• November 22, 2010

The Loparex litigation has been noted in Minnesota Litigator a few times already for the heatedness of discovery disputes in the case.  Here we go again

The case involves counter-claim allegations that Plaintiff Jon Hanson made comments to a European bank that, in turn, based on those comments, launched an audit at significant expense to Defendant Loparex.  At issue, when asked to produce evidence of the claimed damages — detail on the “significant expense” — Hanson’s counsel (Michael Streater at Briggs & Morgan) is hitting Loparex hard on the sufficiency of its responses.  

One point that plaintiff raises is that the audit started before the alleged injurious comments were made, casting obvious doubt on the merits of the counterclaim.

A second point is that Loparex appears unable to say exactly what its employees did and when, whose time is claimed as part of Loparex’s damages.  (Lawyers’ time-keeping practices (and particularly hourly-billing law firm civil litigators) is, as a rule, a lot more detailed than time-keeping in many other businesses.  Query if that is at the root of expectations versus the reality of the discovery responses that Plaintiff finds so woefully deficient?)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *