» Site Navigation |
|
|
|
» Online Users: 149 |
| 0 members and 149 guests |
| No Members online |
| Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM. |
|
 |
|
05-10-2016, 11:50 PM
|
#1756
|
|
Random Syndicate (admin)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Romantically enfranchised
Posts: 14,252
|
Re: California trip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower
Considering a California trip. Any recs on places to stay near Big Sur and on places to visit and/or stay on the coastal drive from LA to Big Sur?
|
In Big Sur:
If you have any hippie tendencies at all: http://www.esalen.org/
Awesome restaurant with outstanding views: http://www.nepenthebigsur.com/
Pricey but worth it: http://www.ventanainn.com/
On the way:
If you have any cheese in your soul: http://www.madonnainn.com/ (near Santa Barbara, worth a visit to the bar if you're driving through)
Also near-ish Santa Barbara the tours are fun: http://hearstcastle.org/
__________________
"In the olden days before the internet, you'd take this sort of person for a ride out into the woods and shoot them, as Darwin intended, before he could spawn."--Will the Vampire People Leave the Lobby? pg 79
|
|
|
|
05-11-2016, 06:21 AM
|
#1757
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,520
|
Re: California trip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan
In Big Sur:
On the way:
If you have any cheese in your soul: http://www.madonnainn.com/ (near Santa Barbara, worth a visit to the bar if you're driving through) |
That place is Borderline.
__________________
gothamtakecontrol
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2016, 10:14 AM
|
#1758
|
|
[intentionally omitted]
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 18,595
|
Re: Top 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Butts uber alles, including boobs.
|
I go back and forth.
TM |
|
|
|
|
05-11-2016, 10:39 AM
|
#1759
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Throwing a kettle over a pub
Posts: 14,709
|
Re: California trip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icky Thump
That place is Borderline.
|
I laughed.
__________________
No no no, that's not gonna help. That's not gonna help and I'll tell you why: It doesn't unbang your Mom.
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2016, 04:13 PM
|
#1760
|
|
[intentionally omitted]
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 18,595
|
Top 20
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2016, 04:07 PM
|
#1761
|
|
[intentionally omitted]
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 18,595
|
Top 20
|
|
|
|
|
05-13-2016, 03:39 PM
|
#1762
|
|
[intentionally omitted]
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 18,595
|
Top 20
|
|
|
|
|
05-13-2016, 06:01 PM
|
#1763
|
|
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,041
|
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
Legal question-
Okay company A produces docs as eye's only under a protective order. One is from company B to company A. One is an email from A's CEO to B's CEO. If I can't get the documents from B do I have the right to use them in a dep of B and a deep of B's CEO? I've seen protective orders that say such is fine but this one doesn't address it.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
|
|
|
|
|
05-13-2016, 07:26 PM
|
#1764
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,520
|
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
Legal question-
Okay company A produces docs as eye's only under a protective order. One is from company B to company A. One is an email from A's CEO to B's CEO. If I can't get the documents from B do I have the right to use them in a dep of B and a deep of B's CEO? I've seen protective orders that say such is fine but this one doesn't address it.
|
I will give you the most famous of all legal answers: It depends.
Really depends what the p. order says. It seems yes you can use in dep of B whether by PMK or CEO. Technically a party.
You can always ask a hypo or nibble around the content without using the actual doc too.
__________________
gothamtakecontrol
|
|
|
|
|
05-14-2016, 11:09 AM
|
#1765
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Podunkville
Posts: 6,034
|
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icky Thump
I will give you the most famous of all legal answers: It depends.
Really depends what the p. order says. It seems yes you can use in dep of B whether by PMK or CEO. Technically a party.
You can always ask a hypo or nibble around the content without using the actual doc too.
|
I'm with Icky - it's really amazing how often "it depends" is the correct answer.
Is Company B a party to the case with the protective order? Does the PO say anything about use of eyes only docs at depos?
In the past, I've either said something like "did you send an email to Sidd Finch about 2nd quarter 2014 widget pricing?" (after setting it up with general questions about whether B's CEO communicated with anyone), or went thru the PO process of removing the eyes only designation on multiple documents (so as not to tip my hand on the ones I really want to use).
Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
05-14-2016, 11:14 AM
|
#1766
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,520
|
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob
I'm with Icky - it's really amazing how often "it depends" is the correct answer.
Is Company B a party to the case with the protective order? Does the PO say anything about use of eyes only docs at depos?
In the past, I've either said something like "did you send an email to Sidd Finch about 2nd quarter 2014 widget pricing?" (after setting it up with general questions about whether B's CEO communicated with anyone), or went thru the PO process of removing the eyes only designation on multiple documents (so as not to tip my hand on the ones I really want to use).
Good luck.
|
I assumed that but this brings up another good point. I agreed to exactly one protective order but made it so that I could use the documents in any subsequent related litigation against the same company by any other plaintiff I represented.
__________________
gothamtakecontrol
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2016, 06:46 PM
|
#1767
|
|
[intentionally omitted]
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 18,595
|
Top 20
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2016, 08:30 PM
|
#1768
|
|
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,041
|
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob
I'm with Icky - it's really amazing how often "it depends" is the correct answer.
Is Company B a party to the case with the protective order? Does the PO say anything about use of eyes only docs at depos?
In the past, I've either said something like "did you send an email to Sidd Finch about 2nd quarter 2014 widget pricing?" (after setting it up with general questions about whether B's CEO communicated with anyone), or went thru the PO process of removing the eyes only designation on multiple documents (so as not to tip my hand on the ones I really want to use).
Good luck.
|
A is a party, B not. B supplied A with products that infringe. Lots of B written documents. The protective order does not say I can. I was wondering if there was some general rule that i can show it to people who know its contents.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2016, 09:46 PM
|
#1769
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,520
|
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
A is a party, B not. B supplied A with products that infringe. Lots of B written documents. The protective order does not say I can. I was wondering if there was some general rule that i can show it to people who know its contents.
|
Don't see how A had a claim of confidentiality here but sounds like you should have argued that before.
__________________
gothamtakecontrol
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2016, 10:14 PM
|
#1770
|
|
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,041
|
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icky Thump
Don't see how A had a claim of confidentiality here but sounds like you should have argued that before.
|
Icky, here's how my world is- A produces 500000 pages of crap. All marked eyes only. I can ask for lowering and they will ignore, and then I can file a motion and maybe a judge will rule in 6 months, but probably not. A has never claimed confidentiality re. B, but the question has never been asked. And I just realized B is who i need to talk to. Across the 500000 documents are companies A-Z. I did not ask for B until noe.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
