Update (January 27, 2015): Minnesota Litigator often gets tips from lawyers as to interesting cases, decisions, or legal issues, which is great (keep them coming!), but, as valuable, Minnesota Litigator often gets inquiries (please keep them coming too!).
No case seems to have prompted more curiosity than the lawsuit brought by the Minneapolis personal injury and consumer rights law firm of Zimmerman Reed (“ZR”) against Genevieve Zimmerman and the Minneapolis personal injury law firm of Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd. (which I call “ZvZ”). I first wrote about it in late September (see below). “What up with that case?” I have been asked repeatedly in the past few months.
Too bad the Minnesota court system is still extremely difficult to track on-line and also costly! Instead of being able to track “ZvZ” in my skivvies from home as I do with most of my Minnesota Litigator work out of the U.S. federal district court (D. Minn.), I have to send one of my wretched peons into the bowels of the Hennepin County Government Center records office to review and buy civil filings at $10-a-pop. (And seeing as how I am a solo practice, I have to send myself…Rest assured I dress appropriately as is fitting an officer of the court.)
(Alternately, fine Minnesota Litigator readers sometimes provide me with a state court filing or two, by the way, which is extremely appreciated.)
But I digress. Here is the latest information I have gleaned about ZvZ:
Plaintiff Zimmerman Reed’s emergency TRO motion was not very successful. The law firm of Briol & Associates has withdrawn as counsel for Defendants Genevieve Z and the Meshbesher firm. Meshbesher will now go it alone with Konstandinos “Gus” Niklow in the lead. Maybe this signals Defendants’ confidence in the case that they are holstering the hired guns?
Plaintiff Zimmerman Reed might be in some hot water for failure to abide by court orders in the case (see here).
Defendants have served 500 (five hundred) discovery requests on Plaintiff (116 document requests, 313 requests for admission) and it seems that Ms. Zimmerman may have been deposed in the case in December.
Note in Hennepin County Judge Susan Robiner’s Order following Status Conference that Zimmerman Reed appears to have had a rather stingy view of what is part of and not part of a client file (page 5). Furthermore, Judge Robiner notes that “both parties want the opposing party to be required to comply strictly with the rules of civil procedure. Both parties want themselves excused from strict compliance.” Order following Status Conference (page 6). Both parties failed to certify that they engaged in good faith efforts to resolve discovery disputes before going to court with their discovery disputes as the rules of civil procedure require. Order following Status Conference (page 7).
In short, it is clear that everyone is on their best behavior. Nothing to see here. Move along…(This fee-asco is scheduled for trial in August of 2015 and I will assign a minion to track its “progress” in the mean time, rest assured.)
Here, linked, by the way, is Genevieve Z and the Meshbesher firm’s amended answer and counterclaim. If you can spot the changes from the earlier version (aside from the insertion of a new Para. 12 in amended counterclaim and insertion of Count VI for Deceptive Trade Practices at the end), let me know.