This is why the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a surreply to that—which, my friends, was a motion for leave to file a surreply to the reply to the response to the defendants’ motion to file a surreply to the plaintiff’s reply to the defendants’ response to the plaintiff’s motion to compel.
Apparently recognizing that this had become completely insane—but also apparently unable to stop filing things—the defendants filed a “nonopposition.” This explained that the defendants did not oppose this motion for leave to file a surreply, but they did not necessarily agree with the factual representations therein. How this could have aided the cause is unclear.
Meanwhile, an only slightly less ridiculous drama was playing out in the other direction. The plaintiff had served subpoenas, and, on June 20, the defendants moved to quash. The plaintiff responded, and the defendants replied. Then the defendants replied again, filing a corrected copy, or possibly filing a different document that they meant to file the day before, which suggests that they, too, had completely lost track of what was going on. Apparently taking great offense at this, the plaintiff, on July 18, filed a motion to strike the corrected reply, to which, of course, the defendants would have to respond.
At this point, the judge had finally had enough. “The Court has indulged the parties’ abusive litigation tactics for long enough,” she wrote in a July 19 order. She noted that in addition to “[t]he eight briefs filed in conjunction with the motion to compel,” there were already four briefs on the motion to quash, and so it appeared that the parties had “begun the same briefing odyssey on the motion to quash that they charted on the motion to compel. . . .” The court declined to go with them. “Given the mess that the parties have made,” she wrote, the court would not consider anyof the papers that they had filed. Instead, she ordered them to work together, in a “civil manner,” to file joint statements, on which the court would rule. “The Court will not allow any supplementation,” she added, just to be clear.
I have counted the number of pages that were written, rewritten, printed, scanned, and/or filed by the lawyers during this titanic struggle; and, including exhibits, that number is 1,749—not a single page of which will be considered by the court or, in all likelihood, ever viewed again by any human being during the remainder of our species’ time on this planet.
Of course, each and every page probably seemed important at the time.