Michael/ Lauren civil trial update February 9

[ekat]

@iberianfan

realistically, what are the Kanareks facing here? The likelihood of contempt may be real, but doubtful the judge would jail two retired folks, one being a retired attorney. JK is not licensed in NJ, correct? So not worried about his law license.

The only thing that may be realistic would be paying a fine. And they probably don’t care about that. But that begs the question: why fight the subpoena so hard if you are in possession of evidence in your (Plaintiff’s) favor?

Personally, I think @Knights_Mom nailed it when she suggested that they are more afraid of what is contained in the videos/recordings/transcripts than they are of the fines.

I don’t think the evidence is in their favor at all, and may be in conflict with their interests.

So, the question I have is, say they continue to stall, delay, ignore, and not produce. Say the court has enough, and the defendants ask for dismissal, and it’s granted. Purely hypothetically. MB’s claims are still out there. And if they continue to not cooperate, he could move for summary judgment against her hypothetically.

It may be quite a pickle they are in, if the videos, etc…are damaging to the Kanarek’s.

[Danvers]

What if they destroyed all the videos and evidence? they could say it never existed - you know just made up stuff on social media… what happens then?

[ohnoO]

@ekat

Personally, I think @Knights_Mom nailed it when she suggested that they are more afraid of what is contained in the videos/recordings/transcripts than they are of the fines

Yep, I’ve thought that for a while, too.

[ekat]

@Danvers

What if they destroyed all the videos and evidence? they could say it never existed - you know just made up stuff on social media… what happens then?

Mr Silver briefly touched upon spoliation of evidence in today’s filing here:

I don’t typically link law firms but this is a pretty decent explanation of what spoliation of evidence can mean to a case in NJ.

Do you Have a Duty to Preserve Evidence?

[Joanne]

So Attorney Silver intends to depose JK. Would love to be a fly on the wall for that one, too.

[Danvers]

Thank you!
so, if they destroyed them nothing really happens to the KK’s? and how do you prove they destroyed them… I mean its quite clear the KK’s have/had them with all their bluster about the videos and tapes… but ya know, its social media and everybody lies on social media… clearly the videos and recordings are not in their favor or else they would be out there…

[trubandloki]

@Joanne

Love Mr. Silver’s writing style!

Me too!

He is quite impressive.

[ekat]

@Danvers

so, if they destroyed them nothing really happens to the KK’s? and how do you prove they destroyed them… I mean its quite clear the KK’s have/had them with all their bluster about the videos and tapes… but ya know, its social media and everybody lies on social media… clearly the videos and recordings are not in their favor or else they would be out there…

Fines, costs, attorney’s fees, the judge issuing an instruction that they destroyed evidence that was not in their favor, dismissal are some of the things that can happen.

SGF has a recording, per their filing, where RG is telling JK what time stamps in the videos to review. It appears the habit of recording things may bite them here again, because, that’s not lying on social media.

[Sdel]

So…LK was going on about sending them to Ann Klein. Could they be subpoenaed for anything she sent them?

[trubandloki]

@Sdel

So…LK was going on about sending them to Ann Klein. Could they be subpoenaed for anything she sent them?

She was sending the transcripts.
Why would they subpoena there when Kirby and Lauren have them?

[ekat]

@Sdel

So…LK was going on about sending them to Ann Klein. Could they be subpoenaed for anything she sent them?

I guess they could try. But theoretically, Michael should have that stuff as part of his medical file, if it exists.

[Sdel]

@trubandloki

@Sdel

So…LK was going on about sending them to Ann Klein. Could they be subpoenaed for anything she sent them?

She was sending the transcripts.
Why would they subpoena there when Kirby and Lauren have them?

If the K’s say they don’t have them…then they can maybe get them from Ann Klein.

[trubandloki]

@Sdel

@trubandloki

@Sdel

So…LK was going on about sending them to Ann Klein. Could they be subpoenaed for anything she sent them?

She was sending the transcripts.
Why would they subpoena there when Kirby and Lauren have them?

If the K’s say they don’t have them…then they can maybe get them from Ann Klein.

I guess that might be a possibility, but that would have to happen after Kirby Kanarek @Seeker1 is dealt with for ignoring yet another subpoena and for destroying evidence that has been asked for.

[ekat]

@Joanne

So Attorney Silver intends to depose JK. Would love to be a fly on the wall for that one, too.

That would be interesting. I would look forward to Mr Bilinkas and Mr Deininger questioning him during said deposition.

[cutter99]

So the $1,000,000 question is what information is so important and so damning that the Kanarek family refuses to cooperate in the law suit LK initiated???

Hey @Seeker1 and @Inigo-montoya, inquiring minds want to know!!!

[clipper]

@ekat

I don’t typically link law firms but this is a pretty decent explanation of what spoliation of evidence can mean to a case in NJ.

Wow. Thank you ekat for the link.
Just a quick look and WOW the ramifications of “spoliation” could mean that the judge rules the videos could be said to show the shooting!

Various civil remedies are available to rectify the spoliation. One such remedy is that the Court infers that the evidence the spoliator destroyed would have been unfavorable to him or her, as if it were a fact established at trial.

A second remedy is a discovery sanction in which the Court designates that certain facts be taken as established, or refuses to permit the spoliator to support or oppose designated claims or defenses."

[skydy]

@3PonyFarm

Mr. S’s motion will be decided on 2/3.

I like this new judge so far! He’s fast!

I missed that. Was it in the SGF filing link?

[3PonyFarm]

It was listed after each motion, Siver’s and then after Mr. D’s. It happened quickly, more so than I remember with Judge S’s responses.

[skydy]

In the motion link or somewhere else? Sorry if I’m being thick…

[ekat]

I never download these because they have changed in the past. It just says this:

If anyone requests oral arguments or depending on any responses it could change.