Also, last week, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Roger Brodman issued a "correcting minute entry" related to the upcoming hearing, which will take place at 11:00 am in Judge Brodman's courtroom. Further, the minute entry gives what might be a clue about the Judge's attitude toward this lawsuit.
IF ANY ISSUES IN THE MOTION RELATE TO DISCOVERY PROBLEMS, COUNSEL SHALL CONFER TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THEIR DIFFERENCES OR TO REDUCE THE AREAS OF DISPUTE. COUNSEL ARE REMINDED THAT THE COURT WILL LIKELY IMPOSE SANCTIONS AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 37(a)(4), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.I've posted links to the recent motions and demands made by the plaintiffs in the recent blog entry regarding Leach. The AIRC responses indignantly object to those demands. You know, the fishing expedition concept. From the AIRC response to motion to compel,
Plaintiffs’ expensive, burdensome discovery should be substituted with a careful review of the contemporaneous record of the Commission’s proceedings available to Plaintiffs – and anyone else – to review. Plaintiffs mock the Commission’s reliance on its detailed legislative record of its entire proceedings, complaining that the contemporaneous, verbatim transcripts of all Commission meetings prepared by certified court reports are inadequate because “the Commissioners were under no legal duty to provide honest answers regarding their motivations,” (Motion at 12), and they equate the Commission’s reliance on the public record to “stonewall[ing],” (Id. at 8). There is, however, no requirement that a legislative record be under oath to be used in litigation. And respecting legislative privilege is not stonewalling. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ Mapping Claims are not even about the motivations of individual commissioners. Instead of using the Commission’s detailed legislative record, Plaintiffs choose to fight for more emails and depositions.An excerpt from the AIRC response to request for production of documents,
The Commission objects to this Request to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine. The Commission further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Commission also objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms “preparation or development” and “administratively involved in or administratively contributed to” are vague and ambiguous.And an excerpt from AIRC's answers to plaintiffs' second set of non-uniform interrogatories,
The Commission objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Commission further objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms “preparation or development” and “administratively involved in or administratively contributed to” are vague and ambiguous. Subject to and notwithstanding these objections, the Commission refers Plaintiffs to its response to Non-Uniform Interrogatory No. 37.I have to wonder if some young punk attorneys at Snell & Wilmer are trying to make something happen where Liburdi and Hauser couldn't. And I also reiterate my concern over where they got the additional money to restart this ridiculous lawsuit.