Remember that post from Friday which detailed efforts by RRA lawyers Steve Lippman and Riley Cirulnick to get an emergency enlargement of upcoming deadlines in a matter pending before Judge Cooke?

If you'll recall, Matthew S. Nelles at Ruden McClosky opposed the requested enlargement, basically arguing that the discovery deadlines date back to April and the RRA lawyers were dilatory in a number of respects and should have completed the discovery well before the whole Scott Rothstein stuff broke.

(Matt, if I missed something please feel free to chime in).

Well here comes the reply, filed Monday, which provides further insight into the difficulties faced by the RRA lawyers still at that firm trying to service clients:

GFM is accurate that ACE/Mr. Bennett/Ebway's counsel was "incommunicado" for the period their firm was undergoing this upheaval. Response at p.1. This is precisely why the extensions sought are appropriate. A receiver was appointed and questions about what counsel could and could not do had to be addressed. The computers were down; no email, no word processing, no research capability. Counsel are looking for new homes and making arrangements to move there. The short extensions sought under these circumstances are more than justified.

In a footnote these lawyers also note that Monday, the day of this filing, RRA's "entire computer system (including emails and phone) were disabled for approximately 2-3 hours."

Incidentally, it looks from the certificate of service that Steve and Riley landed or are landing over at Arthur Rice's firm.

Good luck fellas.

Oh, I almost forgot -- I managed to unearth a rare photograph of me taken with Scott and Kim Rothstein at an event we all attended last year.

Enjoy!

UPDATE -- Judge Cooke granted and denied the motion in part. She granted the enlargement as to the summary judgment deadline, but agreed with Matt as to the discovery deadlines, finding no causal relationship between the Scott Rothstein fiasco and failing to complete discovery within the court-ordered deadlines.

Well it's been an eventful week in the South Florida law biz, and those of you who do not yet have "Rothstein fatigue" soon will before this is all done.

If you've wondered what it must be like to be a lawyer trying to service clients in that s*@tstorm, take a look at this emergency motion for enlargement filed by Steve Lippman and Riley Cirulnick in the case I covered earlier (in which lead counsel is none other than Scott W. Rothstein).

These poor schnooks have all kinds of deadlines coming up, and basically just throw themselves on the mercy of Judge Cooke:

3. On November 3, 2009, a receiver was appointed for Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (“RRA”), counsel for plaintiffs and third-party defendant, due to its dire financial condition. Additionally, a search by law enforcement shut down RRA’s computers for 3 days last week. RRA’s account with Westlaw has been suspended, thus making any legal research a difficult task. Numerous personnel have already left RRA and it is anticipated that additional employees will depart in the near future.

4. Despite these obstacles, the undersigned attorneys remain working and have continued to diligently attempt to represent their clients, including the plaintiffs and Ebway in this action, to the best of their ability despite these incredible unforeseen circumstances. It is anticipated that counsel will have to relocate their practice in the immediate future on an expedited basis. In light of these factors, it is simply impractical to comply with the present deadlines. The depositions which remain to be completed require travel to Michigan. Plaintiffs and third-party defendant have sought to schedule the depositions they desire to take within the existing discovery deadline but GFM refuses to schedule those depositions because GFM personnel are out of town on a business trip during the days requested (which are the only days left before the deadline to do so). Alternatively, plaintiffs and third party defendant have proposed a schedule (also taking into account the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday) to complete the remaining depositions that all of the parties desire to take and to provide additional information requested in GFM Corporation’s Motion to Strike Expert Witness for Failure to Comply With Disclosure Requirements [D.E. 140]. GFM’s counsel has expressed a willingness to accept this proposed schedule, but to do so would require an extension of the discovery deadline until December 4, 2009. For these reasons, it is respectfully requested (with humility and a plea for compassion) that this Court enlarge the time through and including November 23, 2009, to response to the Motion for Summary Judgment and until December 4, 2009, to complete discovery.

It's pretty incredible that under these circumstances opposing counsel did not readily agree to this request or something like it.

Kids, your assignment this weekend is to be kind to others, try not to lie through your teeth, and don't be such an ostentatious jackarse if you can avoid it.

Me I'm heading out early to windsurf and thank my blessings.

And my interview request is pending (flirtatious emails are always a nice way to start btw).

As usual I'm excited by new technology, plan to make lots of eye contact, and am thrilled that curves are finally in.

And remember -- there are right and wrong ways to give back and if your way involves a huge oversized check and some blowout party at Bova Prime you probably ought to reconsider.

Have a great weekend everybody!

An interesting question is "does Scott practice law"?

In an effort to get to the bottom of this question, I took a look on PACER to see if Scott is counsel in any SD FL actions.

Surprisingly, Scott appears (still) as counsel of record for plaintiff Edward Bennett involving rights to his patented and trademarked "Grip Flow System."

Rothstein appears as lead counsel on the complaint, which was removed from state court back in June 2008, along with RRA lawyers Steven N. Lippman and Steven H. Osber (fine commercial litigators btw).

The case is pending before Judge Cooke.

To get a feel for how this case is going, take a look at plaintiff's motion to compel.

In an endorsed order dated 10/28/09 (D.E. 134), Magistrate Judge Bandstra didn't seem to like the motion all that much:

First, the undersigned finds that plaintiffs' motion does not adequately comply with the local rules. The motion does not attach the discovery requests or the responses thereto. As such, the Court cannot discern what obligations, if any, have not been complied with. Further, the undersigned notes that neither party seems to wish to comply with the certification requirements of meaningfully conferring with counsel in an effort to resolve a dispute. A phone call which actually occurs between counsel or a substantive correspondence would be a de minimus requirement to comply with the rule established by this Court. Finally, the undersigned finds the "memorandum of law" wholly inadequate to establish the relief requested in that general case law which does not address the specific issues before the Court do not satisfy the rule's requirements. Accordingly, the motion is denied with leave to refile a proper motion complying with the applicable rules.

Ouch -- time to light another cigar and say goodbye to your Ferrari.

UPDATE -- I don't know how I missed The Usual Suspects reference.