[NBC: Orly was, in retrospect correct, the Judge had ordered a trial… Mud on my face….]
Orly announces excitedly
Update: Judge Reid issued and ORDER AND SCHEDULED 2 hour trialon October 22nd from 10-am to 12
Case: ORLY TAITZ DR VS.ELECTIONS COMMISSION
Cause Number: 49D141203MI012046
Case Status: O
Event Date: 10/10/12
Last Updated By: SCS1418
Judge: S.K. REID, JUDGE
Event Type: HR001
Event Description: CAUSE SET FOR HEARING ON 10/22/12 AT 10:00 OCLOCK A.M.
Does that sound like a trial? More like a hearing on pending matters. Orly herself filed an interesting motion
10/02/12 MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS TO SCHEDULE SEPARATE TRIAL OF
Event Description: MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS TO SCHEDULE SEPARATE TRIAL OF EXPEDITION ON THE TWO ISSUES OF DECLARATORY RELIEF AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS TO SECRETARY OF STATE AND ELECTIONS COMMISSION ALONE FILED BY PLAINTIFF
and of course…
09/26/12 JACKET ENTRY: PLAINTIFF’S (ALL) IN PERSON AND BY COUNSEL;
Event Description: JACKET ENTRY: PLAINTIFF’S (ALL) IN PERSON AND BY COUNSEL; DEFENDANT’S(ALL) BY COUNSEL; COURT CONDUCTS HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION RELIEF AND ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER RULING ON ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE; ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD; COURT DENIES PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, RECITING REASONS ON RECORD; COURT ALSO DENIES DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER; COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF TO PREPARE WRITTEN FINDINGS FOR COURT SIGNATURE WITHIN 10 DAYS.
Did Orly manage to prepare w written findings for court signature? The docket does not tell.
And there is this from the hearing
Judge Reid asks if the amended complaint has any separate complaints and allegations against Mr. Garn and Ms. Shelby. To the extent it does, these matters should be addressed at another hearing. This hearing is almost out of time.
She then orders Orly and Black to write the order denying the injunction within 10 days.
She again warns that there must in the future be absolute compliance with all rules, or she will entertain a motion to dismiss.
She points out that she doesn’t just pull a trial date out of a hat, but that this occurs only after a case management order and the conclusion of discovery, and upon agreement by the parties.
She then states that in the event of any further rules violations, she will entertain a motion to dismiss, apparently as a sanction. She states that the rules violations to date have been blatant. She states that she insists the defendants comply with the rule, and that she will also insist the plaintiffs do so.