I think ED might have clarified that they weren’t legal. But no way to really know, attorney-client privilege and all. He was retained and brought in way too late to have told LK they were legal before she started recording.
4 Likes
Didn’t he just get hired a couple of days before August 7? There were way too many horses out of the barn to close any doors at that point.
5 Likes
For our legal people, How come, in circumstances like this, where the ones that iniated the suit, fail to comply over and over and over, why is the case not dismissed? How come they get so long to comply? Just does not seem fair to the other side to keep delaying and delaying.
12 Likes
They just changed judges. They just changed lawyers.
It sucks for Michael’s side.
It appears to be a common technique by people like the Kanarek Klan.
14 Likes
The presence of RG (not his client) and his recorder very likely waived attorney-client privilege. Theoretically it’s possible we do learn more about that discussion than the few seconds that made it into the criminal trial.
But yes, ED was hired August 5th. By then LK had been talking about recordings for months.
13 Likes
They’re trying to get the countersuit dismissed on the grounds that the countersuit does not name the correct people as responsible for the alleged misdeed. If RG was equally responsible, or more responsible, than LK for making the recordings, that complaint should name him as well as LK as defendants.
In a civil action, the jury first determines the percent liability attributed to each party, then determines the monetary award. If RG was the prime mover in making the recordings, Deininger can’t sue just LK in order to offset the award MB will owe LK.
1 Like
At this point I would be thinking about calling LK’s bluff and let her do her deposition remotely.
She still has to answer the questions, right?
6 Likes
Normally if a defendant wishes to assert or impugn the guilt of another they bring them into the case to do so by impleading them.
The plaintiff is under no obligation to name every single person responsible for something happening/not happening.
If a defendant believes someone else is responsible they should implead that person into the case. In this case the defendant in the countercuit is asserting another party bears responsibility but they don’t implead them. I could be wrong but to me that renders their statement inconsequential and meaningless. Why assert another if you’re not going to bring them into the case?
An example would be a car accident where Car A is rear ended by and sues Car B. Car B turns around and asserts Car C rear ended them thus pushing them into Car A so Car C bears the responsibility for all.
If Car B asserts that Car C caused it all they have to bring Car C into the case. It’s not up to Car A to do so and doesn’t disqualify Car A’s case in any way if Car B fails to bring in Car C. Car B is still responsible.
18 Likes
But LKs lawyers don’t want to impugn other people or make them defendants. They want the counter suit dismissed, and they’re using the grounds that Deininger is not suing the people who are allegedly responsible.
In your example, car B did in fact rear end Car A.
2 Likes
The judge has already ruled that she is to be deposed remotely.
yes, but Car B is saying they hit car A because Car C hit Car B thereby pushing Car B into Car A, therefore it is Car B’s responsibility to bring in Car C. If Car B does not bring in Car C, then Car B is responsible for damage to Car A.
Did I get all my cars right?
11 Likes
Oh CH, I have missed you so!
Welcome back!
You clearly missed the part in that response where GAS asks for a jury trial. GAS is not asking for the countersuit to be dismissed, he is asking that jury determine the answers to the questions.
You also have forgotten that this is all happening in the US, where one can sue. So saying that Deininger can not sue just Lauren Kanarek is not correct at all. If Lauren Kanarek is even partially responsible…she is still that partially responsible. Her having a helper dude and pops guiding her does not mean she did nothing.
There is always that very strong possibility that the jury will find the number owed to Michael is higher than the number that is owed to Lauren Kanarek.
21 Likes
That doesn’t just happen because LK said someone else is responsible. That will require discovery, evidence, possible depositions of witnesses, and motions/hearings. It’s entirely possible the judge isn’t allowed to find that someone else is responsible for the recordings and that a jury must do it. So, she could be waiting a long time for that dismissal.
In the mean time, she has a deposition to complete and her parents have outstanding subpoenas to be answered.
24 Likes
Something tells me they still don’t give a tinker’s damn about what they are required to do. They are so special after all!
9 Likes
Fortunately the courts won’t buy the argument that MB has to produce and she doesn’t.
13 Likes
I have a macabre question, simply a question without intended ill will, threat, hope, etc. What would happen to these cases if Lauren were to have an accident and be unable to proceed with the suits? Considering the homemade zip tie contraption of RG’s invention and her suspected continued drug use, the thought she may become incapacitated due to an accident or negligence is certainly within the realm of possibility. So, what would happen to the cases?
Hopefully that will be explained to the Kanareks and their gang.
Someone’s can step into her shoes and continue the case on her behalf of she’s incapacitated. If she were to pass, her estate can continue the case.
9 Likes
In that case could MB continue his suit?
1 Like
