I was just thinking the exact same thing! He would have enjoyed this saga!
2 Likes
Now, you know Willem has been known to speak to us from beyond. Although I do believe that Aunt Esther would have found this episode quite tawdry, myself!
7 Likes
Even though the demand is for the last six years of her posts, it looks like she joined in 2017 and had only one post prior to being shot. In that one post about a year before the shooting, she bumped a 5 year old thread on Barisone to be effusive in her praise for his teaching.
The demand is for just her posts, not the whole threads, so it seems unlikely all the terribly amusing inside jokes will emerge. It turns out she had only 500 posts total.
The Statute of Limitations for civil proceedings in NJ is 6 years as far as I know. I doubt any of the attorneys involved have a clue when anyone in this case began using any of the SM platforms involved, so asking for the full limit is certainly a reasonable request.
It becomes confusing reading all the case file information because of the cross litigation. This is a portion of a request for information made by Sweet Grass attorneys to LK regarding 3 years of social media information:
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES
- Please identify all of your internet social media and networking websites and/or
applications, which you have used and/or maintained an account in the last three (3) years
and provide your username and password, or alternatively, under Rule 1.340©, please
provide a copy of all non-privileged content/data shared on the account in the last three 3)
years. Internet social media websites include, but are not limited to, Facebook, LinkedIn,
Twitter, Instagram, Foursquare, YouTube, Pinterest, Google+, Tumblr, Flicker, Skype,
FaceTime, etc.
RESPONSE: - Please identify any and all blog or internet message boards, chat rooms, and public forums
that you have participated in or a member of within the last three (3) years and provide
your username and password, or alternatively, under Rule 1.340©, please provide a copy
of all non-privileged content/data shared on the account in the last three 3) years.
, but is not limited to, any internet website or
service in which users post messages or content in a public-forum.
RESPONSE: - For any account identified in answer to Nos. 1 2, please describe in detail any and all
content that you have deleted or erased on or after August 7, 2019 (and the dates they were
deleted), including but not limited to photographs, videos, posts, tweets, and
name/username changes.
RESPONSE:
6 Likes
@vxf111 Does this mean if LK does not comply, the civil suit will be dismissed?
COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP
Mark K. Silver, Esq. (019752000)
350 Mount Kemble Avenue
P.O. Box 1917
Morristown, New Jersey 07962-1917
(973) 267-0058
Attorneys for Defendant, Sweet Grass Farm, LLC
LAUREN KANAREK,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL BARISONE, SWEET GRASS
FARMS, LLC, RUTH COX, JOHN DOES 1-
30; ABC Corporations 1-20
Defendants.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION
MORRIS COUNTY
DOCKET NO.: MRS-L-2250-19
Civil Action
ORDER
THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by Coughlin Duffy LLP, attorneys for
Defendant Sweet Grass Farm, LLC, for an Order Compelling Plaintiff’s Responses to
Defendant’s Discovery Requests pursuant to Rule 4:17-4 and Rule 4:18-1, by way of a Notice of
Motion duly filed and served upon all counsel, and the Court having considered the papers
submitted herein, and for good cause having been shown;
IT IS ON this 9__ day of February______, 2021:
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s
Discovery Requests is hereby GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff be and is hereby compelled to provide responses to
Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories and Requests for the Production of Documents within
ten (10) days of this Order; and it is further
ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served on all counsel within seven (7) days
of the date of this Order.
2 Likes
I would bet it does. That would be interesting. If LK Went to the trouble to file a civil suit and MB asked for clarifications on his side of it, she just didn’t bother to respond to let him win the civil suit, lol, that would be special but not unexpected.
5 Likes
I would also just like to point out how Yankee person keeps alluding to “the client” of MB as being a “normal” person; a regular person. Since when did anyone consider LK to be normal? YK sounds like a member of her legal team to me. But that’s just my opinion.
13 Likes
If indeed that poster were a member of any party’s legal team the odds they would be posting are nil.
So many reasons not to that would absolutely outweigh any reasons to.
9 Likes
For some people the need for attention outweighs anything logical.
Disclaimer - I am not saying this is the case for anyone specific.
13 Likes
Dismissal is a possible consequence for failing to comply with discovery but a pretty severe one and not typically one a judge would choose unless several other sanctions had been tried first and there was truly egregious conduct.
