Judge Smacks CAIR's "Careless" Lawsuit Management
by IPT News • Feb 12, 2013 at 12:06 pm
When a federal judge uses words like "careless," "lack of diligence" and "failed entirely" to describe your argument, well, that's probably not good for your case.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly smacked down a request by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to extend the discovery period in CAIR's civil lawsuit against the authors of a 2009 book based on information gathered by an informant who posed as a Muslim to secure an internship with the Washington-based Islamist group.
CAIR quickly sued author David Gaubatz and his son Chris, who went undercover in CAIR headquarters and took internal documents with him, for breach of contract and trespassing. Chris Gaubatz also secretly recorded conversations with CAIR officials. Among the book's claims, CAIR officials actively block law enforcement investigations; and grossly exaggerate the depth of their membership and their domestic financial support.
Kollar-Kotelly gave both sides until January 18 to gather all their information for the case, but CAIR attorneys filed an 11th-hour request for more time to depose two more people.
The judge was not pleased, as her order signed Friday shows. The two witnesses haven't been deposed because they were not served with subpoenas. But CAIR knew that at least two weeks before the discovery deadline, yet "inexplicably failed to file the instant motion until the day discovery closed," the judge wrote. The request for more time "failed entirely" to justify why more time should be granted for the more than two years after CAIR filed the lawsuit.
CAIR's "lack of diligence is alone sufficient grounds to deny the requested," the judge wrote.
Attorney David Yerushalmi, who represents the authors, seized on the order to say it's a reflection of CAIR's overall case. "Judge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling demonstrates that the Court is aware of CAIR's unprofessional tactics, which in turn speaks to the failure of CAIR to meet its burden of proof and provide any probative evidence of wrongdoing by any of the defendants," Yerushalmi said in a statement.
"This litigation has been ongoing since October 2009," he added. "As such, there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by re-opening and extending discovery. This case is ripe for summary judgment."
The two sides are scheduled for mediation next month.
Reader comments on this item
Submitted by Sam, Apr 16, 2013 10:51
You're easily dismissed as ignorant toward CAIR primarily by the fact that you believe 'IPT' is an unbiased and fair source of news (much less comment moderator), and secondarily by your abhorrent grammar and random capitalization. Arbitrarily capitalizing terms doesn't make your point official, or correct. It makes your message delivery as ignorant as your message content.
An open-minded grammarian surfing the misinformation channels for bigoted rhetoric against the best civil rights organization in the country (CAIR), aside from its main ally in defending the Constitution, the ACLU.
PS. Bill's point is spot on.
CAIR is a TERRORIST GROUP
Submitted by Emily Watson, Feb 20, 2013 14:11
CAIR is a Terrorist Group who uses the Courts to insist on Terrorizing its victims. No way should they get anything and they should pay for Defendant's Attorney's Fee.
Contradictory Legal Strategy
Submitted by Bill Narvey, Feb 13, 2013 15:59
Yerushalmi says the case is ripe for summary juddgment, but the closing point is that the case is scheduled for mediation.
The two steps appear to be contradictory.
If Yerushalmi sees that an application for summary judgment dismissing the case will probably be successful, which I presume would also award Gaubatz his legal costs in defending the suit, why not proceed with that motion before trying mediation?
If the motion is successful, that is the end of it. If not, there is always mediation.