“The search for truth is not served but hindered by the concealment of relevant and material evidence. Although our system of administering criminal justice is adversary in nature, a trial is not a game. Its ultimate goal is the ascertainment of truth, and where furtherance of the adversary system comes in conflict with the ultimate goal, the adversary system must give way to reasonable restraints designed to further that goal.” (People v. Davis, 20 Cal. App. 3d 890 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 1971 at 897).
When suing a government entity be prepared for a costly legal battle. The prevailing rule is if you win there might be a slew of other plaintiffs copying your lawsuit. In many cases they would rather take you to court, make you bleed time and resources to make you give up. They know that they have a better chance the longer the case drags on. It’s like cancer, the longer you live the higher the chances of being afflicted. That is the formula. And that is precisely why we feel injustice is society’s cancer.
Here’s a motion we brought to court after several attempts to acquire documents and materials that could only be gotten from the defendants. Beginning in February of this year, we have tendered requests on three separate occasions:
1) Criminal Informal Discovery
2) Subpoena Duces Tecum
3) Request For Production Of Documents
With very minor variations, the same items were requested from defendant County of Orange (Sheriff’s Department & Aliso Viejo Library) on each of the requesting document. A majority of which were relating to the banishment from the library and the eventual false imprisonment which landed me in the OC Jail for 5 days. The first request was negated when the case was smartly dismissed by the OC Attorney General’s Office. The subpoena and the Request For Production were both objected to vigorously. As a result, not one piece of information has been provided, which brings us to this motion.
The paper that came out of this “Motion To Compel Production” amounted to 108 pages, costing $11.55 for one copy, which was used for filing. My pocket was still scorching from the financial assault by the time the motion was filed. Fortunately, the defendants were all served electronically saving us copy costs. If it weren’t for that, the meager legal war chest would be in tremendous jeopardy. This is also largely the reason why our papers are often filed with spelling and grammatical errors. We don’t have the luxury of printing a copy just so that we can make corrections. We usually are not able to see the required changes on our computer. Everything reads differently on paper.
The issues raised in this motion begins with a party’s right to acquire discoverable materials. The propounded party’s job, it seems, is to avoid providing any information that could be used against them. Strategically, it comes down to providing nothing, if at all possible. Legally, they have the responsibility to provide everything that isn’t protected by client-privilege or attorney work product doctrines. But that’s the benchmark. In the case of the County Of Orange, they appear to be on a journey to see how little information could be provided in the longest amount of time.
What the County of Orange has done is given us a look at some of what we can expect in the future. It’s like boxing, great fighters never make themselves easy targets. They show their opponents different angles, different distances always making it difficult. They have used a string of objections, which they have argued creatively on their paper.
The Motion we filed is only 11 pages long, most are Exhibits to support the arguments. You’ll notice that the exhibits inserted are already on file at the court. However, civil procedures require that documents for exhibits be included in the moving or responding papers. That way the court does not have to search for the document in their files. It’s also good lawyering that way. You want to make the court’s job easier every step of the way. Conversely, it’s also your job to make it difficult for your opponent. That’s why lawyers will argue every point and will not concede to the opposition until a judge rules on the issue. Often times that stubbornness last many years, sometimes even landing a case before the Supreme Court.
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION:
COUNTY OF ORANGE’S OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
ROBERT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION (SET ONE)
MTCP1 – EXHIBIT A – INFORMAL DISCOVERIES
MTCP1 – EXHIBIT B – SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
MTCP1 – EXHIBIT C – REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
MTCP1 – EXHIBIT D – DISMISSAL CRIMINAL
MTCP1 – EXHIBIT E – COUNTY’S OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA
MTCP1 – EXHIBIT F – COUNTY’S OBJECTION TO RFPD1
MTCP1 – EXHIBIT G – TENTATIVE RULIN 061114
MTCP1 – EXHIBIT H – COUNTY’S MOTION TO QUASH
MTCP1 – EXHIBIT I – EMAIL THREAD BETWEEN RL & MR. VASIN
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT THEREOF