DC and NY straight, but at least one of them has such a rule.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

That's too many bars to have. Obvious of sign of overcompensation for a small penis, no offence; which explains other issues. Hank takes Extenze. Talk to him. :)

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I'm not a member of the WI bar, or yet MN, but I recent went to a CLE that covered this issue for both states.

Also, I have a tiny pecker.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Oh, carry on then.

I know. Hank told me. :o

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

You too can have a Court kick you off a case:

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Can someone ask Hank if MI actually has no law about this? I'm actually curious, and he has me on ignore.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Well, I'll quote you. Even though he "put" me on ignore at the same time as he put you on, I think he must have been drinking and mistyped, because every time I post he won't shut up.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I'm a mod. Ignore is more a restraint thing. Other than being sworn in I've never worked in state court. I assume 6th circuit rules would apply in the mi part of my docket but of course my practice is national in scope.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Wrong. You are governed by the MI rules of professional conduct.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I thought u meant court rules. I was grandfathered out of the ethics rules.

addendumb:

in patents the D will often waive the ACP and hand over opinions as part of its defense, so it isn't such a weird thing to see stuff you might not have expected to see.

the one time I saw something I "knew" I shouldn't I sent an email to OC and he told me it was something they had sent my client as part of a settlement attempt.

more egg on my face than anytime since that Tuesday night I convinced Atticus's sister it was okay for us to date during her period.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

And the wait for whether MI has addressed this issue continues.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

questioning someone's legal ethics is libel per se IIRC.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I skipped ethics in LS and just went with the answer that made the least sense to me on the multi-state ; so I'm not sure if that is true, but, if it is, some h8ers here may want to go back and edit some posts....:(:(

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Some of them show behavior that is unethical per se (eg deleting political commentary) and truth is a defense so I'm comfortable with my actions- I sleep soundly thank you very much.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

i don't normally respond to the same post twice- but you might be interested to know, as a historical fact- probably a bit out of date- but saying a married lady has sex outside of marriage was once libel per se too, again maybe not true anymore, probably not an issue anymore,

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

AON, I'll consider it a milestone when a state appellate court overturns a defamation verdict on the ground that alleging that someone is gay is simply not defamatory because it does not tend to harm the reputation of the plaintiff.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

It's especially not an issue if truth is a defense. :eek:

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

You mean 'cause yer gay?

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Oooh, burn.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Thanks. :):):D

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Q: how many Penske's does it take to have sex with a married lady?
A: no one knows. so far no identified penske has been willing to fulfill the condition precedent of telling his doctor he need a Viagra Rx:(:(

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

When I could regularly knock off sub-5 miles I had no need for performance enhancing drugs, same assessment with Viagra. As much as I enjoy excess, there probably can be too much of a good thing. :D

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

my wife said to tell you she thinks you're sub 2 minutes:confused::confused:

can someone decode this?

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

A gentleman doesn't kiss and tell; however, at least your last post clears up the spurious libel issue. Thanks.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I don't normally respond to the same post twice, but in this case I will make an exception...

I have a layover, npi, at the DET airport tomorrow...53 mins....ask her if she wants to meet me for 25 go rounds and a drink....;):o:)

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

You're bringing 24 other fast shooters?

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Putting aside whether the bare allegation of infidelity is libelous, implying someone might be down, npi, for a 25 guy gangbang is cerrtainly a bit further along the scale, unless we are talking about a porn star.......:o

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

2. we're getting close to I need a paycheck for that.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

2. You're welcome in advance :D

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Shame on you.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I have no idea whether Mrs. Hank would be up for that. But it'd be the only way you could offer her that many go rounds -- unless "go rounds" is code for something that doesn't involve any kind of performance on your part. ;)

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I see sarcasm is lost within 24 hours or so.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Perhaps he just don't like your joke.....:(

Don't Let Your Clients E-Mail You
 

Seriously. It may not be privileged if they use their work computer - http://calapp.blogspot.com/2011/01/h...nt-co-cal.html

ETA: The more I think about this, this more wrong it seems. That said, I think diligent representation of my clients now requires me to demand all e-mails between the other side and their counsel, along with the office policy on the use of the computers on which those e-mails were sent or received.