Magistrate Judge Brown Refuses to Sanction Plaintiffs!

I guess that's good news?

Read the order and see for yourself:

Interestingly, and not surprisingly, the response starts with attacking the Court and then jumps into the argument made at the hearing.  The first paragraph of the order to which this is a response begins with the fact that "[N]o law has been cited for the filing of "objections" to a hearing...." and "[T]o the extent the Court construes same as motions (sic) again they violate Local Rule 7.1(a)(1)".  This is totally ignored in the response.  Apparently things like following the law and the local rules take a significant backseat to ranting and raving and attacking the Court.  Nonetheless it is those very rules and laws that govern our practice and procedure.

The ranting includes using a statement made by the Court after the plaintiffs filed their objections to the hearing (in D.E. 1094) as justification for the filings they made before any such statement was made!

It goes on (downhill?) from there.

Does Anyone Really Care About Time?

I don't know if you guys know this, but Magistrate Judge Brown is presiding over a very interesting case.

So interesting that the Judge is requiring the plaintiffs to explain in detail what happened from day one to the date an enlargement of time is sought:

This matter is before this Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time ... (D.E. 1177).

The Court has considered the motion and all pertinent materials in the file.

The reasons for this motion, in the short run, are certainly reasonable. The question that arises is why, in so many situations, are plaintiffs needing these extensions. What has happened from the beginning of a situation (as opposed to just the last few days before deadlines) that requires said filing(s)?

The Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said motion be and the same is hereby GRANTED. The reply shall be filed on or before Tuesday, December 7, 2010. No further extensions will be considered. However, any future motions for extension of time shall include a history from the beginning of the event that resulted in the need for an extension of time.

 I agree!

In fact, why stop at the "beginning of the event"?

(There may be a need to be flexible with page limitations)

Magistrate Judge Brown: Case "Totally and Completely Out of Control"!

Totally Out of Control Order

You know how when a big piece of litigation ends there is a feeling of loss, sometimes even a little remorse?

That's how I'm going to feel when this case ends, which apparently will be exactly March 18, 2011:

The Court finds that it must manage its calendar, and this case in particular as it has gotten totally and completely out of control.  To allow it to go unfettered will allow what this Court stated early on - "it's all about the journey, not the destination."

"Allow it to go unfettered"?

As in "if the disease is allowed to go unfettered the parasite will spread rapidly through the body, leading to paralysis, coma, and ultimately a slow, painful death."

(He probably meant "unfettered" in some other sense.)