|
Post by valkyrie on Jul 20, 2009 23:23:38 GMT -5
Val: Did I hear you say that "the ends justify the means"? So it would be OK if you pis*ed off a HOD in your office and he/she ratted you out to OCALJ as a malcontent and you did not get an offer? So it would be OK if you told them at the interview that AALJ did good work and you planned to join and you did not get an offer? So it would be OK if you were stacked three times with 6 folks and you had a higher score each time and you did not get an offer? Just checkin'... Pretty much what Rhino said.
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jul 21, 2009 4:49:06 GMT -5
Ahh, JaggHagg - how would you know what the OCALJ has done in selections ?... I stand corrected. How would I know what is in the hearts and minds of OCALJ ? ... I am reasonably certain that much of what the MSPB does is confidential or restricted to the parties.. Actually, MSPB hearings are open to the public (although an AJ may close a hearing should the circumstances warrant); EEOC hearings are closed for obvious reasons. ... I am curious about where the decisions are reported. www.mspb.gov/sites/mspb/pages/MSPB%20Decisions.aspx ...The answers about other folks actions and discovery have been disappointing. . . . But surely the complaining parties can share their discovery, both questions and answers and documents - and I would think that everybody would. This seems fairly common practice in ordinary civil litigation - to read the Court files of similar cases, and then ask the other counsel to share their stuff. Reciprocation is expected, and done. Trial lawyer association routinely assist in this sort of thing - and you'd best believe defense lawyers do it, and big defendants of course keep all their counsel informed of other cases. So - where to look for this sort of thing ? I don't know where you practice, but in neither federal court nor any administrative forum in which I have appeared does discovery get filed with the court hence a "common practice" of "sharing discovery" outside of the parties in the case to which discovery is attached is pretty much unheard of. In many cases the pertinent discovery is sealed, so sharing - through "reading Court files of similar cases" - would be impossible. Thus I would have no idea where you, were you so inclined, would look for the tea party where opposing counsels are joyously sharing their discovery. I would have though asking on this board would bring a few, or more, friendly offers to share, or at least a direction to a trove of discovery on ALJ selections. But not yet it seems. And finally, I gotta ask, what planet are you living on ? In general, people --- on this board and in life ---- don't want to get involved. Almost all who have shared information with me --- for which I am exceedingly grateful --- have been distinctly concerned that their name be "kept out of it." For the most part, I don't know their actual names. Many people complain, but few have the fortitude to step up to the plate and swing. As we all know the statistics are not in the batter's favor, thus it is most often fruitless and almost always exhausting, so who can blame them? (This is why there have a been a few comments as to PatriotsFan's advocacy for change - they think, "Well, he's got his, so why is he still agitating ?" The answer, of course, lies in the hope to see change for the better.) However, if you know of a nonselectee outsider who is not a federal attorney, have them contact me.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jul 21, 2009 10:00:28 GMT -5
PF- you have lost it! Just seeing your reference to the Rule Against Perpetuities and the Rule in Shelley's case gave me a migrane headache. Pray Tell- what on earth possessed you to dredge up such a Draconian thought. PS- I think both are still alive and well in Virginia but I am not going to even think about it!
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jul 21, 2009 10:35:56 GMT -5
Val: Did I hear you say that "the ends justify the means"? So it would be OK if you pis*ed off a HOD in your office and he/she ratted you out to OCALJ as a malcontent and you did not get an offer? So it would be OK if you told them at the interview that AALJ did good work and you planned to join and you did not get an offer? So it would be OK if you were stacked three times with 6 folks and you had a higher score each time and you did not get an offer? Just checkin'... Pretty much what Rhino said. I apologize, val. I misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jul 21, 2009 10:47:44 GMT -5
JH's, which ridiculed Bintex's for suggesting that it is common practice for counsel in civil litigation to share discovery; and both of you implied that in your lengthy litigation experience in state and federal courts - not in the context of posting on this board - they cannot do so. They can. It's too bad that people resort to phrases like "what planet are you living on" ... They add nothing to the conversation. Ok, slap justified and taken. ( Although I think "ridicule" may be a bit over the top.....have a sense of humor, folks....) Nonetheless, I do apologize. I'm told I get testy at times. Let me just say this: in my > two decades of federal sector discovery work (never been in a state court) (A) the discovery is hard enough to even get ; (B) when you DO get it, it is usually worthless - many AUSA's with whom I have worked resist even propounding it because the responses are so worthless; (C) we would never, ever be willing to ship off our received discovery to any individual outside our federal case and would object to opposing counsel shipping off our responses to anyone outside the case. So I've never seen it happen, but you and BinTex have. A completely different experience. If it IS possible, then I think "can" and "do" are two different things. _________________________________________________ So I just got off the phone to a friend who practices in the Ninth Circuit who indicates to me that such discovery sharing is rarely seen in individual cases, but for class actions or cases where there are multiple plaintiffs, sharing of discovery -- because of the relevance of such information to the members of the class or the named plaintiffs --- is more common, but only amongst their representatives.
