I wasn’t going to do a video today, but then JFC lied about what happened….so of course I had to respond.
MORE JFC LIES, PART 978,236
As I said in this video — the PDJ did not deny my Motion to Compel information from Judge Mata. That motion was NOT on the docket to discuss today. I think the judge probably WILL deny that motion soon (and it will be immediately appealed when/if it does). But that did not happen today.
Also, I haven’t filed any motions seeking to compel documents from the bar. I certainly CAN do that later, but that issue is premature because the bar hasn’t yet responded to written discovery I served several weeks ago. Unlike Woodnick, I know you cannot move to compel information that you have never asked for in discovery.
Actually, that’s a great analogy. If you recall, on March 11, 2024 (before I was involved), Woodnick filed a Motion to Compel. In that motion, Woodnick asked Mata to order Laura to produce 5 categories of things which Woodnick had never asked for in formal written discovery.
Even though Woodnick never served Laura with written discovery requests, his Motion to Compel argued Laura had a duty under Rule 49 to disclose this information automatically (which we call “compulsory disclosure” in AZ).
NOTE — Woodnick was 100% wrong. Nothing in Rule 49 said Laura had to disclose any of the stuff Woodnick asked for. But Woodnick argued the rule DID require this, and Judge Mata agreed.
That is basically the exact same position I took today — I argued the bar discipline rules required Jim Lee to automatically disclose information about Judge Mata’s testimony (a position which was correct). But the PDJ said nope — under the compulsory disclosure rules, what Jim Lee said was enough (under that rule).
Compulsory disclosure is, by definition, a totally separate thing from other types of discovery. The PDJ felt Jim Lee HAD complied with that narrow/limited disclosure duty, which is something I respectfully disagree with. But again, this is a super-narrow issue that does not mean the doors to other forms of discovery are now shut.
It is still pretty funny/ironic that Mata reached exactly the opposite conclusion with respect to Woodnick’s motion.
At the end of the day, compulsory disclosure duties are just ONE part of a larger process. The compulsory disclosure rules do NOT set any sort of limits on other forms of discovery/disclosure like depositions, document requests, interrogatories, etc. So just because the PDJ said Jim Lee disclosed enough information to satisfy his limited compulsory disclosure duties does NOT mean discovery is over.
If the PDJ wants to say that, she certainly can, but that would be grounds for appeal.