Opinion ID: 78403
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ex Parte Nature

Text: There is no evidence that the ex parte nature of the filings were court-ordered. Spradley testified that I cannot state with certainty that [Ms. Coberly] said the Court specifically says you are not to give the other side the documents. But whatever words were said, I came away with the impression that's what we were to do, and then the fact that the parties acted in conformity with that. (Recusal Tr. Vol. IV at 133.) Ginsberg did not directly communicate with Ms. Coberly, but testified that he was told by Spradley the court had ordered ex parte filings. (Sanctions Tr. Vol. I at 95-96.) Ginsberg further testified that the court ordered the second FOFCOL be filed ex parte in open court and that he objected at that time. ( Id. ) However, Ginsberg could not locate a transcript or any other evidence of this directive. (Sanctions Tr. Vol. II at 49-51.) Neither can we. On the other hand, Shuker testified that the FOFCOL were filed ex parte based on a mutual understanding between the lawyers; it was not based on a court order. ( Id. at 185-86.) Shuker explained that during the first filing the trial was still ongoing and he did not want the opposition's witnesses to read his clients' FOFCOL and change their testimony. ( Id. ) For the second filing, Shuker testified that the trial had been so expensive that he did not want to add the costs of exchanging and objecting to each others submissions. ( Id. ) At best, Ginsberg presented evidence that the attorneys had some understanding about not serving each other. We find no evidence, however, that the court ordered the parties to submit the filings ex parte or that the court was aware that such was being done.