[Fwd: Civil Oy]

[George Robinson <GRComm...>]

Khaverim --

Don't know if you've seen this yet but a friend passed it along and I
pass it along for your amusement.

George Robinson
> 
> << >> 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 plaintiff's 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 tsoris
>  >> 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."
> 
>  -- 30 --.

---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+