Form objections to deposition questions are dated and boilerplateAdam Glazer
Object to the form of the question. While it’s a technically permissible and proper deposition objection, it generally proves of limited utility beyond venting.
Most litigators have, however, encountered at least one opponent who believes in repeating this line after virtually every worthwhile deposition question.
Whether that opponent rigidly interprets Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(d)(3)’s waiver rule on depositions or simply desires to disrupt the examination’s flow, many flawless inquiries face baseless form objections.
The following is a memorandum that I wrote for the Office of the New York State Attorney General regarding a pending Environmental Protection Bureau case.
I have received permission to use this memorandum as a writing sample. The parties’ names have been changed to protect confidentiality.
Pollard PLLC represents 7 real estate brokers and their new company KD Premier Realty against their former employer, Properties of the Villages. In the attached document, the Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The Firm can be reached at 954-332-2380.
Form objections to deposition questions are dated and boilerplateAdam Glazer
Object to the form of the question. While it’s a technically permissible and proper deposition objection, it generally proves of limited utility beyond venting.
Most litigators have, however, encountered at least one opponent who believes in repeating this line after virtually every worthwhile deposition question.
Whether that opponent rigidly interprets Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(d)(3)’s waiver rule on depositions or simply desires to disrupt the examination’s flow, many flawless inquiries face baseless form objections.
The following is a memorandum that I wrote for the Office of the New York State Attorney General regarding a pending Environmental Protection Bureau case.
I have received permission to use this memorandum as a writing sample. The parties’ names have been changed to protect confidentiality.
Pollard PLLC represents 7 real estate brokers and their new company KD Premier Realty against their former employer, Properties of the Villages. In the attached document, the Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The Firm can be reached at 954-332-2380.
Learn from a Millennial how raising the minimum wage and offering workers paid sick days will impact his generation. Student Loans, Low Wages, and High Costs of Living mean that being a young person today is financially difficult.
Essays On Legalizing Weed. School essay: Essay on legalizing marijuanaLadonna Mayer
Legalize Marijuana Essay Essay on Legalize Marijuana for Students and .... Should Cannabis be legalised? - A-Level General Studies - Marked by .... Legalizing Weed Essay Essay on Legalizing Weed for Students and .... Argumentative essay on legalizing weed. Argumentative Essay On .... Argumentative essay legalization of cannabis / best essay writing help. Legalizing weed - PHDessay.com. Speech on Marijuana Legalization - PHDessay.com. Legalizing Marijuana Can Help Boost the Economy Essay Example .... Argument for the legalization of Marijuana - GCSE English - Marked by .... Pros of legalizing weed essay titles. Legalizing of Marijuana Essay Example Topics and Well Written Essays .... Marijuana legalization argumentative essay. Reasons why Marijuana Should Be legalized Free Essay Sample on .... Legalizing Marijuana Thesis Statement : Legalization of Marijuana Essay. ️ Position paper legalizing weed. Position paper on legalization of .... School essay: Essay on legalizing marijuana. Marijuana Essay PDF Cannabis Drug Substance Abuse. Frightening Argumentative Essay On Legalizing Weed Thatsnotus. Marijuana legalization thesis. Thesis on Legalization of Marijuana .... legalizing marijuana thesis statement. Marijuana Essay Online. Legalization of Recreational Marijuana - Free Essay Example PapersOwl.com. Student essays: Marijuana legalization essay. Top Should Marijuana Be Legalized Essay Thatsnotus. 010 Essay Example Legalizing Marijuana High Time Classifying August .... Legalizing Marijuana for Medicinal Purposes Essay Essays On Legalizing Weed Essays On Legalizing Weed. School essay: Essay on legalizing marijuana
Darren Chaker http://darrenchaker,us/ notes, “[T]he First Amendment does not „belong‟ to any definable category of persons or entities: It belongs to all who exercise its freedoms.” First Nat. Bank. of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 802 (1978) (Burger, C.J., concurring). This federal court ruling found a Florida law preventing disclosure of police home address information to be unconstitutional for several articulated reasons based on the First Amendment. The court found the right to publish police home addresses did not fall within any category of speech the First Amendment allowed to exempt from protection.
