7 ms·
The judgement document does not go into any detail therefore we don't know whether the Jones team responded with "these documents don't exist" or not. If that w
by JacobThreeThree 2y ago
The judgement document does not go into any detail therefore we don't know whether the Jones team responded with "these documents don't exist" or not. If that was their position, why wouldn't they have responded to that effect? There would be no motivation to do otherwise.
The rest of your post is speculation.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoskulk updated their post upthread to include an actual quote from the judgment. That says quite enough. It doesn't have to list specifics of a repeated, flagrant, bad-faith pattern of attempts to disrupt discovery; the rest of the record of the case will do so, in detail after detail after detail.
- JacobThreeThree 2y ago>the rest of the record of the case Is that not available somewhere? You'd think it would be presented in detail, since this is the key reason for the default judgement.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoI haven't really tried since the SCO v. IBM days. But for a federal case, you used to be able to go to the courthouse and ask to look at the case file. You could make copies of anything you want (at their rates per page). Or you could use PACER to view it, if you had an account. I suspect things are more on line these days rather than less, but I haven't tried lately. If nothing else, you should still be able to see everything on PACER. (If they are online instead of in PACER, there may be a delay time - three months, maybe? But for this case, that shouldn't matter.) For state courts... I don't know.