From the most recent Civil info:
9 Likes
1 Like
Interesting that video surveillance was installed but not working that day.
10 Likes
Quite a coincidence.
7 Likes
It doesnât seem that having their star witness being arrested and charged with a crime related to the incident would look good for the jury. What is the statute of limitations for this? Will it run out before they get to trial? If yes, weâll, there is your answer about what they think about which crime they want to pursueâŠâŠ
1 Like
Ah, fair point.
NJ statutes look weird.
That being said my guess is the Statute of Limitations is 5 years unless the charge is a misdemeanor. If it is, 1 year. But if it isnât or you toss in a conspiracy looks like 5 years.
Conspiracy may be relevant were there proof that the unlawful surveillance was planned and done in order to alarm, harass, manipulate, coerce or otherwise influence the other party via intimidation or extortion.
Again, I am not saying any of this is relevant to this particular case. Just tossing out general possibilites.
3 Likes
FYI, a NEW filing was recorded today and I have started a new thread.
7 Likes
Wouldâve started a new thread in here, tbh.
I also received odd PMâs from LK. I made a post on the Safe Sport thread asking people to not drag the LK/MB drama into what was otherwise a decent discussion. This was apparently offensive. I just donât have that kind of time in my day to literally look for things to be offended about or twist to fit some narrative. So I used the ignore and block feature. The whole thing was odd and contradictory.
I am sort of interested to see what kind of momentum that filing gains. Even if we take the MB and LK factor out of it, itâs still a relatively interesting filing in relation to the responsibilities and potential negligence and/or bias of the police/township.
5 Likes
Where? (I ask because this is the only thread in CE that I see. I have CE blocked. I will have to unblock to find it.)
Well, I have no legal training or anything but my thought is, when there is a huge amount of bigger issues to deal with the little things (like illegally recording stuff) are frequently ignored.
Stupid made up example - When a person is almost killed while buying their daily crack supply, they typically do not charge that person with drug charges. They charge the people doing the shooting.
It is in the Dressage forum.
4 Likes
Any bets on how long it will take for YD and LK to get that thread shut down?
7 Likes
Which is why I started this one down here .
7 Likes
I think it is down to us to not engage even if they wish it.
12 Likes
No sign of them yet. Somewhat surprisingly.
2 Likes
It is a great thread though! We can always move it here if we have to. But that information should be out there where everyone can read it.
4 Likes
ants + picnic= ???
Civil case recap:
10/18/19 LK filed a complaint against MB and several entities. This is the typical way to start a civil action in NJ. She asserted a variety of tort/personal injury claims. Her theory against Sweetgrass Farm is that the entity controlled the property of the farm and allowed MB to have dangerous firearms, so the entity is liable for the injuries he caused using those firearms.
She served the defendants and then moved for an order that they respond to the complaint. After some back and forth on that, the defendants filed their answers. When a complaint has been filed, there are two general ways to respond. The defendant can file a preliminary motion, and raise legal issues (only those related to the way the complaint is written, not factual disputes or more complex legal issuesâthose are raised later) or answer and respond to the facts. The defendants here chose to answer and those were filed in February and March of 2020. There are some interesting things pled in these answers, but remember that these are not proven facts. This is one sideâs version of events (and not even all events, but really one sideâs response to what the plaintiff put in the complaint). Just because something is pled in an answer doesnât mean itâs ever actually proven. The defendants also filed cross claims against each other, basically saying âitâs not me who is responsible, itâs actually youâ and pointing the finger at each other. Thatâs typical. MB also filed a counter claim against LK asserting tort/personal injury claims and thatâs where the more âinterestingâ details are recited, like the fact that LK has a criminal record and a history of drug use.
LK also filed a motion asking that assets be preserved during the litigation. MB opposed this. There was some back and forth on this. The court denied the motion at the end of March.
The court set a discovery end date for December 13, 2020. By that time all paper discovery and depositions would have to be completed. In September, the LK requested an additional 60 days. The parties then jointly requested an extension until May 2021. The judge granted this request.
