The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
CIVIL LITMOS: Actual lawyer questions re: clock boy lawsuit
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 23rd, 2015 3:56 PM Author: 180 glassy wagecucks Is there any basis for clock boy to escape deposition due to his age?
Is there a basis to depose the dad and if so what questions can be asked? |
Date: November 23rd, 2015 3:58 PM Author: Beady-eyed Haunting Sweet Tailpipe Lodge No, especially if he is the plaintiff. Kid is old enough to testify in court and he must testify if the dep is noticed.
Yes, can depose the father because he had first hand knowledge of the clock being made, communications with the school district about the issue, and information about any damages incurred by the family. |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 3:59 PM Author: Smoky Halford They likely have to file the lawsuit using his dad or mom as guardian ad litem so his dad would be making decisions in the case. They could take his deposition though, either P's counsel will voluntarily consent to it or Judge wld almost surely order it on a motion to compel depo.
They can depose the dad too. They can ask anything likely to lead to the admissibility of relevant info which means most conturd consipiracy theories would be off limits since conturd theories are beyond anything that possibly could be relevant. For instance, asking him if he is a secret member of Hamas or Al Qaeda probably would be sanctionable. |
 |
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:03 PM Author: Very Tactful Maize School Why would it be sanctionable to ask if he is a member of Hamas in a deposition? In front of jury without any evidence that it is true, perhaps, but why not a deposition? If he said yes, that might tend to show the clock was intended as a bomb hoax, wouldn't it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238202) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:06 PM Author: Smoky Halford Without any fucking foundation whatsoever the question just seems meant to harass. You can't just ask any plaintiff in a depo 'so when did you stop being a child molester?' and then claim will its possibly relevant cause of XYZ.... Hamas question wld clearly be prejudicial and harassing and irrelevant. P's lawyer wld stop depo and file for sanctions. That's like asking a woman in a civil rape case how big a whore she is. Can't do it
|
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:08 PM Author: Sapphire trailer park outted as a retard, you don't ask "so when did you quit raping children" you ask if he's even been convicted or charged with a crime then go from there
asking about membership in political organizations would be terribly non problematic and unless you say "her durr you's a terrorist muslim ain't you" sanctions are not on the table |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:10 PM Author: Smoky Halford LOL its just meant to harass. There is no evidence of anythign re terrorism. Its just cause he's Muslim he gets to be asked that? Bullshit, then Ill ask every white guy in a depo whether he is in the KKK or wants to kill blacks. Anything re religious, sex history, race is getting into murky territory. P's counsel shld not tolerate, neither shld the judge. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238251) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:11 PM Author: Sapphire trailer park depositions are not trials (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238254) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:12 PM Author: Smoky Halford depo testimony can be read to jury at trial to impeach witness, etc (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238262) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:16 PM Author: Copper Main People Locus don't engage TT on the law, he is a legit terrible shitlawyer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238289) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:24 PM Author: Smoky Halford (even more shitlawyer) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238346) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 6:15 PM Author: trip doobsian set masturbator To be fair,
Good point, gee, if only there was some mechanism by which parties could file motions *before trial* to exclude certain evidence elicited during depositions from admission at trial for various reasons (including, but not limited to, that it is unduly prejudicial). Fuck. We should really come up with something on that point. |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 6:23 PM Author: Vivacious ocher sanctuary This is the sort of probing, innovative thinking I like to see.
I did have another thought. What if the savvy litigator could predict certain issues beforehand and then seek an order asking the court to protect his client from those issues?
