In the case of Vogt vs. Civil City of New Albany, of which the author is one of as many as 18 plaintiffs (one original plaintiff has since withdrawn, and one is deceased), and which we’ll be referring to henceforth as the council redistricting lawsuit, a United States District Court trial date has been set for December 3, 2007.
The first pre-trial conference was held last Friday, July 27 at the Federal Building in New Albany. Attending were William Hussman (Magistrate Judge), Stephen Beardsley (attorney for the plaintiffs) and Jerry Ulrich (attorney for the council).
It is safe to assume that potential outcomes were discussed.
Three council members were in the building, but apparently were not in attendance inside the chambers: Larry Kochert, Jeff Gahan and Kevin Zurschmiede.
As of Wednesday morning, there has yet to surface trustworthy independent verification to Ms. Kersey’s rapidly mutating rumor yesterday about a telephone call from Mr. Baylor (that’s me), styled in this manner at her blog:
Mr. Ulrich received a message from a Clerk of the Court, from Mr. Baylor, asking Mr. Beardsley to telephone him asap. Mr. Ulrich responded he was not that party's attorney (Mr. Beardsley).
Any person possessing verifiable information supporting this assertion, please step forward -- not so fast, Ms. Kersey.
It should be noted that such groundless rumors, as rooted in fertile and kaleidoscopic imaginations, might yet have transformed by now into tales of a completely different stripe, as occurred on more than one occasion on Tuesday.
There it is; the preceding is part of the public record, and as more is learned, it will be reported here.
See: Council redistricting lawsuit: Battling disinformation is like swatting troglodyte gnats.
5 comments:
When was this suit filed originally? Seems like a long time to have the first pre-trial conference a year later. Who's doing the foot-dragging? We all know that the longer it is drawn out, the more the lawyers can bill. another fleecing of the local tax payer?
G,
Forgive me if I’m misinterpreting your post, but it is unfair to insinuate wrongdoing on the part of the lawyers. Both Stephen Beardsley and Jerry Ulrich are, by all accounts, fine members of the local bar. They do not deserve such treatment.
Many reasons exist as to why a pre-trial conference could take a year in a case like this, such as the court’s docket, a mutually-agreed discovery plan, extended discovery deadlines, etc. None suggest that a lawyer is spinning the clock to make more money.
We could be slugging it out with road-side bombs, but instead, we have two fine lawyers and an underpaid federal judge allowing us a better avenue for resolving conflict. Let's not be so quick to pass judgment on them.
Stephen Beardsley is not presenting a bill for his services but is accepting donations. Jerry Ulrich? I can't answer that one.
Why it has taken so long? Alas, Brandon's explanation probably is close to the mark.
Had the council undertaken to do its job, perhaps we wouldn;t be at this juncture.
There may also have been a lengthy pre-answer motion phase. Many things can delay an initial pre-trial conference, especially in federal court.
I didn't mean to insinuate the attorneys were "spinning the clock" purposely, but rather the cost of prolonged litigation we all bear and it's unfortunate. I'm disappointed the city council can't get off there duffs, stop squabbling and get something accomplished - like redistricting.
Post a Comment