(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)
In addition, the Judge has made comments on the record that support the inference that he views fair rulings for the Plaintiff required by the facts and the law to have been favors for which he expects gratitude. For example the following exchange took placed during the July 8 hearing:
MR. GREEN: You repeatedly, throughout the case, you’ve been the advocate for the defense
THE COURT: To me this case is an example of the expression, No good deed goes unpunished. I have in this case devoted more time to this case than about any other medical malpractice case I can recall.
MR. GREEN: Most of it —
THE COURT: I’ve made myself available to you and the other attorneys. I’ve resolved numerous discovery disputes. I haven’t kept track, but I know that some have gone in your favor and some have not. I feel like I performed a very high level of service for you in this personal injury case.
MR. GREEN: I disagree.
THE COURT: I know in my heart I’m trying, I always try, to do the right thing, and so I’m kind of saddened that this is coming — you are not perceiving it in the same way I perceive it.
MR. GREEN: Could I make my arguments, your Honor?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. GREEN: Thank you.
Then a minute or two later the following exchange took place:
MR. GREEN: On June 13 when you told me to file a motion, you suggested to defense counsel that they get a declaration from Ms Glaser in support of their opposition to this. I felt that was improper because the judge should not be directing defense counsel as to how to proceed, but this is typical–
THE COURT: You don’t think I’ve ever done anything to help you?
MR. GREEN: You have on occasion rendered justice, which is all we requested. We do not ask for favors. But I think what you have done for the defense has been over and above board. And I’m not making any personal aspersions against your Honor, I think you are a fine person, you are a judge with a lot of experience. I’m not taking that tact with your Honor. I don’t want to offend your Honor personally. But I have to present my client’s position, which is all I’m trying to do.
The July 8, 2005 hearing was held on Plaintiff’s Motion for relief based upon the eve of trial revelation that defense counsel had tampered with Plaintiff’s sole OBGYN expert in this medical malpractice cases. The defendant and the expert both admitted that the defense counsel had retained the expert after he had been designated by the Plaintiff in this case to work on the same type of case for defense counsel. In addition it was admitted that defense counsel had paid Plaintiff’s expert money and had obtained his opinions on brachial plexus birthinjuries. Ample case and statutory authority was presented to the Judge clearly establishing the impropriety of defense counsel’s contracting with Plaintiff’s expert, yet the Judge turned a blind eye toward the damage thereby done to Plaintiff’s case and denied Plaintiff’s request to substitute another OBGYN expert for the tainted one as well as his request for additional sanctions und CCP §2023. (See Part 3 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.