The Latest In The 3-ring Circus, Discount Attorneys? Options

[PeacefulBe]

You didn't miss it Grat. They haven't made that request, however, Bob has. FHB need to chill and respect his wishes.

Respecting each other's wishes would be such a kind thing to do in many areas, like with respecting how a person prefers to be addressed, respecting the anonymity of those members here who wish to have it preserved and even respecting requests for confidentiality. It does seem like the courteous, Christian thing to do.

[princessdi]

I just thought to ask if you all were going to take a break from this particular "love fet" to give thanks with family and friends on Thrusday? Not that we all won't need to get our usual BSDA fis, buy maybe post to the "lighter" threads, or at least not visit the "Dark side of the force" that day. What do you think?

[justice4jesus]

I just thought to ask if you all were going to take a break from this particular "love fet" to give thanks with family and friends on Thrusday? Not that we all won't need to get our usual BSDA fis, buy maybe post to the "lighter" threads, or at least not visit the "Dark side of the force" that day. What do you think?

Well, being a single person, I have no family to spend the holiday with, but I don't plan to be here arguing with anyone that day. Look out on Friday, though!

[princessdi]

J4J you are no where near the West Coast? Northern Cali to be precise? PM me the answer if you prefer. Well, now there are some other places to visit on BSDA, such as the arcade, Live Chat, etc. which are most pleasant.

Well, being a single person, I have no family to spend the holiday with, but I don't plan to be here arguing with anyone that day. Look out on Friday, though!

[Snoopy]

ABSOLUTELY! I have SO much to be thankful for!!! Thanks, Di, for the reminder!!

I just thought to ask if you all were going to take a break from this particular "love fet" to give thanks with family and friends on Thrusday? Not that we all won't need to get our usual BSDA fis, buy maybe post to the "lighter" threads, or at least not visit the "Dark side of the force" that day. What do you think?

[Snoopy]

So, having been contacted by a high-powered attorney whom I have a great deal of respect for, it appears that a "foreign" professional corporation may NOT need to be registered with the SOS. For clarification sake, please note the link below. Apologies for any confusion, but I am more than anxious to correct any misinformation I may have provided...

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/221-46.htm

~~Snoopy~~

Rosy - good to hear from you again!!

I think it is just plain rude of them, but that's just me. Apparently "fallible" is not only a theology expert but a legal interpreter as well. Good to know, since I have a legal process question I am certain he can answer.

F, how is it that Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster, a professional corporation out of Minnesota can appear in front of a Massachusetts judge without being registered as a foreign corporation with the Massachusetts Secretary of State?? It appears to me to be a direct violation of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 156A, Section 17.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/156a-17.htm

[Clay]

to be honest this is what I would call a contrived issue.... a non-issue.... something thought up on a slow news day.... is there some reason why after 126 comments it should continue on? nothing like beating a dead horse into paste......

[PeacefulBe]

to be honest this is what I would call a contrived issue.... a non-issue.... something thought up on a slow news day.... is there some reason why after 126 comments it should continue on? nothing like beating a dead horse into paste......

Some folk are into eating paste. I must admit that I tasted it a few times in elementary school. Never could understand why some would take the bottle back to the cloak room and chow down on it. I always felt a bit of pity for them, though.

Now, what issue were we discussing?

[Pickle]

Breaking news: Magistrate Hillman issued an order dated 11/16/07, which just got sent out. Until either side can demonstrate a reason for imaging the other's hard drives, it will not take place.

And that makes a lot of sense.

He also specifically stated that his order of 11/2/07 concerned data preservation, and was not intended to give the plaintiffs access to Gailon's hard drives.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Nov 20 2007, 04:58 PM

[Johann]

Breaking news: Magistrate Hillman issued an order dated 11/16/07, which just got sent out. Until either side can demonstrate a reason for imaging the other's hard drives, it will not take place.

And that makes a lot of sense.

He also specifically stated that his order of 11/2/07 concerned data preservation, and was not intended to give the plaintiffs access to Gailon's hard drives.

They tried!

[justice4jesus]

Breaking news: Magistrate Hillman issued an order dated 11/16/07, which just got sent out. Until either side can demonstrate a reason for imaging the other's hard drives, it will not take place.

And that makes a lot of sense.

He also specifically stated that his order of 11/2/07 concerned data preservation, and was not intended to give the plaintiffs access to Gailon's hard drives.

Oh, you must be mistaken, Bob. We were assured just yesterday that this was indeed going to happen!

Thanks for the update!

[Pickle]

I actually had a notice about the order Friday, but I didn't know that's what it was. So the magistrate issued his order on Friday that the plaintiffs couldn't have their way unless they showed good cause first.

[fallible humanbe...]

Oh, you must be mistaken, Bob. We were assured just yesterday that this was indeed going to happen!

Thanks for the update!

And this is still true. Mr. Pickle has once again presented a very skewed view of the courts actions. The document in question is, Case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 33-2 Filed 11/16/2007 and consists of seven pages which are the judges decision in regards to the issue of electronic discovery. (The document is available via Pacer for those interested)

The document begins with a brief review of how the case has arrived at its present situation. Early in the document the judge indicates the initial process for electronic discovery as proposed by 3ABN. It would be a three step process:

1. Create a bit stream image (mirror image) of hard drive(s)
2. This image would be searched using terms that had been agreed upon by both plaintiff and defendant
3. The results of that search would go immediately to the party from whom discovery is sought, to review the results of the search for relevance, privilege, confidentiality issues, and ultimately to production of responsive information.

