I've grown accustomed to strange requests in the BCS litigation. Recently, though, BCS served the District with Discovery on the attorney fees issue. One of the questions struck me as highly unusual: BCS is demanding of LASD to reveal the identity of Joan J Strong.
More accurately, they've asked us to "IDENTIFY the person [we] believe is posting on the Internet under the name "JJ Strong" or "Joan J. Strong" "
Honestly, people: I don't know who Joan J Strong is. My fellow trustees have confirmed that they don't know who she is either. Nor do the superintendent or various other personnel involved in this case. We provided this information to BCS in our Response to Interrogatories, delivered to BCS on 20 Feb 2013. Nevertheless, BCS counsel is still harassing our lawyers, demanding further information about how we investigated this question.
Seriously?
First off, there's a First Amendment issue here. JJS is entitled to say whatever he or she wants to say. I have no control over what s/he posts, and frankly it's not my business. Second, in their failed anti-SLAPP motion last year, they accused LASD of using litigation as a tool to chill public debate. I can't imagine the purpose of this inquiry, other than to seek to harass the real person being the JJS persona. And finally, is this really what we have to burn taxpayer funds asking and answering? Is there no more important issue to discuss?
Regardless, we don't know who Joan J Strong is. (But if s/he is reading this, s/he can consider herself/himself to have achieved a new level of notoriety.)
Respondents Responses to BCS Special Interrogatories
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
How I Write
A lot of people ask how I write so much. I answer a substantial volume of email, try to post to my blog regularly, and send periodic messages to the community. I came across this piece today, and the author's answer is remarkably similar to mine:
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130225170136-8451-my-secrets-how-i-became-a-prolific-writer-and-learned-to-get-beyond-school-essays?ref-email
I just write everything like it's an email message to a friend. I try to be factual and honest and without being emotional, I don't mince words. I'm not as good as I could be about being succinct, but I struggle with the nuances a bit, so my writing tends to get longer than I'd like. I squeeze in writing where I can- over lunch, on the train, at an airport, or at home late at night. Any time and place is good as long as I can think for a few minutes.
No commentary on my writing would be complete without recognition to a few folks. I learned a great deal about style and editing from Ms Bryson, my 11th grade English teacher. Mr. Picking (8th grade English) exposed me to writing from a variety of authors. And Howard Bush (6th grade) taught me that other people's expectations of me weren't as important as what I expected of myself. (He taught my small 6th grade class in a rural community all about Latin America by lecturing to us from college text books.)
Not unremarkably, they're all public school teachers. My thanks to all of them.
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130225170136-8451-my-secrets-how-i-became-a-prolific-writer-and-learned-to-get-beyond-school-essays?ref-email
I just write everything like it's an email message to a friend. I try to be factual and honest and without being emotional, I don't mince words. I'm not as good as I could be about being succinct, but I struggle with the nuances a bit, so my writing tends to get longer than I'd like. I squeeze in writing where I can- over lunch, on the train, at an airport, or at home late at night. Any time and place is good as long as I can think for a few minutes.
No commentary on my writing would be complete without recognition to a few folks. I learned a great deal about style and editing from Ms Bryson, my 11th grade English teacher. Mr. Picking (8th grade English) exposed me to writing from a variety of authors. And Howard Bush (6th grade) taught me that other people's expectations of me weren't as important as what I expected of myself. (He taught my small 6th grade class in a rural community all about Latin America by lecturing to us from college text books.)
Not unremarkably, they're all public school teachers. My thanks to all of them.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
LASD provides responses to BCS questions
2013-14 Offer Process
On Feb 13, 2013, Tamara Logan and I met with BCS Board members Joe Hurd and Peter Evans to disucss the Preliminary Offer (PO). As I noted in my Feb 11 email to Ken Moore , there were some practical limitations to that meeting. For example, since District staff were already committed to a different meeting to review District finances, we wouldn't be able to provide answers to some of their questions. During the meeting, we kept running notes of the question, which all parties reiviewed and accepted. Since then, the District has pulled together responses to the questions.
Yesterday, I sent these responses to BCS. I've also committed that we would make these responses public, in an effort to maintain transparency in the process. I have attached the responses here.
