Defendants requested a continuance due to the fact that the wife of one of the attorneys was due to give birth in Texas shortly after the trial was set to begin in Kansas.
Such a motion might have gone unnoticed by the rest of the world, were it not for the fact that plaintiffs opposed it, claiming (among other things) that defendants should have known of the due date at the time of the scheduling conference last fall. In his order, the judge stated:
The order granting the continuance can be found here.
Hat tip to Lowering the Bar.
Such a motion might have gone unnoticed by the rest of the world, were it not for the fact that plaintiffs opposed it, claiming (among other things) that defendants should have known of the due date at the time of the scheduling conference last fall. In his order, the judge stated:
For reasons of good taste which should be (though, apparently, are not) too obvious to explain, the Court declines to accept Plaintiffs' invitation to speculate on the time of conception of [the attorney's] child.
The order granting the continuance can be found here.
Hat tip to Lowering the Bar.