Judge’s anger shown in final judgment of default
February 1, 1998 2 minutes read
Judge’s anger shown in final judgment of default
Exasperation and annoyance are obvious in the transcript from the April 22, 1997, court session in which California Superior Court Judge C. Robert Jameson, issued an $18.7 million default judgment against the Regents of the University of California. Marshall Silberberg, JD, represented the Regents, and Cornelius Bahan, JD, represented the plaintiffs. After months of delays and wrangling, Bahan moved for a default judgment based on what he said was the defendant’s purposeful attempts to hide evidence, mislead the plaintiff’s attorneys, and ignore previous court orders. Here are excerpts from that transcript:
Defense: "I read these motions this morning and I got I’m amazed that we’re here. I mean, all these issues have been raised."
Judge: "Don’t be amazed. Don’t be amazed. You guys have stonewalled this thing from the get-go. So just temper your argument and get into the pleading statement."
Defense: "Your honor, what I’m telling you, all of this has been argued. We’ve been before you. We’ve been before Judge Schwab."
Judge: "You’ve been before me one time too many."
(The attorneys continue to make their arguments, with the plaintiff’s side stressing that some crucial information still is being withheld and the defense denying that claim. The plaintiff’s attorney also argues that a default judgment is warranted by the long delay in getting much of the most important information, even if it is now available.)
Judge: "All right. Well, I’m extremely disappointed in the way this case has been handled. The claim was filed back in July of 94. Univer-sity answered in August of 94. There was an amendment in September. And we get rolling into 95 and first had motions to compel. They were granted. More motions on January 23.
"It was apparent that we’d need the assistance of a referee, and I appointed Judge Schwab to monitor discovery in this matter. And he and I both handled subsequent motions. On July 3 Judge Schwab found there was willful disregard of prior recommendations and an obstruction of justice and an obstruction of discovery that included orders that I had previously made on my own and off of his recommendations. I continued the motion repeatedly, trying to get the discovery completed. It was like pulling teeth.
"Ultimately, I ended up awarding sanctions. I would have thought that, in that, when a judge such as Judge Schwab finds somebody in willful disregard of court orders and obstructing discovery, that they would get with it. The case doctor, Dr. Lai, wasn’t discovered for two years. And he appears to be a significant participant in the incident coming up to Mrs. Desoto’s becoming comatose. There was a delay of discovery, and even Mr. Bahan put off some depositions because he couldn’t get the medical records and charts for a year and a half or more. Sanctions have been ordered. Judge Schwab’s urgings haven’t been successful. My ordering sanctions haven’t been successful. There’s been a systematic obstruction to respond to reasonable discovery in this case. And clients have been deceitful with counsel, with the court, with the referee.
"Answer of the university is stricken. Default will be entered."
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content