Learn from a Millennial how raising the minimum wage and offering workers paid sick days will impact his generation. Student Loans, Low Wages, and High Costs of Living mean that being a young person today is financially difficult.
Essays On Legalizing Weed. School essay: Essay on legalizing marijuanaLadonna Mayer
Legalize Marijuana Essay Essay on Legalize Marijuana for Students and .... Should Cannabis be legalised? - A-Level General Studies - Marked by .... Legalizing Weed Essay Essay on Legalizing Weed for Students and .... Argumentative essay on legalizing weed. Argumentative Essay On .... Argumentative essay legalization of cannabis / best essay writing help. Legalizing weed - PHDessay.com. Speech on Marijuana Legalization - PHDessay.com. Legalizing Marijuana Can Help Boost the Economy Essay Example .... Argument for the legalization of Marijuana - GCSE English - Marked by .... Pros of legalizing weed essay titles. Legalizing of Marijuana Essay Example Topics and Well Written Essays .... Marijuana legalization argumentative essay. Reasons why Marijuana Should Be legalized Free Essay Sample on .... Legalizing Marijuana Thesis Statement : Legalization of Marijuana Essay. ️ Position paper legalizing weed. Position paper on legalization of .... School essay: Essay on legalizing marijuana. Marijuana Essay PDF Cannabis Drug Substance Abuse. Frightening Argumentative Essay On Legalizing Weed Thatsnotus. Marijuana legalization thesis. Thesis on Legalization of Marijuana .... legalizing marijuana thesis statement. Marijuana Essay Online. Legalization of Recreational Marijuana - Free Essay Example PapersOwl.com. Student essays: Marijuana legalization essay. Top Should Marijuana Be Legalized Essay Thatsnotus. 010 Essay Example Legalizing Marijuana High Time Classifying August .... Legalizing Marijuana for Medicinal Purposes Essay Essays On Legalizing Weed Essays On Legalizing Weed. School essay: Essay on legalizing marijuana
Darren Chaker http://darrenchaker,us/ notes, “[T]he First Amendment does not „belong‟ to any definable category of persons or entities: It belongs to all who exercise its freedoms.” First Nat. Bank. of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 802 (1978) (Burger, C.J., concurring). This federal court ruling found a Florida law preventing disclosure of police home address information to be unconstitutional for several articulated reasons based on the First Amendment. The court found the right to publish police home addresses did not fall within any category of speech the First Amendment allowed to exempt from protection.
Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee, 2010 - Landmark Case Striking Down The 1972...Terry81
The Landmark Case Of Brayshaw V. City Of Tallahassee, 2010. This federal case made Rob Brayshaw an American Civil Rights Hero Against Dumb and Dirty Cops Annette Garrett and Mike Dilmore who were very crooked and dishonest. The Florida Statute from 1972 known as "The Dildo Law" or "Dilmore's Law" was struck down as Unconstitutional on it's face and illegally applied by false police reports as there was no threat. Tallahassee cops attempted to illegally silence and use illegal censorships for exposing them as crooked police officers.
The Landmark Federal Case Of Brayshaw V. City Of Tallahassee, 2010. This is the federal court order protecting the First Amendment Rights Of Our U.S. Constitution Against Dumb and Dirty Police Officers, Malicious Prosecutors and Corrupt Judges. The 1972 Florida Statute Was Struck Down as Unconstitutional on its face and as illegally applied by dirty cops of Annette Garrett and Mike Dilmore with their falsely written police reports.
York County, Virginia General District Court Filing Traffic CourtChuck Thompson
http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com Posted for a story posted on the linked website dated April 22nd, 2015. Shows how the court ignored the rules of the court and railroaded a person who was fraudulently charged in our opinion.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita says the Disciplinary Commission is bowing to "political pressure" in its effort to make his confidential agreement public.
411 N.J.Super. 236Superior Court of New Jersey,Appellate Divis.docxalinainglis
411 N.J.Super. 236
Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division.
J.T.'s TIRE SERVICE, INC. and Eileen Totorello, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED RENTALS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,1 Defendant-Respondent,
and
Harold Hinkes, Defendant.
Argued Dec. 7, 2009.Decided Jan. 6, 2010.
