Activity early this afternoon:
This happened a week or so ago, too, and I thought it was pretty interesting. Usually law firms download through an IP that does not identify their firm. (Remember Hoagland Longo, back in the day of tracking bloggers who were for municipal charter reform and zoning adjustment disclosures?)
The last I had any contact with the guy in New York, he seemed pretty confident that the U.S. District Court judge was going to grant his motion. (This would mean I’d have to go to Second Circuit.) Could it possibly be, that Judge is taking this all seriously—more seriously than your client did? She’s a busy woman and has a load of cases to go through. Your client doesn’t seem to mind jamming up her docket, as was clear from the Visentin case where your client’s loss was recently affirmed on appeal. Maybe the wait is just for the Judge to get out from the ever-growing pile, since the Senate won’t confirm new judges.
I figured Paul Hastings would have been reading along for the last, what now, three years? You’re just catching up??
There’s not a lot there that you, as a law firm, haven’t heard or read already. Your client delayed a substantive response on the EEO issue for 22 months—right about the time my visa would expire. Then, it’s been another one year (this week!) of stall and delay in the U.S. federal court.
You know, there are 2,830 posts at last count. You only got 101.
No dialogue over the whole three years. But no shame in spying, it seems.
[Update: Ah, yes! Here is one of them from last week.
(February 6, 66 pages) ]
Hoofin 