It's been about a month since I last posted here. When we left off I had just filed a motion asking for the exclusion of co-defendants from discovery, and we about to appear before a Master to have a date set to argue the motion.
We appeared before Master Lee on the 10th of December, and to my surprise counsel for the schoolteachers indicated that they did not oppose my motion. Mr Meronek, however, on behalf of the University defendants, said he would be opposing the motion, and asked for time to file a brief. The judge gave him until the 27th, at which time we to re-appear before him so a date could be set to argue the motion.
I was planning to be away on the 27th, so I asked the judge the brief could be filed on that date in my absence; in the meantime, I could get together outside of court with opposing counsel to agree on a date to argue the motion. This seemed to meet with everyone's approval, and so that's where we left off.
Indeed, I received Meronek's brief on the weekend before New Years. Interestingly enough, he cited three of the same cases that I had cited in my own brief. So at least we seemed to agree on the relevant law. Meronek argues that my claim for exclusion fails on the test of credibility: that I have not shown that credibility is a crucial factor in this case, any more than it is an any other typical civil litigation.
It's not an argument that scares me, and I was looking forward to facing Mr. Meronek in court; but two days ago, on Friday, I had a little surprise. Mr. Meronek, it seems, was not willing to argue the motion at this time. He had a motion of his own, or at least he was contemplating one, and he felt that his motion ought to take priority over mine.