Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mmmary who wrote (2024)	10/12/2001 10:59:23 AM
From: ifonly1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

"ASTN refused to answer my discovery for similar reasons They said it was vague, overly broad, burdensome and confidential. I had to go to the discovery hearing to plead my case. The judge told them to turn over the documents by September 25 and they didn't. The case was dismissed but they are trying to open it up again. Insane. They want a lawsuit, they don't want a lawsuit, they want a lawsuit..." Funny how that works. You know, attorneys are supposed to be bound by ethics to produce in good faith all relevant information legitimately requested and to not fight against clearly relevant discovery. It always amazes me when one party seeks discovery on every aspect of the opposing party's life (wants to search computers, etc.). Then when the opposing party serves legitimate discovery on the public company, the company hides behind privilege and the standard language of "vague, overly broad, burdensome and confidential." At that point, good judges will often dismiss the case under the theory that one who sues ought to be willing to produce relevant information to the defendant.