Responses to BCS Prop 39 Questions
Transmittal Note to BCS
On Feb 13, 2013, Tamara Logan and I met with BCS Board members Joe Hurd and Peter Evans to disucss the Preliminary Offer (PO). As I noted in my Feb 11 email to Ken Moore , there were some practical limitations to that meeting. For example, since District staff were already committed to a different meeting to review District finances, we wouldn't be able to provide answers to some of their questions. During the meeting, we kept running notes of the question, which all parties reiviewed and accepted. Since then, the District has pulled together responses to the questions.
Yesterday, I sent these responses to BCS. I've also committed that we would make these responses public, in an effort to maintain transparency in the process. I have attached the responses here.
Responses to BCS Prop 39 Questions
Transmittal Note to BCS
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Consistent positions?
This is really more of an observation, and those who aren't interested in the legal nuances may be less interested in this part. However, I was pondering some of the recent legal activities.
The Appellate Courts are important in our system, because they write opinions that can be cited in future cases. Thus, a favorable opinion at the Appellate Court can be helpful, and an unfavorable one can hurt your position. I didn't know this before, but apparently Appellate Courts don't publish every opinion, and parties may weigh in and ask an Appellate Court to publish (or not to publish).
Back in Oct 2012, there was a case in Los Angeles that was important to LASD, because it clarified that Districts can place charter schools outside of the district's geographic boundaries. It also was crystal clear that the District can -and should- give equal weight to the in-district students when contemplating "reasonable equivalence" and the impact of a facilities request.
BCS apparently asked the Cal Supreme Court to depublish, which they declined to do. LASD filed an amicus brief asking that the opinion remain published. The court decided to publish the opinion, and of course LASD included it in subsequent filings with the courts in our own case.
Last year when the Cal Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Bullis IV (the 2009-10 facilities case), BCS kept telling people that the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. I wonder how they'd describe this event? Does the decision to publish the ruling mean that the Supreme Court has now also ruled in LASD's favor on this key issue?
Like I said, more in the details, but an interesting thought...
The Appellate Courts are important in our system, because they write opinions that can be cited in future cases. Thus, a favorable opinion at the Appellate Court can be helpful, and an unfavorable one can hurt your position. I didn't know this before, but apparently Appellate Courts don't publish every opinion, and parties may weigh in and ask an Appellate Court to publish (or not to publish).
Back in Oct 2012, there was a case in Los Angeles that was important to LASD, because it clarified that Districts can place charter schools outside of the district's geographic boundaries. It also was crystal clear that the District can -and should- give equal weight to the in-district students when contemplating "reasonable equivalence" and the impact of a facilities request.
BCS apparently asked the Cal Supreme Court to depublish, which they declined to do. LASD filed an amicus brief asking that the opinion remain published. The court decided to publish the opinion, and of course LASD included it in subsequent filings with the courts in our own case.
Last year when the Cal Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Bullis IV (the 2009-10 facilities case), BCS kept telling people that the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. I wonder how they'd describe this event? Does the decision to publish the ruling mean that the Supreme Court has now also ruled in LASD's favor on this key issue?
Like I said, more in the details, but an interesting thought...
BCS Defies the Courts (Again)
2009-10 Attorney's Fees
Regular readers will recall that, along with the 2012-13 litigation, we still have another sword hanging over our heads- the BCS motion for attorney's fees in the 2009-10 case. A quick refresher of that activity:
February 2012: BCS began threatening that they wanted to collect attorney fees.
July 2012: BCS files actual demand for $1.3M in fees.
Aug 2012: LASD files discovery to understand the fee demands. BCS refuses to answer the discovery.
Sept 2012: During the "meet and confer process", the Judge decides she'll need to hear full arguments on discovery.
Oct 2012: Oral arguments are heard on the discovery motion. BCS counsel is defiant during the hearing, despite several cautions from the Judge.
Nov 2012: The Judge rules for LASD on the discovery, and grants sanctions of $51,000 for BCS' incomprehensible stonewalling of the discovery process.
