Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
esodije

Status of Discovery in Denson Lawsuit

Recommended Posts

All quiet on the McKenna front. I suspect that  someone - most likely her prospective attorney(s) - has told her she has to stay out of the limelight  if her case is going to have any chance.  She has been doing a good job of that for weeks now.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/24/2019 at 10:15 PM, The Nehor said:

Actually there was something stopping them. The perpetrator could claim the communication was privileged. The case would then be dead in the water and the disclosure legally worthless.

The system actually worked. The perpetrator confessed as the clergy undoubtedly urged him to. The case went forward. No child was abused between the time of confession to the Bishop and the perpetrator turning himself in.

Why are you stupidly and smugly demanding an answer from the church as to why they did not disclose when such a disclosure would have tainted any attempt to prosecute? Could it be that you really hate the church more then you want child abusers punished under the law? Sure seems that way you possible pedophile-protector.

I really dislike Mr. McKnight's behavior relative to the Church.  I am particularly repulsed by his encouragement to employees of the Church to steal the Church's property and send it to him.

Nevertheless, we need to work on maintaining civility and decorum.  Publicly calling him a "possible pedophile-protector" is not good.

Just some unsolicited-but-still-well-intentioned advice.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, topcougar said:

All quiet on the McKenna front. I suspect that  someone - most likely her prospective attorney(s) - has told her she has to stay out of the limelight  if her case is going to have any chance.  She has been doing a good job of that for weeks now.  

I would be genuinely surprised if an attorney would be willing to take up her case.  It would have to be on a contingency fee basis.  And the chances of reaching some sort of settlement are, I think, very low.  Ms. Denson has not only burned bridges, she has also demonstrated a spectactular inability to keep her mouth shut.  I think any settlement would include a non-disparagement clause, and the chances of Ms. Denson adhering to that clause is essentially zero. 

So in the absence of meaningful settlement prospects, the prospective attorney would need to be prepared to respond to a likely forthcoming motion for summary judgment, and then (if that motion fails), trial.  I think the motion for summary judgment has a good chance of being granted, particularly if the Church is allowed to re-visit the statute of limitations issue.  And even if the case does go to trial, I think Ms. Denson will be a very poor witness.  She has made any number of very boneheaded publicly remarks that bring her credibility into further disrepute.

But who knows?  I'm just a spectator.  

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

One or two more weeks to the deadline?

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Calm said:

One or two more weeks to the deadline?

Her deadline for getting a new attorney is August 19.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The next hearing is August 19. After that the case will presumably go forward with Denson representing herself if she cannot find counsel.   Either way there will be discovery  to respond to which will set up a summary judgment motion or trial.   It is hard to conceive of an attorney taking this case, so it will be interesting to see how she represents herself. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, topcougar said:

The next hearing is August 19. After that the case will presumably go forward with Denson representing herself if she cannot find counsel.   Either way there will be discovery  to respond to which will set up a summary judgment motion or trial.   It is hard to conceive of an attorney taking this case, so it will be interesting to see how she represents herself. 

What do you think of the possibility of Ms. Denson A) representing herself, and B) not fully/properly responding to outstanding discovery requests?  That would lead to a Motion to Compel and/or a Motion for Sanctions.  And if she still fails to respond, then the sanction remedies under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) come into play.

We'll see, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What do you think of the possibility of Ms. Denson A) representing herself, and B) not fully/properly responding to outstanding discovery requests?  That would lead to a Motion to Compel and/or a Motion for Sanctions.  And if she still fails to respond, then the sanction remedies under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) come into play.

We'll see, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

That was my thought. Sanction motion to make the case go away short of trial to stop the bleeding.

Share this post


Link to post

Since it is a lawsuit undergone by choice, I assume the judge cannot compel a lawyer to help her out as would happen in a criminal case as I understand it if the judge deemed it necessary (the vast majority would be public defenders I am assuming).  Is this correct?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Since it is a lawsuit undergone by choice, I assume the judge cannot compel a lawyer to help her out as would happen in a criminal case as I understand it if the judge deemed it necessary (the vast majority would be public defenders I am assuming).  Is this correct?

Yes.  The courts have determined that a person has a constitutional right to a lawyer regardless of the ability to pay, but only as to criminal matters.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Today is the scheduled status conference in the Denson lawsuit.  10:00 a.m. Mountain Time.  

