People never cease to amaze me.

Just thought you would find this interesting. It is from the order barring discovery of the names of all the defendants in the September 11 attacks. Here you have seasoned attorneys, some of the best in the business, and they did not make a 120 deadline that essentially cost them the one thing they were hoping to obtain for their clients. Their clients were foregoing literally millions of dollars in settlement money from the compensation fund because they are more interested in the truth of who is behind the 911 attacks. This litigation has drug on now for almost eight years and the plaintiff's own attorney shoots them in the foot. Go figure.


This is excerpted from-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------- x

IN RE SEPTEMBER 11 LITIGATION :
::
------------------------------------------------------- x
ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.:


OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS

21 MC 101 (AKH)

I hold that the Martindell standard applies to Plaintiffs’ motion because the Aviation Defendants have reasonably relied on the CPO. Their reliance has been reasonable because Plaintiffs have never objected to the Aviation Defendants’ confidentiality designations within 120 days, as required by Paragraph 5.1 of the CPO. Had Plaintiffs done so, the CPO would have shifted the burden to the Aviation Defendants to justify those designations. However, as the periods have lapsed with no objections, the Aviation Defendants have become entitled to rely on the CPO in settling cases, producing documents and witnesses for depositions, and reconciling discovery disputes. See Allen v. City of New York, 420 F. Supp. 2d 295, 300-01 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“The classic situation in which a party ‘relies’ on a protective order is where the party creates material during the course of litigation on the understanding that it will be kept confidential.”). Plaintiffs do not address their failures to object within 120 days of particular confidentiality designations. In fact, they have not challenged any designations through the procedure established by the CPO, which they proposed with the Aviation Defendants in 2004. They note that they filed their initial motion to set aside designations promptly in October 2007, after the Aviation Defendants had produced only 50,000 pages of discovery. However, they cannot explain why they have ignored the CPO procedure, and why they seek to set aside the Aviation Defendants’ designations now, after about one million pages have been produced.