Discovery can proceed even while the judge considers motions to strike the complaint, Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ruled yesterday. The ruling is a major step forward for the plaintiffs.
Why proceed if the case might ultimately be dismissed? From the Darien Times:
“The court notes that while the motion to strike is scheduled for argument on June 20, 2016, a decision on the motion is not likely to be issued in less than 120 days in light of the complexity of the issues raised,” Bellis said. “Given the April 3, 2018 trial date, even a temporary stay of discovery through October of 2016 would translate into a delay of the trial, which the court is unwilling to consider given the fact that the case was filed in January of 2015. The motions to stay discovery are therefore denied.”
What, exactly, is discovery?
Disclaimer. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. It is not to be acted upon as advice. If you need legal advice, get it from a skilled professional.
This is the seventh in The Sandy Hook Lawsuit series that is following the course of this litigation. Clarifying comments are welcome, even argumentative ones that are civil and advance understanding of the issues.
Discovery is the process of gathering information in a lawsuit. It can include:
- written questions (“interrogatories”), often several sets of them,
- requests to produce documents (such as copies and drafts of the advertising in military/combative terms that Sandy Hook plaintiffs highlight in their complaint),
- depositions of key representatives (the dealer, executives and marketeers of the Remington/Bushmaster defendants), to reveal the decision-making process behind the manufacture and marketing of the types of weapon Adam Lanza used in the Newtown massacre,
- requests to admit facts (to establish facts that need not be further proved in court).
The purpose is to avoid surprises at trial, as well as to narrow the nature of the proof required and expedite the trial.
An attorney for the plaintiffs, Katherine Mesner-Hage of the Bridgeport, CT firm of Koskoff, Koskoff and Beider, observes:
Our civil discovery system is a search for the truth. It doesn't favor one party over another; its only allegiance is to transparency and accountability. The gun companies have spent the last fifteen months fighting that process, to avoid turning over a single document or answering a single question under oath. The families have never asked for anything more than the opportunity to prove their case. Yesterday's ruling puts them one big step closer to that goal.
Discovery can become cumbersome. Disputes often arise over what is being asked and how it is being responded to. And a party can slow-walk responses to prolong production and add cost to an already costly process, or use it to harass the other side. Judges typically are intolerant of misuses of discovery, sometimes to the point of imposing costs on a party who is being obstructive.
Resistance to discovery is likely. In the Sandy Hook case, it seems certain that gun manufacturers will go to considerable lengths to challenge discovery requests and to avoid making discovery public.
While they have been very successful fending off such cases in the past (using PLCAA, the unprecedented immunity shield that gun interests got enacted into federal law in 2005), this lawsuit squarely raises their conduct in aggressively marketing combat-style weapons to the civilian public.
Daily Kos's Firearms Law and Policy group studies actions for reducing firearm deaths and injuries in a manner that is consistent with the Supreme Court's application of the Second Amendment. To see our original and republished diaries, go to the Firearms Law and Policy diary list. Click on the ♥ or the word "Follow" next to our group name to add our posts to your stream.