Just a thought. Probably crazy. |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 6:35 PM Author: trip doobsian set masturbator To be fair,
lol fukk whitey with this crazy bullshit fukkkk ameikkka |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 6:36 PM Author: marvelous queen of the night base (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29239189) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:17 PM Author: Overrated spectacular property boltzmann If this were a traffic accident case, I'd agree with you. But it's a case about a potential bomb threat/bomb hoax. So I could see a little leeway given on terrorist-type questions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238292) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:42 PM Author: Floppy Wrinkle I regularly ask "are you a member of any church, civic organization, etc." in depos. Have never been objected to. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238437) |
|
Date: November 24th, 2015 2:10 AM Author: passionate tanning salon prole link to Big Book o' Whiteness encouraging the killing of blacks? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29242428) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:16 PM Author: well-lubricated razzmatazz whorehouse I don't agree it would be acceptable to ask the kid if he was a member of hamas or al queda. It could definitely be seen by a judge as harassment and sanctionable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238287) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:09 PM Author: Very Tactful Maize School it might be harassment, but I don't see how it could be prejudicial if it is not asked not in front of a jury and I just told you how it is irrelevant.
In a rape case, the rules expressly provide that a woman's sexual history is off limits with limited exceptions, but there is no corresponding rule (that I am aware of) for purported terrorists. |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:10 PM Author: Underhanded kitty cat if anything he should bring a federal claim. bring a harassment claim under state law and stay away from federal court (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238250) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:12 PM Author: Smoky Halford yeah wld be bette in state court but if he brings a 1983 claim guess it will end up in fed court (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238261) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:12 PM Author: Underhanded kitty cat yea I am saying a smart lawyer would not bring 1983 claims or any federal claims. just bring state discrimination law claims and d's cant force you into fed court. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238264) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:14 PM Author: Smoky Halford TX is a fascist state though so i imagine the discrimination laws are crap or even non existent (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238272) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:17 PM Author: well-lubricated razzmatazz whorehouse Or capped. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238290) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:17 PM Author: Underhanded kitty cat maybe I don't know tx laws but most states are liberal with them and religion would be covered under any state anti-discrimination law (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238291) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:20 PM Author: Smoky Halford lots of red states dont eveh have state discr laws if i recall correctly (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238314) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:22 PM Author: Underhanded kitty cat simple google. Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), codified at Tex. Labor Code § 21.001 et seq. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238325) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:23 PM Author: Aphrodisiac out-of-control crackhouse Explain how that applies to deposition testimony. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238337) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:25 PM Author: Underhanded kitty cat what? wrong sub thread we were talking about him brining state anti-discrimination claim v. federal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238352) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:23 PM Author: Smoky Halford sounds like thats for employment.. he'd need one applicable to education instututions or just places open to public i guess (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238340) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:12 PM Author: Smoky Halford There are usually state court rules re asking questions related to ethnicity, race, religion etc... and anything he says at depo can be read to the jury..
ljl at conturds caring abt this... this isnt abt who is right or wrong but abt punishing a 15 year old turd muslim kid cause he's brown |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:18 PM Author: Overrated spectacular property boltzmann "anything he says at depo can be read to the jury.. "
wait, what? |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:21 PM Author: Smoky Halford what do u not get abt this? anything he says at depo goes into a transcript or is videotapped and can be read/shown to the jury for purposes of impeachment or if clockboy dies before trial.... ... for instance if at depo he admitted he was in hamas, then at trial he said he isnt in hamas, then they cld read the depo transcript to the jury to impeach his testimony (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238322) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:23 PM Author: Overrated spectacular property boltzmann Not "anything"
Regular rules of admissibility still apply, which is important when distinguishing between what you can ask about at a dep and what actually gets admitted at trial. |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:24 PM Author: Aphrodisiac out-of-control crackhouse Uh, no. Objections are preserved until the trial. You argue about the objections before trial, so you pretty much get free reign for the most part. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238341) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:25 PM Author: Smoky Halford wat? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238353) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:26 PM Author: Aphrodisiac out-of-control crackhouse You've never taken a deposition have you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238357) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:27 PM Author: Overrated spectacular property boltzmann Generally speaking, "relevance" is not a proper reason to refuse to answer a depo question. If you think the question is "intended to harass" you can ask the court for an order stopping that line of questioning.