Synopsis
Background: Tire seller and seller's owner brought action against customer under Law Against Discrimination. The Superior Court, Law Division, Middlesex County, granted customer's motion to dismiss complaint for failure to state claim on which relief could be granted, and plaintiffs appealed.
Holding: The Superior Court, Appellate Division, Reisner, J.A.D., held that plaintiff's allegations of quid pro quo sexual harassment that resulted in termination of contract stated claim for discriminatory refusal to do business in violation of Law Against Discrimination.
Reversed and remanded.
West Headnotes (4)Collapse West Headnotes
Change View
1Civil Rights
Contracts, trade, and commercial activity
Tire seller's allegation that customer's business manager tried to extort sexual favors from seller's owner as condition of continuing business with seller, and that customer terminated contract with seller when owner refused manager's advances, stated claim for discriminatory refusal to do business in violation of Law Against Discrimination. N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(l).
0 Case that cites this headnote
2Pleading
Statement of cause of action in general
A complaint sufficiently pleads a cause of action where one is suggested by the facts. R. 4:6-2(e).
0 Case that cites this headnote
3Civil Rights
Threats, intimidation, and harassment
Civil Rights
Sexual Harassment; Work Environment
Although the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) does not specifically mention sexual harassment as a prohibited form of discrimination, it is well-established that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates both Title VII and the LAD. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.; N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.
2 Cases that cite this headnote
4Civil Rights
Threats, intimidation, and harassment
Civil Rights
Evidence
Where harassment consists of sexual overtures and unwelcome touching or groping, it is presumed that the conduct was committed because of the victim's sex, and thus, when a plaintiff alleges that she has been subjected to sexual touchings or comments, she has established under the Law Against Discrimination that the harassment occurred because of her sex. N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(l).
J.T.'s Tire Serv., Inc. v. United Rentals N. Am., Inc., 411 N.J. Super. 236, 985 A.2d 211 (App. Div. 2010)
Attorneys and Law Firms
**212 Elizabeth Zuckerman, Princeton, argued the cause for appellants (Zuckerman & Fisher, L.L.C., attorneys; Ms. Zuckerman, on the brief).
David I. Rosen, Newark, argued the cause for respondent (Littler Mendelson, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Rosen and Jacqueline K. Hall, on the brief).
Before Judges REISNER, YANNOTTI and CHAMBERS.
Opinion
The opinion of the court was.
An update of key employment law developments in 2014 in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia written by veteran employment lawyer Robert B. Fitzpatrick, principal of Robert B. Fitzpatrick, PLLC.
Brayshaw v. Annette Garrett, Unconstitutional Internet Posting RemovalsTerry81
Brayshaw V. Annette Garrett, Federal Lawsuit Against Her Unconstitutional Internet Posting Removals on the internet against the First Amendment and Constitutional Rights of Rob Brayshaw. Brayshaw has a Federal Court order against this crooked and dirty cop in which he has the right to criticize and publish her public and personal information regarding her various fraud and corruption working as a dirty police officer.
Opinion - Reversing Temporary Injunction and Dismissal of Petition
1. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
ALKIVIADES A. DAVID,
Appellant,
v.
JOHN TEXTOR,
Appellee.
No. 4D14-4352
[January 6, 2016]
Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth
Judicial Circuit, Martin County; F. Shields McManus, Judge; L.T. Case
No. 14-267 DV.
Ryan G. Baker of Baker Marquart LLP, Los Angeles, California, and
Gary S. Betensky, Manuel Farach, and Leslie A. Metz of Richman Greer,
P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Alan M. Burger and Mary F. April of McDonald Hopkins LLC, West Palm
Beach, for appellee.
Nancy G. Abudu, Miami, and Benjamin James Stevenson, Pensacola,
for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and Legal
Scholars.
WARNER, J.
Alkiviades A. David appeals a non-final order denying his motion to
dissolve an ex parte injunction prohibiting cyberstalking, obtained by the
appellee, John Textor. David, a non-resident, contends that the conduct
alleged in Textor’s ex parte petition for the injunction does not constitute
cyberstalking, and the injunction violates the First Amendment. We agree
and reverse.
David and Textor both have companies which produce holograms used
in the music industry. In May 2014, shortly before the Billboard Music
Awards show, it was announced that Textor’s company, Pulse
Entertainment, would show a Michael Jackson hologram performance.
