(1) List all employees who were discharged or whose contracts were not renewed [from August 25, 2009, through the present] due to a medical reason.
(2) For each employee listed in response to request number 1, include the employee’s name, citizenship, employment contract, position title, reason for and date of discharge, a copy of the separation notice and the last known contact information for each individual.
(3) For each employee listed in response to request number 1, include their employment application and related correspondence, any interview notes, the identity of the person who hired the employee, how the employee obtained the position (i.e., online, in person, recruiter), the location where the employee was interviewed, and the identity and location of the person who made the final hiring decision.
(4) List all the persons who applied for a position but were not hired within the relevant period due to a medical reason
(5) For each person listed in response to request number 4, include their citizenship, employment application and related correspondence, any interview notes, the identity of the person [who] hired the employee, how the employee learned of the position (i.e., online, in person, recruiter), the location where the employee was interviewed, and the identity and location of the person who made the final hiring decision.

The cruise line complied in (massive) part, but not fully, “providing records for employees and applicants who were United States citizens” but not others. The agency took the dispute to court and proceeded to lose at every stage, the Eleventh Circuit being the latest to find its information demands burdensome and irrelevant: “The relevance necessary to support a subpoena for the investigation of an individual charge is relevance to the contested issues that must be decided to resolve the charge, not relevance to issues that may be contested when and if future charges are brought by others.” [Hunton and Williams; Phelps Dunbar]

Meanwhile, the commission has issued its fiscal 2014 performance report; in explaining a drop in resolved complaints, its public statement cites the “lingering effects of sequestration and the government shutdown” but not the marked skepticism that judges repeatedly showed toward EEOC positions through the year.

Eleventh Circuit slaps down overly broad EEOC subpoena is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Sibley’s latest stunt is to claim that he will call 800 witnesses who were alleged clients of Palfrey’s call-girl service at the civil forfeiture proceedings over Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s estate. It’s not going to happen: as a suspended attorney, Sibley is ineligible to appear in federal court, which is why the government filed a notice of suspension on May 21. (The victims of Sibley in Larry Sinclair’s lawsuit against bloggers have yet to file such a notice. Not clear what they’re waiting for, though, technically, under the local rules, it is Sibley’s obligation to notify the federal court he has been suspended and is ineligible to practice.) Moreover, the US government has opposed his proposed substitution on behalf of the late Palfrey in Case No. 06-1710, United States v. 803 Capitol Street–Sibley was fired by Palfrey, has no one to represent since there is no executor to the Palfrey estate as of yet, and has a conflict of interest with the Palfrey estate because he filed a claim on his own behalf to the property in question: even if he weren’t suspended, the district court would be exceedingly unlikely to let him intervene in the forfeiture case, much less turn it into a circus, and, indeed, it ordered that the government need not file a formal brief. (Note that Sibley’s motion to substitute acknowledges that he hasn’t sought permission from his alleged client, Blanche Palfrey.) The question is why reporters are permitting themselves to be marionettes to broadcast whatever Sibley blasts as an e-mail, when he has repeatedly demonstrated that he shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Suspended Montgomery Blair Sibley still getting press coverage is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

March 25 roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

December 7 roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

The trial court ruled that Allstate was not allowed to present evidence that it was not liable for actual or punitive damages or that it acted “with anything other than dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, furtive design, and/or ill will.” A jury, hearing this one-sided sham of a trial, awarded $20 million in damages, though one would hope the Court of Appeals, hearing a timely appeal, makes the same decision it made before. Press coverage fails to mention that Allstate wasn’t allowed to defend itself at trial; the plaintiff told the jury that the dispute caused high blood pressure, heart problems, and a stroke, though then the question becomes why he isn’t suing his attorney. (Ken Kosky, “Valpo man wins $20 million verdict v. Allstate”, Northwest Indiana Times, Oct. 6).

Jackpot justice: $20M for $25,000 insurance claim is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

The newspaper found out only because another lawyer, Robert V. West III, sought to raise the scheme as part of a separate business dispute with the Roberts; fans of poetic justice will note that the Roberts accuse West of blackmail, and brought disciplinary charges against West and his lawyer to the state bar. The bar is investigating West, but, apparently, not the Roberts. Everyone involved denies any wrongdoing. Roberts unsuccessfully brought suit to prevent publication of the story, but the court records remain sealed. (Maro Robbins and Joseph S. Stroud, Jun. 13) (via Bashman).

“Sex, lawyers, secrets at heart of sealed legal case” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system