Expectant Dad Asks for Continuance, Opposing Counsel Objects
A federal judge in Kansas agreed to continue a civil case involving a stock transaction dispute, but only over the objections of opposing counsel.
Dallas lawyer Bryan Erman asked for the continuance, citing the expected birth of his first child in early July, two weeks after the trial is scheduled to begin.
If Erman’s wife delivers early, the motion reasoned, it would be difficult for Erman to return from Dallas to Kansas City, where the trial is scheduled to be held.
But, even while continuances are common, his opposing counsel objected, going so far as to discuss conception dates, according to the humor blog Lowering the Bar, which first reported the story, and the New York Times.
U.S. District Judge Eric F. Melgren was none to happy with the objection. After expressing surprise at the opposition, he granted the continuance, but not before characterizing opposing counsel as part of an “unhappy trend” of lawyers who, “lose sight of their role as professionals, and personalize the dispute; converting the parties’ disagreement into a lawyers’ spat.”
In the judge’s ruling (PDF), he notes that the plaintiffs asserted a “lengthy and spirited argument about when defendants should have known this would happen, even citing a pretrial conference occurring in early November as a time when Mr. Erman ‘most certainly’ would have known of the due date of his child, and even more astonishingly arguing that ‘utilizing simple math, the due date for Mr. Erman’s child’s birth would have been known’” by October.
The judge, “for reasons of good taste which should be (though apparently, are not) too obvious to explain,” declined to address the questions over date of conception.
Instead, Judge Melgren granted the motion and congratulated the Ermans.
For his part, John Edgar, the lawyer opposing the trial delay, told the Times that while he respected the judge’s opinion, he believed the case would have wrapped up before the due date.