If civil suits were dismissed after the first time the plaintiff was late in discovery I’d have half my docket 
14 Likes
Thank you!
I was involved in wrongful injury law suit, when the other party failed to respond to requests from the judge the case was dismissed with prejudice ending the affair completely
2 Likes
They are going to have the entire thread for context silly.
4 Likes
I would assume she would have immediately complied with the request since she is so innocent and the victim bringing the suit. But what do I know…we all know what happens when we assume!
I feel certain the criminal defense attorneys have posts galore from her history. Do they not share? Or perhaps they have already shared?
6 Likes
When I read the wording of the discovery demand, I thought it requested of Lauren just her posts, and remarked up thread that I thought that that would be not particularly useful outside the context of the whole thread.
Are you saying that the SGF lawyers want Lauren to produce just her own posts, then they will log on and interpret them in the context of the whole thread?
Based on something @vxf111 said I now think that Lauren’s posts in isolation could be useful to the lawyers of SGF to the extent that they examine them purely for what she says in terms of her assigning blame on Ruth Cox and Barisone directly, in which case they could say the liability is not with them, the property owner.
In particular, I think the issue from the point of view of SGF is whether they have liability as barn owner for the (illegal?) presence of the gun.
Suppose the lawyers do look at all the Barisone/Kanarek threads in their entirety. In one of those threads, @eggbutt said that her posts would serve to show the jury “what Barisone was dealing with”, presumably casting Kanarek in a bad light. Do you still think that the vicious, victim-blaming, mean girl tenor and juvenile inside jokes of the threads as a whole is going to cut against Lauren as opposed to against Barisone?
With apologies to @BigMama1 for “rehashing” old threads, in one of those threads someone (other than me) opined that the threads could be used to indicate that Barisone had surrounded himself with “unstable nut jobs”, I believe the term was.
If you think the threads, in their cringeworthy entirety, are going to be brought in as evidence, I think that question is relevant here.
Do you think the lawyers viewing the threads in their entirety will scratch their heads in befuddlement at the inside jokes, come to see Lauren as a sociopathic manipulator, or think Barisone had surrounded himself with “unstable nut jobs”?
For those of you who are pro-Barisone/ anti Kanarek, do you think Barisone is better off if the SGF lawyers view Lauren’s posts in isolation or in context?
1 Like
@eggbutt assumes that Lauren would have complied immediately if she were innocent.
I have never had any direct communication with Lauren. However, a couple weeks ago, my notification feed indicated some new “likes” by a username La-la Poprider for some of my posts in those old threads. I thought it was curious at the time, but it seems understandable now that she would be going through the old threads in response to this discovery demand.
I am not at all sure what you are referring to in terms of sharing of information among “criminal defense attorneys”. This is the civil case, and SGF has a claim against Barisone. Why would the civil attorneys for SGF and Barisone collaborate if they are adversaries in the civil suit?
Because Barisone was part of SGF and also has his own civil attorneys as far as I know. SFG appears to be trying to distance the LLC from the events since several of the partners were not on the property and had little influence on the situation. Simply my thoughts. Nothing more or less.
2 Likes
I am for the truth to evolve. LK’s posts usually speak for themselves IMO in all her various social media posts.
17 Likes
I no longer recall whether these were posts direct to COTH or links posted here to FB by the plaintiff in the civil lawsuit. But certainly there were posts showing paranoid ideation, as well as some that said plaintiff had deliberately pushed B to the breaking point and was going to take his farm and destroy him. I would expect the legal team for B to have been saving these since Day One, and the legal team for the plaintiff to have tried for a bit of social media cleanup over the past year and a half.
My sense is that these posts might not do a lot to mitigate criminal charges. But if the civil case to award damages was being tried by a jury, those posts are not going to help the plaintiff. Civil cases with juries can reach unexpected results based on the likeability of the parties.
11 Likes
They will for sure come and print the thread out if they . From my experience, they gathered everything they could from social media, even stuff unrelated. If they are doing their job, they are going to dig dig dig.
I don’t think it matters what people think of “Her” or “Him” in the process. What matters is the jury or judge determining that the victim was shot and that it either was or was not in self defense.
7 Likes
