That said, this afternoon, counsel for Dr. Imperato-McGinley filed an affidavit -- the objective of which was to seek permission from the court for the doctor to skip her appearance.
I expect that set of papers (in a highly unusual format, no less) will be unavailing.
I expect (as ordered) the doctor will appear. I expect that the Magistrate Judge's order of late August will stand. So I expect we will learn more -- and perhaps much more -- tomorrow. Now -- a little homework -- only eight pages -- do read the full PDF of the affidavit the doctor filed today, as it offers a glimpse into what is known about the so-called Dominican Republic documents -- from the 1970s. I'll make no prediction about whether those documents will come into play in this litigation. I will reaffirm, however, that the doctor is mistaken -- and frankly, could have no reasonable basis to assert, infer, or let alone offer conjecture to the Court, in a sworn affidavit, that I am affilitated in any way with the plaintiffs' counsel. I am not. Pretty silly. Here's the operative bit, for posterity:
. . . .16. There are internet blogs that claim I am being brought to Court with my counsel to produce records, claims that may have been peddled by Plaintiffs. . . .
Pop the popcorn -- tomorrow ought to be highly entertaining. Do read her background affidavit, though -- to be prepared. Onward. And here's a friendly salute -- to the Weill-Cornell people who've been carpet bombing my site today. Welcome -- do sit a bit. I won't bite. I promise.
Updated: 10 PM EDT -- I should have noted at the top -- that for the purpose of this Brooklyn court proceeding, the doctor has made herself a public figure. That is, her actions have become. . . newsworthy. Failing to answer a federal subpoena she was served in February (even one she says she only received in April). . . makes her a so called "limited purpose public figure". And so it is the privilege of editorial commentary -- on the inactions or actions of a limited purpose public figure I have claimed, under U.S. Free expression jurisprudence. End, update.
6 comments:
It's interesting you posted that update Condor because I was just about to point out the exact same thing. She stated that she didn't know of the subpoena until May but that's incorrect, she was served in February. It's odd that her attorney would make such a glaring mistake like that in the affidavit.
Mr. E
She seems like a real joy to deal with.
Assuming the doctor was referring to this blog, I don't even understand why there would be any assumption about the motives of the host. I've not observed any bias. I think it's been solid reporting on where things are. In fact, it almost makes her sound guilty or at the very least petty for her to suggest that someone even talking about the case must be a priori against her.
So did anything happen today?
- Mr. I
Thanks Mr. I --
As of 10 pm EDT tonight, the electronic record contains no hint as to what transpired today.
I will promptly put up a new post when we know something.
And I believe mine is the only blog covering this MDL... So I find it mildly amusing that she's bothered to mention it in her affidavit -- it is patently irrelevant to her duty to comply with the subpoena duces tecum. If it came up at all in court today, I'd bet the judge told her so too.
Namaste -- and onward...
Any thoughts as to why we've heard absolutely nothing about what happened with our favorite Doctor? It's been over 2 months now and I have a hard time believing there was nothing significant that occurred in that hearing.
It is possible that an oral order was entered, and the matter of the doctor's documents was put to rest. Perhaps she delivered all she had, and the Magistrate found her statements credible -- so the plaintiffs' lawyers have decided to move on, and carefully review what she delivered.
This is all conjecture, on my part, but we will watch the horizon for any evidence that it is bubbling back up.
But as I say -- thus far, nothing of the sort.
Namaste! Do stop back...
Post a Comment