The proposal, as presented by 3ABN, would apply to either side in the case. At the hearing where this was proposed the defendants (Joy and Pickle) offered no option. In fact, a footnote indicates that the defense had indicated its expert would be Mr. Pickle and he offered no testimony as evidenced by the judges footnote:

"This Court went through a great deal of effort to set-up a video conference so that the Defendant,
Robert Pickle could join the hearing from the Federal Courthouse in Fargo, North Dakota. Mr. Pickle was
represented by counsel at this hearing who was present (Laird J. Heal, Esquire). The ostensible reason for
having the video conference was so that Mr. Pickle could present evidence on behalf of the Defendants
acting as the Defendants’ expert. After the Plaintiffs rested, the Defendants indicated that they did not
intend to present any evidence."

After the hearing (7 Aug 2007) 3ABN was informed that Gailon Joy had filed for bankruptcy protection and had listed his electronic equipment (including computers) within the confines of that case. Because it was possible the computers would be sold to settle the bankruptcy 3ABN sought to image the hard drives of these computers to insure the data they contained would not be lost. The judge in this case ordered (2 Nov 2007):

". . . authorizing the copying, and immediate sealing of any hard drives or electronic storage devises under the
control of the defendant Joy in an effort to preserve any potentially discoverable
electronic evidence."

The document goes on to explain the nature of disagreement between the two parties and indicates that 3ABN's position is that "a trained, experienced computer forensic examiner (“examiner”) hired by the requesting party" be responsible for making the mirror image of any identified hard drives. Along with the mirror images would be a mutually agreed upon list of search terms to be used by said expert. A search would be performed by the expert and the resulting logs would be supplied to "all counsel of record and copies of documents listed in either of the two logs would be provided to the producing party for review as to relevance and privilege." The producing party (Gailon Joy for instance) would then supply the requesting party with all documents identified and a list of those not supplied because they were claiming privilege on those documents.

At the hearing the defendants protested the creating of a mirror image of any hard drive claiming:

"giving an expert for the plaintiff access to their information technology infrastructure would compromise the integrity of their system, violate confidences and privacy rights, and will allow a wide-ranging, fishing expedition into data and information that would never be discoverable"

The judge indicates that they later modified this position but doesn't indicate the modification. It is then stated that Mr. Pickle proposed that parties "make their discovery requests for electronic information in the traditional manner." Which is followed by the following footnote:

"Pro se defendant Joy also submitted a proposed order which essentially tracks Pickle’s proposed order with the exception that he continues to insist that The Sedona Principles have somehow supplanted the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Sedona Principles are a valuable tool for courts and practioners but do not have the force of law. They are a best practices recommendation for dealing with electronic document production"

In essence the proposal by Mr. Pickle is that Gailon Joy and Mr. Pickle would decide what should be copied, copy it to a readable disk, and then present that to opposing counsel. If either receiving party feels that what has been supplied is incomplete they can embark on a lengthy process of requesting the missing data. (My commentary: this would serve no purpose except to intentionally drag the case on longer then necessary.) The judge explains the process proposed by Mr. Pickle this way:

"This position essentially makes the search of an electronic storage devises optional at the responding parties discretion. He further suggests that the examiner not be an expert for the requesting party for the interpretation of electronic data or an employee of the requesting party of their counsel."

In the final section of the document the judge writes:

"In the absence of agreement between the parties, there is nothing in the record at this time that would cause me to order a responding party to make all of their electronically stored information available to the requesting party."

He also indicates that courts currently are cautious in regards to the process of creating a complete mirror image of a hard drive. There is a need for the requesting party to make a hard and fast case for this process. But follows this explanation up with the following:

"However, discrepancies or inconsistencies in the responding party’s discovery responses may justify a party’s request to allow an expert to create and examine a mirror hard drive of an image. In cases where a defendant is alleged to have used the computer to commit the wrong that is the subject of the lawsuit, it is easier to establish a sufficient nexus between the plaintiff’s claims and the needs to obtain a mirror image of the computer’s hard drive."

Which obviously requires that the responding party be forthcoming and honest in their presentation of documentation or the requesting party make a case the shows that the underlying source of their complaint is contained on the hard drive(s) of the defendant.

The final paragraph reads:

"I am mindful that on November 2, 2007, I fashioned an order requiring the defendant Joy to provide the plaintiffs and the Court with a listing of all electronic equipment under his care, custody or control, and ordered a mirror image of the storage devices on that equipment to be reproduced and placed under seal. This Order is made in an abundance of caution to prevent the loss of any relevant information and is in no way intended to provide the plaintiffs with access to the defendant Joy’s hard drive without a further showing to this Court consistent with the principles elucidated in this opinion."

and seems to indicate that Gailon Joy's hard drives -are- to be mirrored and placed under the courts control. That is unless 3ABN's attorney's make a compelling case to gain access to these mirrored images.

- FHB

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Nov 21 2007, 12:05 AM

[fallible humanbe...]

For those interested here is the document.

- FHB


 Document_33_2.pdf ( 21.24K ) Number of downloads: 12


This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Nov 21 2007, 12:29 AM

[Pickle]

... he offered no testimony ...

So? I wasn't allowed to. I could not say a word unless asked since I was represented by counsel, and there was no way to communicate with Attorney Heal after we were in the courtrooms. I would have been glad to testify, and wanted to.

If either receiving party feels that what has been supplied is incomplete they can embark on a lengthy process of requesting the missing data. (My commentary: this would serve no purpose except to intentionally drag the case on longer then necessary.)

But that's how it is traditonally done, and we can all thank God for that. Thus, unless I can demonstrate that you have deleted files off your hard drive in an effort to avoid producing them, I can't go after your entire hard drive. And you ought to appreciate that.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Nov 21 2007, 05:36 AM