Eh - learn something every day.
Well, then, if anyone can get the AALJ attorneys to share, please contact me!
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jul 21, 2009 12:17:09 GMT -5
I'm not going to think about it until the expiration of a life in being plus 21 years. PF: thanks for your clarification, and I agree that it would not be appropriate (and possibly illegal, although it's an interesting question whether the Privacy Act would apply to people acting in their private capacity) to post discovery here. However: your post was made in support of JH's, which ridiculed Bintex's for suggesting that it is common practice for counsel in civil litigation to share discovery; and both of you implied that in your lengthy litigation experience in state and federal courts - not in the context of posting on this board - they cannot do so. They can. It's too bad that people resort to phrases like "what planet are you living on" and "someone who I can safely say has never spent a day in civil litigation" simply because of different experience. They add nothing to the conversation. I agree with patriotsfan on this one. I have never seen discovery "shared" in 29 years of civil and administrative litigation. There is PACER, which as we all know, posts pleadings in federal ART III Courts. Once filed, its public domain. In my state one can go to the courthouse and read pleadings. I have always taken the position that discovery is confidential until demonstrably shown otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by bintex on Jul 21, 2009 13:52:09 GMT -5
How amazing - I ask a simple question, and look at the responses. I did not ask for any discovery answers to be posted on this board.
I should think that all counsel on the same side in class actions or multiple party actions or multi-district litigation would share discovery between themselves.
And in separate cases, would you really not lend a friend a copy of an expert's report and deposition or trial testimony if the friend was about to depose the same expert in another case ? I have seen an expert's reports in different cases used to devastating effect in a case when used as impeachment in front of a jury. You would not want and expect that help from your friends or other similar counsel ? And you would not give it ?
The same sort of thing holds true in many types of cases, and many types of discovery. And much discovery is public record - when you file a motion for summary judgment, do you not file discovery answers in support of the motion ? When you file a brief in a federal appeals court, do you not file an appendix with documents, including discovery as appropriate ? And until fairly recently, all discovery requests and responses were filed in the record of a case, in many state court systems, and this still may be the rule in many smaller jurisdiction courts. Do you ever look for this sort of stuff ? I can think of finding a case similar to one I had, against the same defendant , in another state, a case that gone to the appeals level. A visit to that court house turned up the discovery and the trial transcripts in the court's archives - and not sealed. One copying bill later, and the parallel discovery was in hand - and very handy it proved when the answers to my discovery proved to be very different.
As for troves of discovery, if you do plaintiff work, ask your state trial lawyer's association. If you do defense work, and represent insured parties, ask the corporate or inside counsel - they will have files of the discovery from other cases involving them. Ask.
Of course, you could just ask your friends who practice the same type of law you do. Ask, have you ever seen this expert ? Ever sued this defendant ? What was the case about ? How did you do ? Did you do anything exciting in the case ? Did you do much discovery ? Get a report, or do a deposition of this expert or this official or corporate officer or employee or the corporation itself ? Can I see it, and make a copy ? Did you get documents from them ? Can I see ? This sort of discovery doesn't happen in your state ? Really ?
What I wouldlike to know is, has anyone on this board done the fight about non-selection ? To what level did you take that fight ? What happened ? Where is the report of the decisiuon ?What did you find out ? Did you do any discovery ? Did you get any documents ? Can I see them ? Simple enough, I should think. And if you are the party, what is the privacy act problem ?
