[4/29/10 UPDATE: Defendants’ second motion to dismiss is granted. Order is here. The letter volley discussed in this post is touched on at the end of the opinion (ftn. 8).]
A string of recent letters to United States District Court Judge Joan Ericksen (D. Minn.) in the Lakes Entertainment v. Milberg lawsuit (covered repeatedly on Minnesota Litigator) is worth noting.
As recounted in the first of three letters, Plaintiffs’ counsel recently met up with the “star defendant,” discredited Milberg paid expert Paul Torkelson at a Philadelphia halfway house, just out of prison, who is apparently not done paying back Milberg and the individual defendants, his former clients (in a sense).
Essentially, Torkelson has apparently implicated another Milberg expert and plaintiffs’ counsel believes this impacts the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. Defense lawyers responded to plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter to the Court with one of their own. Plaintiffs’ counsel then submitted their “reply.”
Is there not some risk of judicial reproach for this variant on “supplemental briefing“? On the other hand, what is counsel to do when fate conspires to cough up evidence at an inopportune time?