New Expert-Attorney Rules Effective Dec 1, 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

New Expert-Attorney Rules Effective Dec 1, 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26

New Expert-Attorney Rules Effective Dec 1, 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26

Effective December 1, 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 will provide new protections and specifications for draft expert reports and certain communications between experts and attorneys. The amendments are significant because they extend work-product protection to communications and drafts that courts now consider discoverable. Current Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires a testifying expert to disclose in a written report all “data or other information” the expert “considered” in developing his or her opinions. Courts have interpreted that language, and particularly the Rule’s reference to “other information,” to allow discovery of draft expert reports, a broad range of communications between experts and counsel, and documents an expert does not rely upon as a basis for his or her testimony. The 2010 amendments substantially alter these disclosure obligations by: (1) limiting the required disclosures in written expert reports to “facts or data” the expert considered in forming the opinions the expert will express in his testimony; (2) expressly shielding from discovery draft reports or disclosures required under Rule 26(a)(2); and (3) limiting discovery of communications between a party’s attorney and any witness required to provide a Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report unless the communications fall within at least one of three enumerated exceptions.

THIS IS NOT Intended to Be Construed or Relied upon as COMPETENT LEGAL ADVICE—Readers are urged to obtain competent legal representation to review their facts. I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

[ipaper docId=41004180 access_key=key-l8m6ax24hqmnxu9dg8c height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8683 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

5 Responses to “New Expert-Attorney Rules Effective Dec 1, 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26”

  1. I bet this bites homeowners in the @$$ somehow? Any comments from attorneys on this?

  2. Louis Roman says:

    There is no justice in Connecticut for homeowners. Foreclosure Mills rule the Connecticut Judicial System. Our foreclosure case is now 11 years old and the alleged plaintiff the Bank of New York Trustee has used every trick in the book to take our home but we have worked hard to stay one step ahead of them Pro Se. Recently we were lucky enough to get a substitute judge to Reopen the prior Summary Judgment and as we have been charging the Foreclosure Mill known as Hunt Leibert & Jacobson of Hartford CT with fraud for 10 years because of a fraudulent affidavit, assignment along with documents that were notarized by a person that the State of California confirmed was not a Notary, in the end did not any difference. On November 7, 2010 we went before the Foreclosure Judge, Hon. Michael Hartmere who heard our claims and pledged to read the whole file and all of the supporting evidence which was as clear a fraud as anyone could want. We found out that he had ruled against us and Denied our Motion for Dismissal on October 27, 2010. We were made aware of his ruling on Friday, November 5, 2010. This is critical as the alleged plaintiff had reclaimed his Motion for Strict Foreclosure from a Foreclosure by Sale to be heard on Monday, November 8,2010 at 10:00AM. Please note that this was a legal ambush as what the court had planned by not informing us of the decision of October 27, 2010 and to delay informing us to what was effectively the day before the hearing for Strict Foreclosure on November 5, 2010 was to deprive us of the opportunity to file an appeal prior to Judgment being granted. The result would have been a 20 day Law Date with the plaintiff having a judgment in their pocket making it harder for us to fight the transfer of title in the Appellate Court. Thank God that in his haste, the Committee for the sale of the property jumped the gun and sent me an email marking his Motion for his fees ready for Monday, November 8, 2010. This was a “heads up” for me as I sensed that something had happened and that perhaps the judge had ruled. Upon checking the Judicial Web Site I confirmed this reality at 10:30AM and informed my wife and co-owner that the plaintiff was up to no good and that we should prepare an appeal immediately. By 2:00PM we had submitted our Notice of Appeal, paid our fee and waited while the court staff informed the judge of our filing our Appeal and asked for his instructions. Something that normally takes 10 minutes tool 30 minutes while they tried to figure out how to refuse the Appeal. Needless to say Connecticut has only one Dismissal on record for bogus documents by a New Haven Connecticut Judge, Hon. Juliet Crawford, a state where one foreclosure mill has over 40,000 cases. Ironically, the Hunt Leibert & Jacobson attorney who has been prosecuting our case, (BNY Western Trust V. Diane L. Roman told me before a hearing that the person who was his former boss’s file were littered with problems he said “believe me Lou, you are not alone, there are numerous files that Hunt Leibert & Jacobson was foreclosing that were the same or worse”. Take note that we have been informing the Connecticut Attorney General and have been providing information to an Assistant AG who keeps telling me that there is an ongoing investigation but we have been hearing this for over three years and thus far nothing is happening. Which bring me to the harsh reality that Foreclosure Mills own the Connecticut Judicial System and homeowners like me are fighting a losing battle. Let it be known that I have tried to pay off the full amount of the claimed mortgage due twice with Certified Funds and on both occasions the payoff was refused. This foreclosure mill’s Managing Partner is Richard Leibert, who is a partner along with Steven Baum of New York, the largest foreclosure mill in the State of New York. Along with David Stern in Florida these guys have over 90% of the foreclosure business in Connecticut, New York and Florida. I have gone to the FBI, to the Connecticut Major CrimeS Squad of the State Police, the Connecticut Attorney General, the Department of Justice Financial Crimes Task Force under the Civil Rights Division and NOTING!!!. So much for our governmental overseers of the banks, servicing agents and foreclosure mills. Once again I repeat, “THERE IS NO JUSTICE FOR THE HOMEOWNER IN CONNECTICUT”!!! Sadly when I tried to explain our case to the FBI, their response has been why don’t you pay your mortgage??? After I tell them that the alleged plaintiff does not own our mortgage and that Hunt Leibert & Jacobson has committed a fraud against the court as well as wire fraud, RICO violations and Fair Credit Practices Act violations, they tell me to submit something in writing. At that time I tell them that I have submitted numerous complaints to the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, the Connecticut Attorney General, and to the head of the FBI Financial Crimes Task Force in the FBI Headquarters in Washington D.C., Special Agent Sharon Ormsby who in turn referred me to the local FBI office in Bridgeport, CT wherein I get the canned line of “why don’t you pay your mortgage?” As working with the State governments and the U.S. Federal Government is useless, I propose a social grassroots movement to de-fund any government agency that does not respond to the needs of our citizens!! Your thoughts and comments will be appreciated.

  3. Ray says:

    To Louise Roman,

    I live in CT and am going through the same problem. Call me 203-223-8756

  4. Cooper says:

    i never borrowed money and have been in foreclosure for over two years. I have a beautiful property that a corrupt lawyer wants, so he made up documents and filed a foreclosure. There isnt even a plantiff in my case — he just made up an “elder” and has never had to submit one single document and the court has never asked for any. “poor elder” and fake unauthenticated documents, not found on any public record… Officers of the court… All because judges in Connecticut are either stupid or dirty.

    This lawyer cannot make his own living so he takes what he wants. His law firm is in Essex and his Racketeering experience is more sucessful than the mob’s.

    The judge in New Haven County (foreclosure court)assigned for two years has the best racket in town, he can take what ever property he wants. And does.

    Lawyers cannot be corrupt without the help of filthy judges.

    Read up on Judge Chin (NY) and his new RICO charges against lawyers and banks, and sue the state of connecticut. The state appoints and employs these stupid uneducated judges who used to be lawyers on the take. Becareful of collateral estoppel that is the new judges best criminal tool. Good luck. the Department of Banking is great, big help and are ready to crack down on my pretender lender, forger, tamperer, and phantom plaintiff, the Attorney General could care less. go to finacialfraud.org, the task force is a help.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kevin W. Hardin, DinSFLA. DinSFLA said: New Expert/ Attorney Rules Effective Dec 1, 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 http://goo.gl/fb/Yeg1h […]


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives