But Appellate Court Has Harsh Word For Appellant’s Counsel On It Attempting To Argue The Merits Of A Nonappealable Discovery Ruling.
In Tedesco v. White, Case No. G061197 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 27, 2023) (published), a tedious conservatorship battle, appellant appealed a $6,000 sanctions award against litigant and their counsel, jointly and severally, although the thrust of appellant’s brief was to challenge a nonappealable discovery ruling. The 4/3 DCA, in an opinion authored by Justice Goethals, affirmed the discovery order because the subpoena was overbroad and intrusive. But it also had this to say at the very start of the opinion: “A bulldozer can move piles of dirt from one place to another. But when the goal is to move minds rather than dirt, employing a bulldozer may be counterproductive. The bulldozer in this case is appellant Debra Wear’s counsel. In our prior nonpublished opinion, Tedesco v. White (June 15, 2022, G059883) (Tedesco 1), we made clear to these lawyers that ‘[w]e do not confuse aggressive argument with persuasive advocacy.’ Although the aggression has not abated, our view of it remains unchanged.”
Comments