Agree that it could certainly be a normal inclination, but being a mature and responsible adult means that you sometimes have to put on your grown up undies and “face the music” - no matter how difficult it is.
It is actually rather cowardly to use “emotional pain” as an excuse for not cooperating in a legal proceeding brought by your own daughter, when you yourself were involved in activities connected to the claim that led to saId legal proceeding.
I know that the remote monitoring system used by my state’s public universities is not difficult to beat. I help my grad school advisor with grading and have heard from multiple faculty members, from the start of lockdown, how rampant cheating became when they switched to remote testing. So it is possible to beat. I’m sure there are ways to perfect it, like going with an MCAT-style room/setup, but I imagine that style of monitoring, if used for a deposition, would be much more uncomfortable than sitting down in person for a depo.
Not going to quote your long and wonderful post - but BRAVO!
And are likely funding said legal proceeding.
THEY FILED THE SUIT. Did they expect there would be no reminders of this horrific event when suing people because of the event? That’s an absolute BS cop out, especially when we are talking about a LAWYER.
This is true, and an excellent point. She did, in fact, answer an interrogatory question with words to the affect that she didn’t have the requested docs, her father did.
Thank you for sharing this. Well said.
I agree their response (or non-response, as the case may be) is a cop-out - but JK/KK did not file the suit. Their (ahem) adult daughter filed it.
I would like to think that by dragging their feet on cooperating, they are hoping daughter dearest will get the message that they are getting tired of supporting her shenanigans, but I am sure I am giving them too much credence. I instead rather believe they are dragging their feet purposely, to delay things and complicate things as much as possible because they are not at all certain daughter will win her case.
Sounds wonderful. I need to find a Keto-friendly version of that recipe!
Circling back to the notice of intent to file a protective order.
So the protective order that Nagel intends to file is not to prevent MB from contacting or being around LK, but rather to attempt to have various documents and testimony declared off-limits during the depositions.
Will he have to list the items he wants declared off-limits? Can he use generic or broad descriptions, or will he have to be specific? And does he have to state why he wants each individual item excluded, or can he use an overall reason? Can he say something as vague as “Not Relevant” or “Overly Intrusive” or does he have to give more detailed reasons?
I think Nagel is using that Motion as part of his request for a Zoom deposition, since the only thing he attached as a supporting doc is his brief/response for the motion to compel the in person deposition.
Here’s the rule, from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 26c:
Ah, thanks. I kept trying to wrap my head around the fact that he might have the gall to ask that inquiry into certain matters be forbidden, especially if those matters are very much germane to the case. But then again, nothing that bunch does would surprise me at this point. They have shown time and again that they do not hold themselves to the standards of behavior generally expected in a polite society. 
It’s all interesting, for sure.
Early on, having to be court ordered to answer interrogatories (Lauren), ignoring subpoenas (Jonathan and Kirby) and now this with the deposition of Lauren are all things you usually see out of the defendant in a suit, not typically the plaintiff, who brought the suit.
Good point @ekat.
If you are of unlimited means (as Lauren Kanarek has said that she is) and your family having to discuss a situation is just too traumatic for them, then you do not file a lawsuit about it.
You (general) can not file a lawsuit and then proclaim discussing the topic of the lawsuit is just too hard so the defense is not allowed to ask questions. Oh but wait, it is not too hard to discuss the topic of the lawsuit all over social media, but that is different, clearly. How dare anyone say that counts.
You (also general) can not answer the question related to information on the lawsuit with - ask my Dad and then find it offensive that people are asking your dad for the information that you said to ask him for.
You (still general) can not answer the question related to information on the lawsuit with - find it yourself on my social media and then call it stalking when someone for the defense actually goes to your social media.
You know….I have a sneaky hunch that this was kind of the point.
It has never made sense, or been believable, that JK had any conversations with MB, Tarshis, or any other agent of that farm about LK leaving and that he did not discuss that concept with her.
I don’t think we really know how involved the parents were. With all the speculation on the forums, it’s hard to know if any facts have been presented. It seems we may find out depending on informations available during the trial or 48 Hours.
Is it speculation that the lawyer for Michael involved with getting Lauren Kanarek to leave said under oath that he was making the arrangements for her to leave with Jonathan Kanarek?
Is it speculation that one of the prosecution witnesses said under oath that Jonathan Kanarek was making arrangements for Lauren Kanarek to leave with Michael’s lawyer?
Just trying to figure out where the speculation line starts and ends.
Kirby Kanarek has said many times on this very forum that she transcribed the recordings. No one speculated about that.
I’ll grant you that on Kirby. Maybe Seeker was lying on this forum when she repeatedly claimed to be Kirby, and boasted about her involvement. If that was all a big fat lie, that sucks. And if I were Kirby, being personally served with a subpoena to produce docs that were purported to have been done by me, I would have hired an attorney to file Motions to Quash immediately, if not sooner. I would absolutely not have ignored said subpoena and hoped for the best.
Re: Jonathan, more than one witness testified under oath about Jonathan’s involvement in the criminal trial - two of which are attorneys with their own reputations and bar licenses out there, one of which was paid by Jonathan himself to represent Lauren. To claim he wasn’t involved now is an interesting tale in light of what we do know.
What about ED, who testified he was Hired By Jonathan Kanarek?
You are so right. I had forgotten about Ed. So three people in the trial, two of who were there on behalf of the prosecution, said that Jonathan Kanarek was actively involved in this situation.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