At that point, the parties were supposed to be off doing that discovery. This happens largely without court intervention. But in January 2021, Sweetgrass Farm moved to compel discovery. According to Sweetgrass Farm, it requested documents and written answers to interrogatories from LK and she didnât timely provide them. The court granted the motion and ordered LK to provide the discovery within 10 days of when the order was granted, which was February 9, 2021.
Apparently Sweetgrass Farms had not only requested discovery from LK directly, it had also sent a request to the Morris County Prosecutorâs Office requesting documents from that office. The office denied Sweetgrass Farmâs request and sent a letter to the court in the civil case outlining why the office had done so.
In response, Sweetgrass Farm filed a brief explaining why it thought it was entitled to the documents in possession of the Morris County Prosecutorâs Office. One reason was that LK had made lots of social media posts and Sweetgrass Farm believed those were in the prosecutions possession and could most easily be collected by having the prosecution turn the documents over. Sweetgrass Farm argued that if the court was inclined to agree that the prosecutors had no obligation to turn over the information requested, that the civil case be stayed (put on hold) until the criminal case concluded. Because at that point the prosecution was more willing to turn over what it possessed. Sweetgrass Farm requested more than just the social media posts from the prosecution.
That brings us to June 2021. LK changed lawyers. This happens.
There was an oral argument on the motion on June 11, 2021. During the oral argument the court stated that it would not allow any depositions of parties in the case until after the criminal case concluded. That day the court granted in part the motion to compel and ordered the prosecutorâs office to turn over the social media posts pursuant to a confidentiality order within 30 days of the order. So those would have only been due a week or so ago. The court did not order the prosecution to turn over other documents.
Then another litigant changed lawyers.
The parties submitted a confidentiality order for the court to enter, which would govern how discovery was used in the case. It was granted on June 23, 2021.
And then on July 7, 2021, Sweetgrass Farm moved to stay the case (put it on hold) until after the criminal case concluded. All the defendants joined this request. According to Sweetgrass Farm LK did not consent (itâs a little unclear if she said ânoâ or just never responded when asked if she would consent). This motion is to be decided on July 23, 2021.
And thatâs where things stand per the docket.
So to circle back on some of the last couple days discussion on this threadâŠ
- The prosecution did not âwant to delay any depositions in the civil trialâ so much as the prosecution wanted to resist having to turn over its documents and, in the context of that, pointed out why allowing the civil case to get out ahead of the criminal case could harm the criminal case. Sweetgrass Farm requested documents from the prosecution, the prosecution said no. Sweetgrass Farm moved to compel, and the prosecution wrote a letter explaining its refusal. Part of that justification was the way allowing civil discovery to proceed could harm the criminal case. There was a hearing (no transcript uploaded) and after that hearing the judge ordered that no depositions occur until after the criminal case concluded.
- The prosecution did not make an âargumentâ in the civil case (I mean, not really, maybe in an oblique way). Sweetgrass Farm requested information from the prosecution. The prosecution resisted and let the civil court know it resisted. The civil court nonetheless required that the prosecution turn over some information. Not all the information that was requested, but some. At the same time the civil court delayed certain discoveryânamely depositions of parties.
- In its letter the prosecution did note some of the same concerns I noted above if the civil case was allowed to proceed at the same time as the criminal caseânamely that witnesses (primarily LK) might give a deposition in the civil case and then have that used to impeach at the criminal trial). This is a real concern and the reason why the prosecution might want the criminal case to proceed the civil one.
- It appears that Sweetgrass Farm initially would have liked to go forward more aggressively with the civil case, but when it court denied its request for ALL the information it sought from the prosecution, then it preferred to stay the case rather than try to go forward with more limited discovery at that time. Given the choice between going forward now with limited discovery or staying the whole thing until after the criminal trial, all the defendants preferred a stay.
37 Likes
Thanks for the awesome recap, prof!
3 Likes
Thanks for the recap! Hugely helpful for the rest of us.
1 Like