Immediately thereafter, David’s company, Hologram USA, Inc., and others
2. 2
filed suit for patent infringement against Pulse in the U.S. District Court
in Nevada, a suit which continues. Pulse countered by filing a business
tort suit against David in California in June 2014, which eventually was
dismissed.
In July 2014, Textor filed an ex parte petition for protection pursuant
to sections 784.046 and 784.0485, Florida Statutes (2014), which concern
cyberstalking. The petition alleged that David was a California resident.
Textor alleged that there were no pending suits between the parties, not
mentioning the substantial litigation between their companies.
The alleged acts of cyberstalking were (1) a May 2014 text from David
to Textor, demanding that Textor give credit to David’s company at the
Billboard Awards show for the hologram, for which David would drop his
patent infringement suit; otherwise, he threatened to increase damages in
that suit and stated, “You will be ruined I promise you”; (2) an e-mail from
David to business associates (other than Textor) that he had more
information about Textor that would be released soon, but not specifying
what that information was; (3) an online article from July 2014 on
Entrepreneur.com, in which David was quoted as saying that he “would
have killed [Textor] if he could”; and (4) articles about Textor that David
posted and reposted in various online outlets.
Textor alleges that this is cyberstalking. He alleges fear of violence from
David and therefore requested an ex parte injunction prohibiting David
from communicating with him or posting anything about him on any
websites, as well as ordering David to remove any material posted
regarding Textor from his website.
The trial court ordered a hearing on the petition. Before the hearing,
Textor amended the petition to allege that David had written another e-
mail regarding settlement of the lawsuit in which he threatened to expose
photographs, lawsuits by disgruntled employees of Textor, and illicit
money transfers if Textor did not end the lawsuit by his company. At the
end of the e-mail, David wrote, “I hope for you and your family’s sake you
are man enough to put an end to this now.” David also “tagged” Textor’s
Instagram account with a photo of Hitler and a caption, “Sorry if I have
offended any #neonazis.” This tagging allowed any followers of Textor to
see the Hitler photo and the caption. Attached to the petition were the e-
mails, the Hitler photo, and tweets sent by David referring to various suits
involving Textor, including the State of Florida’s attempt to recoup the
cash it had provided Textor’s Florida company, Digital Domain.
3. 3
The trial court granted the amended petition, prohibiting David from
communicating with Textor or posting any information about him online,
and ordering that he remove any materials he already had posted from the
websites.
David then made a limited appearance, without waiving his objection
to jurisdiction, and moved to dissolve the ex parte injunction. After a non-
evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion to dissolve and amended
its order to prohibit David from communicating with Textor either through
electronic means, in person, or through third parties. The amended order
also provided:
Respondent David shall immediately cease and desist from
sending any text messages, e[-]mails, posting any tweets
(including the re-tweeting or forwarding), posting any images
or other forms of communication directed at John Textor
without a legitimate purpose. Threats or warnings of physical
or emotional harm or attempts to extort Textor or any entity
associated with Textor by Respondent David, personally or
through his agents, directed to John Textor, directly or by
other means, are prohibited.
From this order, David appeals.
David claims that none of the allegations in the petition constitute
cyberstalking, but are merely heated rhetoric over a business dispute.
Further, he claims that the injunction constitutes a prior restraint on
speech, which violates the First Amendment. Whether the conduct alleged
constitutes statutorily-defined cyberstalking also resolves the question of
whether the petition made sufficient allegations to bring David within the
jurisdiction of the court. Because we conclude that the conduct alleged in
the petition is not cyberstalking and the injunction violates the First
Amendment, we reverse and do not further address the issue of
jurisdiction.
Section 784.0485, Florida Statutes (2014), allows an injunction against
stalking, including cyberstalking. The statute must be read in conjunction
with section 784.046(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014), which requires at least
two incidences of stalking to obtain an injunction. See Wyandt v. Voccio,
148 So. 3d 543, 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Additionally, section 784.048
defines stalking, including cyberstalking:
4. 4
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed
at a specific person which causes substantial emotional
distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct
composed of a series of acts over a period of time,
however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose.
The term does not include constitutionally protected
activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
. . . .
