Lawyers mysteriously oppose Remington's discovery request RE: Sandy Hook lawsuit

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JBurns

The families suing Remington Arms over its marketing of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook School massacre want a court to order the gunmaker to keep confidential school records it has subpoenaed about five children and four educators who died in the 2012 attack in Newtown.

Why all the secrecy?

Why should the dead children's school records and the employment records of the dead educators have any bearing on how they were murdered and whatever culpability Remington might have in their deaths? I can see why the school and the families would want to prevent revictimizing the families of dead by exposing poor grades or previous displinary actions.

Is Remington asking for these records because they're going to try and say these people deserved to die, because...school records?

If those records and info are so irrelevant and have little meaning, are so innocuous, then there shouldn't be any problem at all releasing them to the defense.
It's only when that information can lead to big discoveries should any plaintiff make a big deal out of their release, (like they are doing).

a reply to: Mandroid7

Pretty standard legal tactic. What else would they do with those sort of records ? And I feel for Remington in the case as what other defense do you have ? Pretty difficult position to be in. Personally I don’t feel the case has merit and should have been dismissed. Are relatives of those killed in car accidents now able to sue the manufacturer since the operator failed to use the product safely ?

Usually in a car case there are insurance companies involved that provide attorneys a source of income to target. In this case you have a lone shooter that has no money to go after. That leaves the government, school district and both are usually legally exempt from liabilities in these cases unless negligence can be shown.

The only deep pockets involved belong to Remington. Remington would rather settle and have with some involved. A legal tactic to move parties closer to settle involve request such as they have made. Doesn’t mean they will follow thru, but sometimes a move in that direction can get litigants to the settlement table. The families do not necessarily want to go thru that kind of circus and might rethink their position

a reply to: JBurns

Well…it’s also standard legal tactic on the plantiffs side to object to everything you can justify an objection too. Some will go beyond and simply throw in the kitchen sink and maybe it will get past. Anytime you can limit or attempt to limit the information one side or the other has, any lawyer will attempt to do just that.

I still think Remington is using a settlement tactic, in a way letting families know that it’s not going to be an enjoyable experience. It’s a fishing expedition and since many of the victims were extremely young, likely to be an empty and still baited hook, sometimes it does lead those involved to rethink and float a settlement.

It shouldn’t be hard to understand why they oppose such a release. These cases are extremely tough on survivors who will have to relive the event, will have the defense postulate that maybe the victims were somehow responsible so you try to protect and mitigate. It does look like they not opposed to the records release as much as they don’t want those records publically released which is also understandable

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

If those records and info are so irrelevant and have little meaning, are so innocuous, then there shouldn't be any problem at all releasing them to the defense.

They're asking the court to order Remington to keep the information confidential. I don't think that's a huge ask, at least during discovery. During a trial, that's another issue.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well it substantiates any argument as to whether or not its all bull#. I wouldn't expect you to understand so dont bother replying.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I dont think remington has a problem with them entering the records duces tecum. This is just bull# to stall until they come up with a legitimate argument.

Keeping the records private should be fine.

IF THE RECORDS EXIST AT ALL.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If the people in the case never existed legally, and might be thus 'contrived' ... who even has a real case?

Was the whole affair fabricated then ?

What if nobody was murdered, after all?

Remington knows something and aren't going to turn over easily.

Good on them for fighting this.

I recall if I'm not mistaken the Remington rifle was found in the trunk of his car and before you go after Remington, you need to address the parents who owned these weapons and go after them for not securing them properly.

Hell, another in the supply chain is the dealer they got the weapon from. Address that before you even think about going after Remington.

The whole lawsuit is complete BS anyway. I'm sure they're withholding discovery because there are a myriad of unanswered questions and scenarios that haven't been reconciled from that day.

a reply to: Superecho2021

And I don't seek to minimize their loss in any way. If anything, it is my point. The extreme grief is clouding their judgement...like our punch drunk after 9/11. We wanted to fight someone, anyone, and looked for any reason we could to make someone even remotely connected pay for what they did to us. It was still wrong

I'm a Dad of two beautiful girls. I understand all too well. If something had happened to them I Might well be doing the same thing. But it wouldn't make it right

You are right though, it is standard legal practice to cast a wide net and see what sticks. Just a shame they want to pursue a company that is operating under an existing law protecting lawful commerce, who broke no laws in manufacturing the weapon and that if anyone failed to prevent Lanza from having a gun it was the State of CT who has mysteriously not been sued at this time nor have the responding agencies despite the documentation showing them failing to follow the state's MCI (mass casualty incident) response protocols. If anyone still living is to blame, it is the state of CT but even that is a stretch. I still believe individuals are responsible for their own actions.

It shouldn’t be hard to understand why they oppose such a release. These cases are extremely tough on survivors who will have to relive the event, will have the defense postulate that maybe the victims were somehow responsible so you try to protect and mitigate.

If that is their defense then it is facially absurd. Lanza is responsible, that AFAIK is not disputed. I do agree with mitigating any potential trauma, but it can't come at the cost of a genuine and valid request of discovery. I hope this judge weighs the interests of such a potentially impactful case.

It does look like they not opposed to the records release as much as they don’t want those records publically released which is also understandable

It is understandable. It seems they want to publicize proprietary information of Remington's however, and this may just be a shot across their bow to protect vital intellectual property. Courts have generally erred on the side of protecting IP, and I hope this continues

In short, by my estimation, they should see it all at the trial. As far as the public is concerned...they (we) have no overriding interest to see any of it

a reply to: Superecho2021

Remington will probably make that call at some point, that its more cost efficient to settle than to risk dragging their brand's name through the mud.

Worst part is, the parents did deserve monetary damages from the killer. Its a shame the little # stain isn't still here to be crucified like D. Roof. Everyone needs justice to play out in such a way, and when the perpetrator kills themself it just doesn't do the job. Even when the BG is killed by law enforcement, there is a greater sense that justice was served

In this case, the shooter died on his own terms and I don't blame them one iota for not sleeping well at night with that knowledge

But like you, I don't think targeting a company engaged in lawful commerce in arms is right

They claim its because they played off the "military style" aspect of their weapons. I say, so what? Is there a law that says they can't do that? There is no law against US Citizens owning military weaponry, although for some (NFA) there are a few extra hoops to jump through. I have an NFA RDIAS "machine gun", suppressors and a few SBR/SBS so I know all too well dealing with Uncle Agent. As annoying as BATFE can be...when they make their random visits by my home, I invite them in for a coffee/beer and let them do their job without too much grief

a reply to: Mandroid7

I am just trying to follow ATS Rules my friend

Don't take it out on the messenger.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Remington has ZERO culpability in their deaths, the same way if I go mow down people in a Chevy GM or Chevy have no culpability. Do better next time

I just want to see Gene Rosen interviewed again. LOL

Technically, it was the bullet that killed them.

They should sue the copper mine too.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Technically, it was the bullet that killed them.

They should sue the copper mine too.

You have a point. Even where the propellant was mined, processed and manufactured. How about the brass casing?

It really highlights the absurdity of this lawsuit