I've had one time where I was called back in, it was related to new discovery that had been provided related to a security breach. It was from a third party and I had not been privy to the documents up to that point. Ultimately they had little or no bearing on the case but I did have to state I have no knowledge for a bunch of questions asked.
I think for OPs case, they're trying to find more gotchas. I would request through a lawyer to limit scope and or mitigate being harassed.
Who knows though, the amount of screwy games that lawyers play blew my mind.. until i remembered they bill hourly.
We are also trying to win (within reason) and we are often trying not to get sued or disbarred. (I guess I can’t speak for all of us, but…)
Sometimes the bills suck because of the billing model. Often the bills suck for a combination of those other reasons.
I also have noticed no one tends to shop around for the absolute least expensive lawyer for some reason. I’ll have to think more about that one…
What a lot of people don't realize is that on class actions where laywers are often times lumped into one big case, most of them make peanuts if they're not the primary firms. You guys have a lot of gamble to with billing depending on your structure. So all in, I get it.
Rule 26(b)(4)(E) Payment. Unless manifest injustice would result, the court must require that the party seeking discovery:
(i) pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery
I'm not making judgement as to what is or isn't, simply am trying to clarify what he's getting at. I imagine to Molson this feels like Amazon is trying to bury them in discovery
How much of my time do I have to burn for free because someone else is suing someone else, and my name came up?
But like all good legal answers, the specific answer is that “it depends.”
> the state of California filed a complaint against Amazon. They cited me and made me a witness.
> And in response, Amazon served me with a lawsuit.
It's difficult to put any weight in an anonymous comment when it relies solely on credibility.
So aything relevant to CA's claims against Amazon, or Amazon's defenses, is fair game. If your client is being sued for a Zillion dollars, and you don't dig up every possible way to discredit the plaintiff's key witnesses, you're not doing your job. This means asking about every possible connection between the plaintiff and the witness, their possible biases and gaps in credibility.