Because I cited Sweeney's stated rationale does not mean I endorse it. All I did was explain it, as I interpreted her ruling text.
And I NEVER said "all this discovery is a stupid detour and Fairholme lawyers should not have gone down this path." Discovery is a normal part of most any plaintiff action.
What I have said is that the discovery process in Fairholme has been dragged out when the complaints in their case require simple rulings of law on procedure and areas that require no deep discovery diving into areas that seem irrelevant to the fulcrums in their litigation. Hence, much or even most of the requested discovery materials they demand seem to matter little-to-nothing in their suit, and only seem to benefit other parties in other suits.
Happy to clarify that for you.
JMHO.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
