OWC Pharmaceutical Research Corp (OWCP)

[BruceLake]

On a positive note, I must admit that with regards to the malpractice lawsuit, OWC has a pretty good lawyer representing them. As is typical in these situations, there is a ping pong match going on where both sides make compelling arguments. When you think it’s over, the other comes back with a pretty good argument of their own. Lawrence R. Lonergan, OWC’s lawyer, is essentially accusing the Defendants’ legal team of using “sharp tactics and gamesmanship”. The dirty tricks stem from a May 11 Stipulation whereby the defendants had already confirmed that they had received the emails in question. But then subsequently changed their tune when in September they were looking for more emails.

It's almost impossible to decipher the judge’s chicken scrawl in the following order. Somebody should get her a typewriter. I gather they are reconvening on December 10 for an oral argument on the motion, and a court date adjourned to March 3, 2020?
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=cIdH3qvZu5hW3PD8I51cXQ==&system=prod

Affirmation in opposition to the motion:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=LuqEKms0D8_PLUS_N/DWUFMhnlQ==&system=prod

11. Because Defendants failed to provide the Court with the May 11th Stipulation, as Defendants were obligated to do, this Court issued the September 17th without the proper context provided by the May 11th Stipulation. Had Defendants’ counsel acted properly and provided a complete record to this Court, this Court would easily have seen that Defendants were overreaching and very likely would have scaled back the breadth of the September 17th Order accordingly.
12. Plainly, by signing the May 11th Stipulation, Defendants were deemed to have already received “internal emails between plaintiff’s officers and representatives as well as emails with third-party Kodiak Capital Group” (September 17th Order). Simple inclusion of the May 11th Stipulation on either of these discovery motions would have resolved this issue.

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CPLR §3126:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=Xm/s2U5jPIc9n78zr3Y5vA==&system=prod

Defendants, nevertheless, have acted overzealously and concocted discovery issues where none exists, and where the intervention of this Court’s is unnecessary. Defendants’ scorched-earth litigation objectives are clear: to dilate this action at all costs, even if that means withholding evidence and misstating the procedural history of this litigation. The accompany affirmation of attorney Lonergan details Defendants failure to include the May 11th Stipulation (Exhibit B) as an exhibit not once, but twice. Defendants also fail to include any evidence with their moving papers demonstrating their claim of alleged deficiencies or how the 1,441 pages of documents provided by Plaintiffs on October 30 somehow did not remedy all of Plaintiff’s outstanding discovery allegations. For the legal reasons set forth herein, Defendants’ motion should be denied in its entirety.