Per the court docket, no attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of Ms. Denson.  It seems unlikely, though not impossible, for an attorney to show up at the hearing without first having filed a witten "Notice of Appearance" with the Court.

We'll see what happens.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Today is the scheduled status conference in the Denson lawsuit.  10:00 a.m. Mountain Time.  

Per the court docket, no attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of Ms. Denson.  It seems unlikely, though not impossible, for an attorney to show up at the hearing without first having filed a witten "Notice of Appearance" with the Court.

We'll see what happens.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for keeping us informed on this Smac.  I really appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Update from Fox 13 News:

Quote

A lawsuit alleging a rape at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Missionary Training Center is now on hold.

At a brief hearing on Monday, McKenna Denson asked for more time to find new attorneys. The judge gave her six weeks and put the case on hold pending a new hearing at the end of September.

“I don’t want to go to court without an attorney,” she told Judge Pead, adding: “I think that would be foolish on my part.”

She's already received an extension, so this will be the second.

Her attorneys withdrew at the end of May.  She's had more than 2 1/2 months to find replacements.  Now she's getting another six weeks.  

EDIT TO ADD: More from the article (just added a few minutes ago):

Quote

Judge Pead indicated he was willing to stay the entire case, but scheduled another hearing at the end of September to give any new legal counsel time.

“I’m not wedded to the schedule and will absolutely give you more time, but the case needs to move forward,” the judge said.

I can see why the judge would want to give her more time, but the judge is correct about the case needing to move forward.  

Either she's not trying very hard an attorney, or else no firm wants to touch such a mess of a case (or both?).  As I said previously:

Quote

I would be genuinely surprised if an attorney would be willing to take up her case.  It would have to be on a contingency fee basis.  And the chances of reaching some sort of settlement are, I think, very low.  Ms. Denson has not only burned bridges, she has also demonstrated a spectactular inability to keep her mouth shut.  I think any settlement would include a non-disparagement clause, and the chances of Ms. Denson adhering to that clause is essentially zero. 

So in the absence of meaningful settlement prospects, the prospective attorney would need to be prepared to respond to a likely forthcoming motion for summary judgment, and then (if that motion fails), trial.  I think the motion for summary judgment has a good chance of being granted, particularly if the Church is allowed to re-visit the statute of limitations issue.  And even if the case does go to trial, I think Ms. Denson will be a very poor witness.  She has made any number of very boneheaded publicly remarks that bring her credibility into further disrepute.

The case is a mess, both on the facts (poor evidence, decades old) and the law (statute of limitations, severe credibility issues).  The client is a total loose cannon.  Ms. Denson has killed her own case (helped, I think, by ennablers like Ryan McKnight, and Consigliere (can't recall his IRL name), and Mike Norton, and Shawn McCraney, etc. who exploited her and her story as a weapon against the Church, encouraging her to say and do stupid things while the lawsuit was ongoing, and then dropped/disavowed her credibility issues became impossible to ignore).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/31/2019 at 4:29 PM, smac97 said:

I really dislike Mr. McKnight's behavior relative to the Church.  I am particularly repulsed by his encouragement to employees of the Church to steal the Church's property and send it to him.

Nevertheless, we need to work on maintaining civility and decorum.  Publicly calling him a "possible pedophile-protector" is not good.

Just some unsolicited-but-still-well-intentioned advice.

Thanks,

-Smac

Civility and decorum are useless in some cases though I approve of them in many situations.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Update from Fox 13 News:

She's already received an extension, so this will be the second.

Her attorneys withdrew at the end of May.  She's had more than 2 1/2 months to find replacements.  Now she's getting another six weeks.  

EDIT TO ADD: More from the article (just added a few minutes ago):

I can see why the judge would want to give her more time, but the judge is correct about the case needing to move forward.  

Either she's not trying very hard an attorney, or else no firm wants to touch such a mess of a case (or both?).  As I said previously:

The case is a mess, both on the facts (poor evidence, decades old) and the law (statute of limitations, severe credibility issues).  The client is a total loose cannon.  Ms. Denson has killed her own case (helped, I think, by ennablers like Ryan McKnight, and Consigliere (can't recall his IRL name), and Mike Norton, and Shawn McCraney, etc. who exploited her and her story as a weapon against the Church, encouraging her to say and do stupid things while the lawsuit was ongoing, and then dropped/disavowed her credibility issues became impossible to ignore).

