Comment #: 9128
Rating:3.8
Comments:
This is one of the most unpleasant jurists that I have ever had the misfortune to practice in front of, in several years of practice in many jurisdictions. She is not unintelligent, but seems to be so consumed with making herself appear to "see what others do not" (particularly the attorneys appearing in front of her) that she makes non-sensical rulings and sees things in the rules of civil procedure and the law that are not there. Many attorneys who have had experience with her groan at the mention of her name. She requires strict adherence to the rules, and to her unusual interpretation of the rules, even in situations in which this makes no sense and greatly and needlessly burdens litigants and their counsel. She takes many months to issue rulings on dispositive motions but yet refuses to grant stays of discovery once qualified immunity has been asserted even though parties are entitled to such stays under clearly established law. Instead, she will grant "partial" stays and set deadlines for discovery, dispositive motions and Final Pre-Trial Conferences while dispositive motions in which qualified immunity have been asserted languish for months. She holds the litigants' feet to the fire to work up a case completely -- at great effort and expense -- while motions to dismiss that have an excellent chance of being granted sit untouched. Before Final Pre-Trial Conferences she instructs counsel to check the schedules of their clients and all important witnesses so that this may be taken into account in trial settings, but then pays no regard to any scheduling conflicts that parties may have, for no apparent reason. She regularly sets conferences at which both counsel and their clients must appear in person on the day before or after major national holidays and refuses to re-schedule no matter the hardship to counsel or litigants. In sum, she is frequently disdainful and contemptous of those appearing before her, and hit or miss in her legal rulings.