Dec 2012: BCS appeals the sanctions, and the discovery (as closely as they can). The appeals court returns a ruling in < 48 hours, denying both requests. BCS attorney calls the sanctions "monopoly money", and insists the District "will never see a dime"
Jan 2013: District follows up on discovery. BCS asserts that they have "no documents responsive to the request.
Now at this point, one might wonder why BCS put up so much of a fight. If they had no documents, it would seem strange to spend a lot of energy fighting the issue.
Feb 2013: The reality, though, is that there are documents- but BCS has apparently decided to defy the courts and not produce them. The District is following up with BCS, and is making clear that we will once again seek sanctions, including "issue sanctions". (Basically, in addition to reimbursing LASD for the money we've spent forcing them to comply with a court order, the Judge could simply rule in our favor on something, essentially as a penalty for their abuse of the discovery process.)
As always, I've included the complete correspondence.
Letter to BCS counsel
3rd Set of Interrogatories
3rd Set of Request for Production
We've also prepared the documentation to request the actual sanctions. According to the court rules, we prepare these, but wait to file them later. Yes, we're following the process, because we intend to follow through and request these sanctions.
Notice of Motion for Monetary Sanctions
POS Motion for Monetary Sanctions
For those who wonder why we can't spend as much time in negotiations, this kind of nonsense is a great example. Complying with Discovery is one of the most basic things you do in litigation. Yet BCS has chosen to litigate this issue several times over, fighting LASD every step of the way. There simply is no justification for it (as evidenced by the sanctions imposed by Judge Lucas, and upheld by the Appellate Court). When we have to do this sort of work every day, there just isn't much time for anything else.
To see related blog posts, click the "Attorney's Fees" label below.
Regular readers will recall that, along with the 2012-13 litigation, we still have another sword hanging over our heads- the BCS motion for attorney's fees in the 2009-10 case. A quick refresher of that activity:
February 2012: BCS began threatening that they wanted to collect attorney fees.
July 2012: BCS files actual demand for $1.3M in fees.
Aug 2012: LASD files discovery to understand the fee demands. BCS refuses to answer the discovery.
Sept 2012: During the "meet and confer process", the Judge decides she'll need to hear full arguments on discovery.
Oct 2012: Oral arguments are heard on the discovery motion. BCS counsel is defiant during the hearing, despite several cautions from the Judge.
Nov 2012: The Judge rules for LASD on the discovery, and grants sanctions of $51,000 for BCS' incomprehensible stonewalling of the discovery process.
Dec 2012: BCS appeals the sanctions, and the discovery (as closely as they can). The appeals court returns a ruling in < 48 hours, denying both requests. BCS attorney calls the sanctions "monopoly money", and insists the District "will never see a dime"
Jan 2013: District follows up on discovery. BCS asserts that they have "no documents responsive to the request.
Now at this point, one might wonder why BCS put up so much of a fight. If they had no documents, it would seem strange to spend a lot of energy fighting the issue.
Feb 2013: The reality, though, is that there are documents- but BCS has apparently decided to defy the courts and not produce them. The District is following up with BCS, and is making clear that we will once again seek sanctions, including "issue sanctions". (Basically, in addition to reimbursing LASD for the money we've spent forcing them to comply with a court order, the Judge could simply rule in our favor on something, essentially as a penalty for their abuse of the discovery process.)
As always, I've included the complete correspondence.
Letter to BCS counsel
3rd Set of Interrogatories
3rd Set of Request for Production
We've also prepared the documentation to request the actual sanctions. According to the court rules, we prepare these, but wait to file them later. Yes, we're following the process, because we intend to follow through and request these sanctions.
Notice of Motion for Monetary Sanctions
POS Motion for Monetary Sanctions
For those who wonder why we can't spend as much time in negotiations, this kind of nonsense is a great example. Complying with Discovery is one of the most basic things you do in litigation. Yet BCS has chosen to litigate this issue several times over, fighting LASD every step of the way. There simply is no justification for it (as evidenced by the sanctions imposed by Judge Lucas, and upheld by the Appellate Court). When we have to do this sort of work every day, there just isn't much time for anything else.
To see related blog posts, click the "Attorney's Fees" label below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
