"Emergency" Motion For Contempt Backfires.

lippmanorder

One of the cases Steve Lippman took with him from RRA (Scott used to be counsel of record on the matter) involves a suit by Edward Bennett and Ace Technology Corporation against GFM Corp.

On January 21st, Lippman (on behalf of Ace) filed an emergency motion for contempt relating to some discovery that GFM allegedly failed to produce.

Without waiting for a response, Judge Bandstra entered an order on Thursday denying the motion.

It has some interesting language:

Reviewing the pleadings, and the procedural history of this case, the Court finds no basis for a finding of contempt or any further court order with respect to this discovery. The procedural history of this case reveals that the parties have continually failed to comply with discovery obligations imposed by the Court's rules resulting in a series of motions to compel and Court Orders to resolve such disputes. The instant "emergency" is another example of such conduct and results, in large part, from plaintiff's own delay in seeking the subject discovery in a timely manner and then delaying or agreeing to delay the review of these documents until almost two months after the Court Order requiring defendant's production. Plaintiff's motion for contempt explains the problem in obtaining this discovery but offers no explanation for its own lack of diligence in pursuing this discovery. Also, plaintiff fails to file the requisite memorandum of law with its motion citing any authority for an entry of contempt under the circumstances here. This, too, is a violation of the rules of this Court and constitutes a separate reason for the denial of this motion.

Ouch.

Boy, I wonder if anything was happening at RRA while all this was going on?