The evidence or fact-gathering phase of a lawsuit is called "discovery". Each party is entitled to demand various kinds of evidence from the other party or parties in preparation for a possible trial. Two common kinds of discovery demands are a "Demand for Discovery and Inspection" and "Interrogatories" (which are written questions, answered in writing, under oath). (Psst: Interrogatories are basically a waste of time, but that will be left for another day.)
In a recent decision, a New York appeals court affirmed the ruling of a lower court, throwing out a case for plaintiff's failing to respond to defendants' discovery demands. In that case, an LLC sued an architecture firm for malpractice and breach of contract. During the discovery phase, defendants architects served plaintiff with a Demand for Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories.
You only have 20 days to respond or object to discovery demands, or you lose a lot of rights in how you can respond. However, in that case, the discovery demands were hanging out there, unanswered, for two years! Plus, there were multiple court orders, ordering the plaintiff to respond, and even a stipulation (a formal, written agreement, often "so ordered" by a judge) that the plaintiff would respond within a certain time period.
Nevertheless, the plaintiff still failed to respond; their case was thrown out; and they were ordered to pay the defendants' attorney fees of almost $18,000 for frivolous conduct.
The plaintiff moved to vacate (reverse/undo) the judgment dismissing the case, as well as the $18,000 in attorney fees. But the appeals court said the plaintiff (1) failed to provide a good reason why they had not responded to the discovery demands, despite all the opportunities to do so and (2) failed to show they had a meritorious (i.e. legitimate) case.
Now, as the plaintiff: (1) you have no lawsuit (if the defendants did commit malpractice and breach of contract, there's nothing you can do about it); (2) you (probably) wracked up costs and attorney fees in the case before the lower court; (3) you had to pay costs and attorney fees for an appeal which you've lost; and (4) you have to pay the defendants $18,000 for their attorney fees! Ouch! All of this would've been avoided had the plaintiff just responded to the discovery demands.
In a recent decision, a New York appeals court affirmed the ruling of a lower court, throwing out a case for plaintiff's failing to respond to defendants' discovery demands. In that case, an LLC sued an architecture firm for malpractice and breach of contract. During the discovery phase, defendants architects served plaintiff with a Demand for Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories.
You only have 20 days to respond or object to discovery demands, or you lose a lot of rights in how you can respond. However, in that case, the discovery demands were hanging out there, unanswered, for two years! Plus, there were multiple court orders, ordering the plaintiff to respond, and even a stipulation (a formal, written agreement, often "so ordered" by a judge) that the plaintiff would respond within a certain time period.
Nevertheless, the plaintiff still failed to respond; their case was thrown out; and they were ordered to pay the defendants' attorney fees of almost $18,000 for frivolous conduct.
The plaintiff moved to vacate (reverse/undo) the judgment dismissing the case, as well as the $18,000 in attorney fees. But the appeals court said the plaintiff (1) failed to provide a good reason why they had not responded to the discovery demands, despite all the opportunities to do so and (2) failed to show they had a meritorious (i.e. legitimate) case.
Now, as the plaintiff: (1) you have no lawsuit (if the defendants did commit malpractice and breach of contract, there's nothing you can do about it); (2) you (probably) wracked up costs and attorney fees in the case before the lower court; (3) you had to pay costs and attorney fees for an appeal which you've lost; and (4) you have to pay the defendants $18,000 for their attorney fees! Ouch! All of this would've been avoided had the plaintiff just responded to the discovery demands.
Comments
Post a Comment