After the two sides met late last year and seemingly agreed to a June 2013 trial date, Kanakuk lawyers filed a motion asking for the case to be delayed until August because one of the legal team had a vacation scheduled for the trial time and because it would be the height of the camping season and many of those who would have to testify would not be available for work.
Attorney Linda Turley, representing the family of the sex abuse victim, argued that Kanakuk's proposed August 13 trial date would conflict with preparation for the beginning of the victim's senior year in high school.
The Kanakuk Defendants recognize that it is imperative that the trial not be scheduled
during John Doe I’s school year and have offered to make accommodations to avoid any conflict with John Doe I’s school schedule. That is why Defense counsel conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel and proposed a date that would result in the least disruption to all parties’ schedules. Plaintiffs’ Response misstates or omits these conversations with Defense counsel in an attempt to inflame this Court and the public. Such tactics should not be tolerated by this Court.
3 comments:
Geez lawyers, it's a trial date, and in any case, it's over a year away. People can make arrangements. Sounds like 1) inappropriate gamesmanship by the Plaintiffs attorneys if they didn't convey the conversation with the Defendants' counsel and 2) inappropriate whining and overreaction by Defendants' counsel.
This is why judges hate lawyers sometimes. Seems like there are more important things for both sides to be doing.
So Joe White and Kanakuk feel like they are sensitive to the kid and his school.
Reality check, school starts mid August, how is starting the trial around the same time school starts sensitive to the kid and his situation. The defendents and the attorneys actually think that going to court at the same time the kid starts his senior year is being sensitive?
Is Joe and his attorneys not putting two and two together?
Second, hard to believe that the plaintiffs attorneys would put their client in harms way for the sake of Joe, Kanakuk and their attorney's.
This is a lawsuit and Ross thanks for the comments. Sounds like a bunch of whining on Defedants counsel again. This filing continues to be consistant with everything up until now. Filing 2 motions to dismiss, request to move date after they agreed to a date, responding to the injunction the way they did, (accusing plaintiffs of exaggerating the situation) and now this complaint.
What is next, Plaintiffs counsel hurt their feelings?
Do you mind if I quote a couple of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your
site? My blog site is in the exact same niche as yours and my
visitors would really benefit from some of the information you provide here.
Please let me know if this alright with you.
Many thanks!
Also visit my webpage :: Family lawyer
Post a Comment