• Home
  • News
  • Judge Bounced from Case Due to ‘Hell Yes’ Outburst with Lathrop & Gage Lawyer

Judiciary

Judge Bounced from Case Due to ‘Hell Yes’ Outburst with Lathrop & Gage Lawyer

Posted Mar 27, 2009 11:57 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

A federal appeals court has ruled (PDF) that a Kansas City, Mo., judge must be removed from a case involving Shell Oil Co. because of an outburst fueled by a “protracted and contentious” discovery dispute.

The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple had been provoked by both sides in the case, but he should nonetheless be removed because of an appearance of partiality, the National Law Journal reports.

The court cited Whipple’s angry words in an exchange with the plaintiff’s lawyer, Fred Starrett of Lathrop & Gage, the NLJ story says. The appeals court vacated Whipple's order dismissing the case for discovery violations and remanded for a new judge to reconsider sanctions.

Whipple had issued four different orders that required the plaintiff, a mini-mart owner, to give Shell 58 documents in all. In a December 2006 sanctions hearing, Whipple asked if Starrett had turned over the documents. “To them?” Starrett asked.

The judge’s reply, contained in the appeals court’s March 24 opinion: “Well, hell yes. Why would you ask a question like that? Hell, yes, to the defendant. … I kept telling you to produce stuff, expert stuff. You ducked. You wove. You did everything to keep from producing them. You go to the 8th Circuit. They tell you to produce them, and you still goddamn don’t produce them. Now what the hell do you not understand? You must produce them. Jesus Christ, I don't want any more ducking and weaving from you on those 58 documents."

Starrett suggested the court had not ordered production of all the documents four times, prompting Whipple to say: "That's it. I'm done. I'm granting the defendant's motion to dismiss this case for systematic abuse of the discovery process. … This case is gone. I’m dismissing it. What a disgrace to the legal system in the Western District of Missouri. Prepare the proposed order. We’re done. We are done, done, done. What a disgrace. It’s not your fault, it’s your client. He’s coached, he’s ducked, and he’s hid documents. We’re done."

Comments

1.

Don
Mar 27, 2009 1:04 PM CST

Wonder how he *really* felt about it?  :-)

2.

DirtyLAWndry.com
Mar 27, 2009 5:53 PM CST

HA!  love people that don’t hold their tongues!

3.

deferance
Mar 28, 2009 9:30 AM CST

It sounds like the plaintiff engaged in repeated discovery abuses.  The District Court probably came to the right conclusion.  And it was only human of the judge to be adjitated by the attorney’s question.  It’s unfortunate that the defendant must now expend additional attorney’s fees re-arguing the matter, when it appears the right result had already been reached.

4.

B. McLeod
Mar 28, 2009 6:58 PM CST

Lathrop is an old firm, and, as I have heard, still growing even in the middle of the current economic downturn.  They can get by with discovery conduct that would have long since sent a solo or a smaller firm to the woodshed.  They may have now embarrassed this particular federal judge, but that is not (in my opinion) a very smart play.  Other federal judges will be watching, and in future cases, discovery discipline may come earlier, and the judges will know to be polite to the utmost as they pull out the sanctions for Lathrop and its clients.  To achieve a better system of justice, courts should act in concert to end the notion that certain large firms enjoy special immunities when it comes to following the rules.

5.

Rube Vogel
Mar 29, 2009 4:39 AM CST

If a judge finds one side of a dispute in contempt of court, is that a show of bias? Of course not! But if you say hell and god-damn, it goes to appea!? Judge should have tossed the plaintiff in jail.

6.

John Davis
Mar 29, 2009 6:34 AM CST

The kangaroo courts have spoken!

RT
www.privacy-tools.us.tc

7.

John Davis
Mar 29, 2009 6:34 AM CST

The kangaroo courts have spoken! Make it so! LOL

.privacy-tools.us.tc

8.

Ben
Mar 29, 2009 8:26 AM CST

Judge was doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing. What’s the problem?

9.

andronen
Mar 29, 2009 11:17 AM CST

I agree with the judge on this one. This guy is abusing the legal system. Had I been the judge, I’d have held the plaintiff in Contempt of court and just tossed him in jail until his employees or relatives produced the documents.

10.

Paul the Magyar
Mar 30, 2009 4:07 PM CST

You nailed it McLeod. 

Not exactly discrete or wise of counsel to become so situated.

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.