Thanks,

-Smac

I think it was good Mike Norton exposed her, although hugely harsh. Took all of her credibility away, even if Joseph Bishop is guilty of everything she said. There needs to be more witnesses to confirm her accusations. I wonder if the stalling for time might be for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And there are substantial discovery requests to which she has not responded, meaning the new law firm would need to spend extensive amounts of time (and money) responding to those.  And those responses may well demonstrate that she has no evidence at hand except for her say-say.  And again, her say-so's credibility is very poor.

And on and on.  

Thanks,

-Smac

There was a motion to compel discovery, this motion was filed on or about the time that Vernon withdrew, I believe the morion to compel has been withdrawn. 

Would a party - under the present case circumstances - be permitted to refile the same morion to compel?

Edited by provoman

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, provoman said:

There was a morion to compel discovery, this motion was filed on or about the time that Vernon withdrew, I believe the morion to compel has been withdrawn. 

Ah.  You are correct.  The Church's Motion to Compel is no longer pending, as it was withdrawn on June 1.

1 minute ago, provoman said:

Would a party - under the present case circumstances - be permitted to refile the same morion to compel?

I think so.  I wonder if the discovery requests were withdrawn so as to enable Vernon to withdraw.  Vernon filed his Motion to Withdraw on May 30, and the Court held an "Expedited Telephone Conference" on that same day, during which the Church's attorneys (verbally) withdrew the Motion to Compel.

Reading between the lines, I suspect that A) the need for Denson's attorneys to withdraw was immediate, B) the Court may have been concerned about allowing Denson's to withdraw while a Motion to Compel was pending, so C) the Church's attorneys, seeing the Motion to Compel as an procedural impediment, withdrew it so that Denson's attorneys could withdraw without any motions still pending.  Under such circumstances, I could very easily see the judge alowing a Motion to Compel to be re-filed once new attorneys become involved, or else after Ms. Denson appears to represent herself.

During today's hearing, she told the judge that proceeding without lawyers "would be foolish" for her (she's quite right about that).  But if she can't find an attorney . . . 

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  You are correct.  The Church's Motion to Compel is no longer pending, as it was withdrawn on June 1.

I think so.  I wonder if the discovery requests were withdrawn so as to enable Vernon to withdraw.  Vernon filed his Motion to Withdraw on May 30, and the Court held an "Expedited Telephone Conference" on that same day, during which the Church's attorneys (verbally) withdrew the Motion to Compel.

Reading between the lines, I suspect that A) the need for Denson's attorneys to withdraw was immediate,

What kind of circumstances might make a need to withdraw?

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

B) the Court may have been concerned about allowing Denson's to withdraw while a Motion to Compel was pending, so C) the Church's attorneys, seeing the Motion to Compel as an procedural impediment, withdrew it so that Denson's attorneys could withdraw without any motions still pending.  Under such circumstances, I could very easily see the judge alowing a Motion to Compel to be re-filed once new attorneys become involved, or else after Ms. Denson appears to represent herself.

During today's hearing, she told the judge that proceeding without lawyers "would be foolish" for her (she's quite right about that).  But if she can't find an attorney . . . 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Rain said:

What kind of circumstances might make a need to withdraw?

 

Failure to pay, conflict of interest, client obviously lying to counsel, etc.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Rain said:

What kind of circumstances might make a need to withdraw?

Oh, all sorts of things.  Lying to counsel, refusing to cooperate, etc. 

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you both.

Share this post


Link to post

Was the extension just a way to avoid a possible " client defends herself " clown show ? 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Was the extension just a way to avoid a possible " client defends herself " clown show ? 

I really doubt she wants to defend herself.  Litigating in federal court is rather intimidating for many attorneys.  Ms. Denson's behavior in this matter has been reckless, erratic, self-detrimental.  She does not strike me as a person with the discipline / resolve to do what is necessary to pursue this lawsuit herself, to say nothing of lacking the training and practical litigation experience to pursue the suit with competency and skill.

She's a loose cannon.  She has harmed her legal case and her reputation in deep and profound ways.  She has also, I think, demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to work with attorneys representing here.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...