But even if you answer a question that is totally irrelevant, that doesn't mean the other side can introduce your answer at trial. You can still object to introduction of the transcript/video on the grounds that it is irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, or whatever.
|
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:28 PM Author: Aphrodisiac out-of-control crackhouse Exactly. His failure to comprehend this makes me seriously question whether he's ever taken one. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238368) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:31 PM Author: Overrated spectacular property boltzmann Yeah, this is pretty basic stuff for a civil litmo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238379) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:31 PM Author: Smoky Halford nigga i dont take depos but anyway i fuking said object that its harassing and prejudicial and also irrelevant... at trial they cld still use it for impeachment purposes subjet to any objections, nigga (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238382) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:33 PM Author: Aphrodisiac out-of-control crackhouse You still have to answer it for the most part lil breh. If you refuse to answer, you've got to file a motion for protective order w/i 5 days of depo, or you've waived the objection. Also, you'd better have a damn good reason for wasting the judges time with a motion for protection and it'd better be better than "prejudicial" and "irrelevant." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238387) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:46 PM Author: Smoky Halford I wld just instruct not to answer. Wld leave depo yelling at cumskin lawyer for being racissssss. Then wld file whatever protective order motion and bitch to court. Maybe it dont work in TX cause redneck but in CA i think a judge wld at least listen to that shit since it invovles religion (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238468) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:49 PM Author: Underhanded kitty cat you would get sanctioned horribly lol. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238498) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 5:01 PM Author: Smoky Halford doubt it, at worst judge wld let it slide, at best he wld sanction other side for being racissss (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238574) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 5:03 PM Author: Underhanded kitty cat I once asked a plaintiff in a case where he claimed back injuries and was gay if he still took it up the ass. I am not flaming. He had to answer it. Per quod claim. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238581) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 5:09 PM Author: Smoky Halford lolz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238607) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 11:23 PM Author: Orchid sandwich stage Jesus. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29241592) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:34 PM Author: Sapphire trailer park you're really fucking up here (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238391) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:42 PM Author: azure persian newt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238431) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 6:17 PM Author: trip doobsian set masturbator To be fair,
Protip: Never speak about the law on this bort again. |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:42 PM Author: razzle shrine What the hell? No. Correct answer is the opposite. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238430) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 3:59 PM Author: rough-skinned pea-brained jew library How would YOU defend against this case? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238189) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:01 PM Author: Smoky Halford Conturds are pretending this is a joke cause but its viable. He will get some settlement from their insurance carrier I'm sure (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238197) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:04 PM Author: Sapphire trailer park I've not bothered to look into it but just spitballing, this is a 1983 claim for due process violations right? If anything the kid is likely to get motion to dismiss pwned by the cops and any individual educators named and he'll get to proceed against the school district and have to come up with some extremely bullshit theory of the case to survive SJ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238211) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:08 PM Author: Smoky Halford I dont know sounds like has has 1983 and some religious discr claim at least. Just has to show they overreacted, arrested him then released him, kept possession of his clock w/o due process. You dont need to have a perfect case to get a settlement. The District isn't going to spend 300k on defense cost defending this case if they can get a confidential settlement for 100k, though since its a public entity don't even know if it will be confidential since probably evnetually has to be disclosed to public. But anyway, as long as Clock Boy doesn't expect 1mm or something and will settle for 100k or something he'll get it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238233) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:10 PM Author: Underhanded kitty cat first. Public entities cannot get a confidentiality order on any settlements because it's public funds. second they will defend this. they wont settle this out. 3rd there is no 1983 claim for taking his clock..it would be for arresting him but even there I don't see a case. he was let go. it is going to be hard to prove a substantive 4th amendment deprivation on that. I don't see this going anywhere (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238247) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:13 PM Author: Smoky Halford conversion claim for the clock
the district isnt some conturd lunatic fringe movement,, they will look at this from a money perspective.. if it will cost 300k plus to go through trial and they can settle for 100k or less they will settle.. thats why 98% of civil lit settles if it doesnt get MSJ pwnd |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:18 PM Author: Underhanded kitty cat honestly sometimes the adjuster/company just says FUCK this kid. with the publicity he rose over bullshit they may say fuck him and defend the thing (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238300) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:22 PM Author: Smoky Halford insurers almost always just care abt getting the best possible monetary deal... tehy dont want shit to go to trial and risk an adverse jury verdict and 100k's plus of legal bills (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238330) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:24 PM Author: Underhanded kitty cat public entities are notoriously hesitant to go to trial but will go. The issue is going to be you are going to have 10 attorneys here. 1 for the county, 1 for the school district (separate entities). Each individually named defendant will be individual represented by the township b/c it falls under the claim. Ontop of that each individual will have a personal attorney for punitive. This needs to be paid by the joint insurance fund under most policies and repaid if they lose.
