--- Begin Message ---
I know this isn't the subject of our discussion, but I thought it was cute.
If this kind of thing should not be posted please let me know.
>> Subject: Is this Yiddish legal?
>>
>>
>> > > From an article reprinted from the Rainbow
>> Reporter, December 1991:
>> > >
>> > > "In the heat of litigation, tempers often
>> flare and lawyers sometimes
>> > > have difficulty expressing their frustrations.
>> When English fails,
>> > Yiddish
>> > > may come to the rescue. So it happened that
>> defense attorneys arguing
>> in
>> > a
>> > > recent summary judgment motion in federal court
>> in Boston wrote, in a
>> > > responsive pleading, 'It is unfortunate that
>> this Court must wade
>> through
>> > > the dreck of plaintiff's original and
>> supplemental statement of
>> undisputed
>> > > facts.' The plaintiffs' attorneys, not to be
>> outdone, responded with a
>> > > motion that could double as a primer on
>> practical Yiddish for
>> lawyers....
>> > >
>> > > UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
>> > > DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
>> > >
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > MONICA SANTIAGO, Plaintiff,
>> > > v.
>> > > SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, et al.
>> > > Defendants.
>> > >
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > Civ. No. 87-2799-T
>> > >
>> > > PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPERTINENT AND
>> SCANDALOUS MATTER
>> > >
>> > > Plaintiff, by her attorneys, hereby moves
>> this Court pursuant to
>> Rule
>> > > 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
>> strike as impertinent
>> and
>> > > scandalous the characterization of her factual
>> submission as "dreck" on
>> > > page 11 of Defendant's Rule 56.1 Supplemental
>> Statement of Disputed
>> Facts
>> > > (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
>> A). As grounds
>> therefore,
>> > > plaintiff states:
>> > >
>> > > 1. For almost four years now, plaintiff and her
>> attorneys have been
>> > > subjected to the constant kvetching by
>> defendants' counsel, who have
>> made
>> > a
>> > > big tsimmes about the quantity and quality of
>> plaintiff's responses to
>> > > discovery requests. This has been the source of
>> much tsouris among
>> > > plaintiff's counsel and a big megillah for the
>> Court.
>> > >
>> > > 2. Now that plaintiff's counsel has, after much
>> time and effort,
>> > provided
>> > > defendants with a specific and comprehensive
>> statement of plaintiff's
>> > > claims and the factual basis thereof,
>> defendants' counsel have the
>> > > chutzpah to call it "dreck" and to urge the
>> Court to ignore it.
>> > >
>> > > 3. Plaintiff moves that this language be
>> stricken for several reasons.
>> > > First, we think it is impertinent to refer to
>> the work of a fellow
>> member
>> > > of the bar of this Court with the Yiddish term
>> "dreck" as it would be to
>> > > use "the sibilant four-letter English word for
>> excrement."
>> (Rosten,
>> > > The Joys of Yiddish (Simon & Schuster, New York,
>> NY (1968) p. 103.
>> > >
>> > > Second, defendants are in no position to
>> deprecate plaintiff's counsel
>> in
>> > > view of the chozzerai which they have filed
>> over the course of this
>> > > litigation. Finally, since not all of
>> plaintiff's lawyers are yeshiva
>> > > bochurs, defendants should not have assumed
>> that they would all be
>> > > conversant in Yiddish.
>> > >
>> > > WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the Court put an
>> end to the mishegoss
>> and
>> > > strike "dreck."
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>_____________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
Lori Cahan-Simon
--- End Message ---