(d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct
to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words,
images, or language by or through the use of electronic
mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific
person, causing substantial emotional distress to that
person and serving no legitimate purpose.
§ 784.048(1), Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphasis added).
Whether a communication causes substantial emotional distress
should be narrowly construed and is governed by the reasonable person
standard. See Bouters v. State, 659 So. 2d 235, 238 (Fla. 1995); Goudy v.
Duquette, 112 So. 3d 716, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). In contrast, whether
a communication serves a legitimate purpose is broadly construed and will
cover a wide variety of conduct. See, e.g., Goudy, 112 So. 3d at 717
(finding that a parent calling about his daughter’s dance team
participation serves a legitimate purpose); Alter v. Paquette, 98 So. 3d 218,
220 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (finding that communications demanding payment
of loan serve a legitimate purpose); Touhey v. Seda, 133 So. 3d 1203, 1205
(Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (finding that communications regarding disputes over
the dissolution of a business serve a legitimate purpose). Further, where
comments are made on an electronic medium to be read by others, they
cannot be said to be directed to a particular person. See Chevaldina v.
R.K./FL Mgmt., Inc., 133 So. 3d 1086, 1091-92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
In this case, Textor alleged that two communications came directly from
David to him, both of which were demands that Textor drop his lawsuit.
In neither of them did David make any threat to Textor’s safety. From the
full e-mail, David’s threats that Textor would be “sorry” if he didn’t settle
must be taken in the context of the lawsuit and its potential cost to Textor.
Because of the existence of the various lawsuits and the heated
controversy over the hologram patents, these e-mails had a legitimate
5. 5
purpose in trying to get Textor to drop what David considered a spurious
lawsuit. Moreover, nothing in the e-mails should have caused substantial
emotional distress to Textor, himself a sophisticated businessman.
Indeed, that they did not is reflected in Textor’s refusal to settle or adhere
to their terms.
The postings online are also not communications which would cause
substantial emotional distress. Most of them are simply retweets of
articles or headlines involving Textor. That they may be embarrassing to
Textor is not at all the same as causing him substantial emotional distress
sufficient to obtain an injunction. Moreover, the postings are more like
the blog posts in Chevaldina, which the Third District found were not
directed at a specific person, as they were simply generally criticizing the
business involved to the blogging public. 133 So. 3d at 1092.
Even the alleged physical threat made by David in an online interview,
that David would have killed Textor if he could have, would not cause a
reasonable person substantial emotional distress. In the online article the
author stated that “David joked” when stating that he would have killed
Textor. Spoken to a journalist for publication, it hardly amounts to an
actual and credible threat of violence to Textor.
In sum, none of the allegations in Textor’s petition show acts
constituting cyberstalking, in that a reasonable person1 would not suffer
substantial emotional distress over them. Those communications made
directly to Textor served a legitimate purpose.
An injunction in this case would also violate First Amendment
principles. “[A] temporary injunction directed to speech is a classic
example of prior restraint on speech triggering First Amendment
concerns.” Vrasic v. Leibel, 106 So. 3d 485, 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). An
injunction may not be directed to prevent defamatory speech. Id. at 487;
Chevaldina, 133 So. 3d at 1090. “‘[P]rior restraints on speech and
publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on
First Amendment rights.’” Concerned Citizens for Judicial Fairness, Inc. v.
Yacucci, 162 So. 3d 68, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Neb. Press Ass’n
v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976)). Section 784.048 itself recognizes the
First Amendment rights of individuals by concluding that a “course of
conduct” for purposes of the statute does not include protected speech.
1 The reasonable person standard is applied to a person in the position of the
party, in this case an adult businessman. See Pallas v. State, 656 So. 2d 1358,
1363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Thus, the standard is case specific.
6. 6
§ 784.048(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014). This includes speech that may be
offensive or vituperative. See Watts v. U.S., 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969).
Here, the online postings simply provide information, gleaned from
other sources, regarding Textor and the many lawsuits against him. The
injunction prevents not only communications to Textor, but also
communications about Textor. Such prohibition by prior restraint violates
the Constitution. If David’s communications about Textor are defamatory,
then Textor can sue David for damages.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the temporary injunction and
remand with directions to dismiss the petition.
FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.