Just got off the phone with a dear friend who is very, very smart.
Remember everything I've written about the distinction:
defendants = CSI/Bryan/Lubow/Sloat (TeamCSI)
"don't-call-us-defendants" = RTC/DM (TeamRTC/DM)
Good - please push that thought to the side for a moment?
#1. TeamCSI* filed the original Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss. (*TeamCSI = CSI, Bryan, Lubow, and Sloat.)
#2. Judge Waldrip got all of the attorneys to verbally agree in open court that a
little discovery could proceed to help him decide how to rule on the Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss.
#3. TeamRathbun filed a motion for more time to obtain discovery
and to compel CSI&Company to produce more discovery in order to properly respond to the Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss.
#4. Judge Waldrip, in open court
and by written Order told the attorneys that as part of discovery, David Miscavige is permitted to be deposed.
#5. TeamRTC/DM filed a motion for clarification and reconsideration of #4, the Order directing that DM be deposed in connection with the originally filed Anti-SLAPP Motions in #1.
If, on behalf of a client, an attorney 'moves' the court to do anything in connection with the Anti-SLAPP Motions to Dismiss, then isn't that attorney representing a "moving party"?
My dear friend pointed out that these phrases, "
Anti-SLAPP movants" & "
moving parties", seemed 'odd' and not at all what he sees regularly in his work as an appellate-level litigator.
To him, Judge Waldrip's Order directs TeamCSI
and TeamRTC/DM...since they've all "moved" the court (filed motions) in connection to the (giant) Anti-SLAPP motions...to turn over the discovery material to TeamRathbun.
It's almost as if Judge Waldrip is saying,
"Okay, you don't want to be called "defendant"? You don't like that label? Fine. Now everyone's an 'Anti-SLAPP movant'. I got me a label maker and I damned well know how to use it, hoss! How you like me now, Captain Phonypants?"
So.
There remains an important distinction in this case between who
is or
is not (yet) a "defendant".
It's sure clear to Judge Waldrip that TeamCSI agrees that "defendant" is correctly applied to CSI, Bryan, Lubow, & Sloat.
Just as it's clear to Judge Waldrip that TeamRTC/DM vehemently disagrees to the label "defendant".
If his latest Order, which gives some of what TeamRathbun asked for in #3 above, was intended to tell
only TeamCSI to turn over the discovery, then why not simply write "defendants"? Easy-peasy.
In the actual Order (the part not shown above in TG1's quote box*) Judge Waldrip begins with a bit of historical background about the filings and he uses the phrase, "
moving defendants" when describing
TeamCSI alone.
He didn't direct the "
moving defendants" in the Order; rather, he used "
moving parties" and "
Anti-SLAPP movants".
See the distinction?
I didn't.
But I'm sure glad I picked-up the phone!
YMMV.
JB
(*Link to
The Underground Bunker to see the embedded scribd Order here:
http://tonyortega.org/2014/01/16/ju...hbuns-discovery-request-snubbing-scientology/ )