Michael Barisone/Lauren Kanarek Civil Suit

[lazaret]

Super common to be closed on Mondays.

When in FL in the winter, always advisable to try to remember it’s Monday before saying you’ll “just pop in” to pick something up because you and the entire world are doing that on a Monday.

[lazaret]

Not really how it works.

There’s very few stipulations demanded by law. If any are requested it needs to be agreed amongst the parties and stated for the record at the start of the deposition. The judge can’t force one party to accept stipulations that aren’t demanded by law.

The only things out of bounds for a deposition, generally, are:

1. Items covered by privilege
2. Items covered by confidentiality (very narrow)
3. Items covered by a previously entered court order

In my state at least the only objections you can lodge at a deposition are form and privilege, and the person being deposed must still answer questions where the objection is form. Any other objection is automatically and immediately waived.

The standard is that any objection as to content is raised when that content is presented at trial. The deposition proceeds unimpeded, because you can’t object to pretty much anything.

ETA: I am not speaking specifically about the rules in NJ or Florida. Just as a generalization, this is how it goes.

[MHM]

@Graymaresrule

Or they thought ahead and keep their tack in their truck

It was not that kind of operation.

[Graymaresrule]

Lol I spent a good part of my youth scheming to outwit the nuns.

[Fiesta01]

We get a few baby elephant seals here every spring when they’re moulting. That’s the only time of the year we see them. They’re definitely cuties. The sea lions are here year round.

[Ambitious_Kate]

I guess its really time for LK et al to decide if they really want to go through with this or if it was actually only bluff and bluster. Time to pull your Big Girl pants up now, Lauren.

[FitzE]

I suspect few people have called their bluffs over the years as most would rather just walk away from that kind of crazy, and probably never on the litigation threats.

Time to face the music, bring the receipts, and make your case - you know, the one you initiated.

[DownYonder]

@Joanne

So LK wants restrictions on her deposition. Does her lawyer file a motion stating those restrictions and then the judge grants what restrictions he thinks are reasonable? Will we be able to see that motion on the restrictions and what she doesn’t want to testify to?

@lazaret

Not really how it works.

There’s very few stipulations demanded by law. If any are requested it needs to be agreed amongst the parties and stated for the record at the start of the deposition. The judge can’t force one party to accept stipulations that aren’t demanded by law.

The only things out of bounds for a deposition, generally, are:

1. Items covered by privilege
2. Items covered by confidentiality (very narrow)
3. Items covered by a previously entered court order

In my state at least the only objections you can lodge at a deposition are form and privilege, and the person being deposed must still answer questions where the objection is form. Any other objection is automatically and immediately waived.

The standard is that any objection as to content is raised when that content is presented at trial. The deposition proceeds unimpeded, because you can’t object to pretty much anything.

ETA: I am not speaking specifically about the rules in NJ or Florida. Just as a generalization, this is how it goes.

What are the odds that she will try to argue that her discussions with an attorney (ED, her father, etc.) are privileged?

[MHM]

@DownYonder

What are the odds that she will try to argue that her discussions with an attorney (ED, her father, etc.) are privileged?

Wouldn’t that claim be invalidated most of the time by the constant presence of RG, who was not a lawyer and not a client of the lawyer?

[DownYonder]

@MHM

@DownYonder

What are the odds that she will try to argue that her discussions with an attorney (ED, her father, etc.) are privileged?

Wouldn’t that claim be invalidated most of the time by the constant presence of RG, who was not a lawyer and not a client of the lawyer?

Good point! But she has a history of claiming “privilege” even when RG is present. And didn’t she argue vehemently on one of the early threads that an attorney told her those conversations were privileged? (Was it the attorney at the “blue chip firm” that she had “on speed dial”?

[yaya]

She can claim it, doesn’t mean it’s correct or true.

[ohnoO]

@MHM

@DownYonder

What are the odds that she will try to argue that her discussions with an attorney (ED, her father, etc.) are privileged?

Wouldn’t that claim be invalidated most of the time by the constant presence of RG, who was not a lawyer and not a client of the lawyer?

I’m pretty sure that’s right. RG recording the meeting with ED invalidates the privilege. (I learned that here for my COTH law degree!)

Also her father was A lawyer, not Her lawyer—not in the state of NJ, anyway—so no privilege there.

I wouldn’t think she would try to argue it with Mr.D and Mr.B on the other side.

[DownYonder]

Another question for the legal eagles.

The latest order to extend discovery states a deadline of 3.9.2023 for additional written discovery requests, with depositions to follow. What happens if the depositions reveal additional info that may require a discovery request to another party? Can the attorneys request that the discovery deadline be extended again?

This judge sounds like he is already over it with the multiple extensions, so what are the odds that he would grant another extension, esp. if it is for the purpose of obtaining crucial information from another party?

[ekat]

@ohnoO

I’m pretty sure that’s right. RG recording the meeting with ED invalidates the privilege. (I learned that here for my COTH law degree!)

Correct.

@ohnoO

Also her father was A lawyer, not Her lawyer—not in the state of NJ, anyway—so no privilege there.

Also, correct. He’s not licensed in NJ now or then, so that wouldn’t apply.

@ohnoO

I wouldn’t think she would try to argue it with Mr.D and Mr.B on the other side

Don’t forget Mr Silver, who has already laid out some arguments on why privilege does not apply in a previous motion:

[ekat]

@DownYonder

The latest order to extend discovery states a deadline of 3.9.2023 for additional written discovery requests, with depositions to follow. What happens if the depositions reveal additional info that may require a discovery request to another party? Can the attorneys request that the discovery deadline be extended again?

I don’t think those deadlines would apply to newly discovered information/evidence.

[ohnoO]

@ekat

Don’t forget Mr Silver

How silly of me to forget the silver-tongued attorney! Oops!

[MHM]

@DownYonder

But she has a history of claiming “privilege” even when RG is present.

Pfft. Good luck with that.

That is my official legal opinion. Lol.
(Not a lawyer.)

[eggbutt]

@ekat I’m so thankful you and the other super Legal Eagles are here to help us understand. Thank you!

[MHM]

@ohnoO

I wouldn’t think she would try to argue it with Mr.D and Mr.B on the other side.

Based on her posting history here on the BB and elsewhere, I would not underestimate her inclination to argue any ridiculous thing with anybody.

[eggbutt]

Could the defense teams insist on a mental evaluation of LK along with her medical records or would her health records already include mental health records?