It will cost maybe 200k to defend this. trust me they don't just settle for no reason. they will at least go for SJ and while pending settle if not see the results of that. TBH his damages are relatively small and I don't think he has enough to meet an emotional distress claim. |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:39 PM Author: Vivacious ocher sanctuary "conversion claim for the clock"
*sends out Rule 68 offer of judgment for $30, the full fucking value of the clock, which is less than maximum damages he'll get* |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 5:00 PM Author: Smoky Halford emotional distress of losing the cock breh (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238571) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 6:07 PM Author: Vivacious ocher sanctuary I doubt it.
In most states, you can't even get emotional distress for the conversion (e.g., execution) of a beloved pet.
I suspect Ahmed's best damage theory will be the value of the clock to him. Even still, that's not going to be shit.
It's a mass-market clock in a mass-market case that, according to him, took extremely little effort and was not a difficult project.
Even if we valued it according to the cost of the materials, plus his labor value, you're still only adding maybe 1 hour of nearly worthless labor.
But, hell, I'm feeling extremely generous. I'll bump that up to $100 just for shits and giggles. |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 8:08 PM Author: Big-titted Boyish Stage Private Investor (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29239927) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:10 PM Author: Sapphire trailer park are school districts subject to monell liability? I would think so, in which case he's extra fucked (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238248) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:11 PM Author: Underhanded kitty cat you file a monell claim against the school itself but also 14th amendment violation of his 4th amendment due process rights. throw in a 1st amendment claim. title vii, state discrimination claims, punitive claims. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238257) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:13 PM Author: Sapphire trailer park so basically he needs an individual defendant who he can beat on qualified immunity or he's fucked since he'll never make a practice or policy case (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238266) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:15 PM Author: Underhanded kitty cat so what he will do is this. First NTP will ask for ANY and ALL suspensions against minorities. v the police he will do the same but for arrests. He will need to establish disproportional discipline against muslims or minorities? It is difficult because under qualified you need to show that "THIS exact deprivation of civil rights, i.e. accusing people of terrorism, in THAT district and school is a policy." It isn't a liberal standard it is narrowly construed. He wont pass this.
v independent defendants he will bring assault, false arrest, and other common law claims. This will bring them out of the immunities both federal and state because they are intentional acts. I mean maybe he gets some money |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:14 PM Author: Smoky Halford he cant get punitives right cause no punitives against a public entity.. at least in CA that is the law (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238276) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:17 PM Author: Underhanded kitty cat yes no punitive v public entity but against individual defendants in their personal capacity yes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238295) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 4:08 PM Author: Underhanded kitty cat sj is likely going to win here under qualified immunity. Maybe some individual d's, like the super intended, may survive and settle out but I doubt it. also the suspension stuff is banned because he needs to exhaust administrative remedies first. His title 7 claim will fail. this whole case is a loser (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29238240) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2015 6:02 PM Author: Dull excitant church I'm hoaping for full litigation.
You know who's going to get deposed? Mark Cuban, among many others. This could be so much fun. |
|
Date: November 24th, 2015 1:43 AM Author: Vivacious ocher sanctuary (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3052249&forum_id=2#29242387) |