Update (March 12, 2016): I told you so (the linked order denies JBT’s objection to Mag. Judge Thorson’s fee order, discussed below).
Update (February 24, 2016): Is JBT a glutton for punishment? Unhappy with U.S. Mag. Judge Becky R. Thorson’s decision on JBT’s application for award of its fees and costs for responding to a Unitherm subpoena, JBT has filed an objection with the U.S. District Court Judge Joan N. Ericksen (D. Minn.).
Apparently JBT and its lawyers don’t read my blog or take it as seriously as maybe they should? Seriously, what do courts dislike more than fly-specking legal bills? Being asked to do it twice. And do you think JBT can be repaid the money it is paying in order to get its fees paid? Ouroboros, anyone? Who knows? Maybe JBT will get Judge Thorson’s decision flipped but one wonders whether the outcome will have been worth the expense…
Original post (January 8, 2016): A question has come up in everyone’s favorite bacon battle. The question: when a litigant imposes burden and expense on a non-party to litigation, serving up a subpoena and noticing a deposition, who pays for the non-party’s expenses? What expenses are reasonable?
I have no idea who is being a pig unreasonable in this dispute.
I note that JBT claims work in excess of 200 hours but producted less than 1,000 pages of documents in connection with the subpoena response and a deposition. I note that JBT seems a little coy (“The present dispute does not concern JBT in any way”). And I scratch my head. Still I imagine that there might be some rigidity and over-reaching on both sides.
As tedious and unfulfilling as such disputes are for the litigants and their lawyers, here’s a shout-out to the unfortunate judicial personnel who have to wade knee-deep into this sty of trivia to strip the fat and serve up the proper serving size of non-party expenses…