Plaintiffs reply to compel Defendant's cooperation

The attorneys for Reade, Collin, and Dave have filed a reply in response to the defendant's reply over the motion to compel the defendants to confer under Federal Court Procedure Rule 26(f).

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY SUPPORTING THEIR MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO CONFER UNDER RULE 26(f)

Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Rule 26(f) basically requires that counsels discuss how they should address potential discovery issues, such as preserving discoverable information and the disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information. It is a order to meet and confer.

See Rule 26f

The defense attorneys for the various defendants including the City of Durham have delayed this conference and the Plaintiffs want the Court to demand their cooperation. LieStoppers

In the Duke Lacrosse Hoax/Frame the defendants repeatedly did not record or take notes for most of the critical meetings. When they did appear as in the case of the miraculous notes for Sergeant Gottlieb they came months later and tried to explain serious flaws in the prosecution's case. From Tara Levicy's magic towel to Sergant Gottlieb's EZ Dry Eraser Board the "investigation" was marred by the failure to document and by the hiding of exculpatory evidence.

The Plaintiff's are demanding.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an order directing Defendants to confer with Plaintiffs as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Alternatively, Plaintiffs request that the Court schedule an initial pretrial conference so that a reasonable discovery plan can be established.

See LieStoppers Forum for Discussion

Hat Tip:sdsgo