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jul 21, 2009 14:19:56 GMT -5
...I should think that all counsel on the same side in class actions or multiple party actions or multi-district litigation would share discovery between themselves. Of course. ...And in separate cases, would you really not lend a friend a copy of an expert's report and deposition or trial testimony if the friend was about to depose the same expert in another case ? I have seen an expert's reports in different cases used to devastating effect in a case when used as impeachment in front of a jury. You would not want and expect that help from your friends or other similar counsel ? And you would not give it ? Would depend. Your language in this thread indicates your are in private practice. My depositions and expert reports are usually pretty expensive and were paid for by my federal agency and I don't own them. I don't know how they would feel about my sharing them around; I don't tend to think the response would automatically be positive. ...The same sort of thing holds true in many types of cases, and many types of discovery. And much discovery is public record - when you file a motion for summary judgment, do you not file discovery answers in support of the motion ? When you file a brief in a federal appeals court, do you not file an appendix with documents, including discovery as appropriate ? Only that portion that is relevant. And of course that is available. I don't consider that "sharing." ...And until fairly recently, all discovery requests and responses were filed in the record of a case, in many state court systems, and this still may be the rule in many smaller jurisdiction courts. I think the practice must be widely diverse. Many administrative fora specifically note that discovery is NOT to be filed with the court and many of the federal district courts annotate the same. ...What I would like to know is, has anyone on this board done the fight about non-selection ? To what level did you take that fight ? What happened ? Where is the report of the decision ?What did you find out ? Did you do any discovery ? Did you get any documents ? Can I see them ? Simple enough, I should think. And if you are the party, what is the privacy act problem ? There are likely individuals watching the boards who have pursued a nonselection case. There are many decided cases in this area which are easy to find and which have been referenced even in this thread. I actually don't know of a nonselection case being pursued right now. But if you are in private practice and you weren't selected and you'd like to discuss the possibilities for a case which would include your involvement, send me a PM.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jul 21, 2009 16:07:34 GMT -5
Bintex: I think you will find that folks on this Board are more than willing to share info and opinions (even when you don't want them to). It all depends on how you ask, and why you are seeking the info. The more you share, the more you will find others willing to share as well. You are a new member, and I wish I had read that before I responded. We are all quite opinionated here, and don't hesitate to respond to others. I think your post seemed to demand info instead of asking for it, and it seemed to question those who have chosen to file cases, and I think that's what we were reacting to. If you are seeking info on your behalf, to asses your case, or for a client, I'd suggest you say that, and you will find that many folks are more than willing to share what they know. But I cannot tell by your post where you are coming from, and if I cannot I assume others cannot as well. Sometimes we misunderstand each other's motives here, as its an imperfect world, but I think you'll find that we are very willing to assist people understand the issues, and share what little knowledge we have (and argue with you about it until your eyes bleed . You just need to let us know what you want and why, and if we have the info, likely you will get it too. PF Sometimes its just patently obvious why pf is an ALJ.
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jul 22, 2009 5:12:19 GMT -5
Gotta say to BinTex and Peejay: what planet was I on ?!??! Went home last night, called a couple of friends, lawyers all, around the country - Alaska, Texas, Colorado - to find out that, within practice areas (for them, at least) and with regard to class actions and multiple plaintiffs, that - yes - this is a practice. Very cool. I feel like I just graduated from law school. (One of my friends pointed out, as PF said, I practice mostly under Title VII, so most of my stuff is protected under the Privacy Act, thus I wouldn't be able to provide nor likely get, but I still might be able to find other evidence on testifying experts.) I stand all amazed. Thanks, guys.
|
|
|
Post by learnedhand on Jul 25, 2009 21:49:16 GMT -5
Far be it from me to return to the topic, but people seem to assume that OPM refreshed the register at the request of the Commissioner or under pressure from SSA. I had a conversation in 2007 with an OPM staffer. It was her opinion at that time that OPM had fallen behind on the register and, because of that, would be reopening the exam the following year to catch up. After that, they expected to reopen the exam every other year.
In fact, that is exactly what has happened so far. The exam reopened in 2008 and, under the plan she suggested, it would not be expected to reopen again until 2010. Technically that could happen right after the first of the year or at some later point in 2010. By that time, everyone on the current register would be able to apply again, because it has been longer than one year since they last took the exam.
So maybe SSA pressure has nothing to do with it and OPM is already proceeding under its own schedule.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jul 26, 2009 7:56:59 GMT -5
Far be it from me to return to the topic, but people seem to assume that OPM refreshed the register at the request of the Commissioner or under pressure from SSA. I had a conversation in 2007 with an OPM staffer. It was her opinion at that time that OPM had fallen behind on the register and, because of that, would be reopening the exam the following year to catch up. After that, they expected to reopen the exam every other year. In fact, that is exactly what has happened so far. The exam reopened in 2008 and, under the plan she suggested, it would not be expected to reopen again until 2010. Technically that could happen right after the first of the year or at some later point in 2010. By that time, everyone on the current register would be able to apply again, because it has been longer than one year since they last took the exam. So maybe SSA pressure has nothing to do with it and OPM is already proceeding under its own schedule. Fallen behind? Please. How long was the Register closed due to the Azdell litigation? That suit commenced in '96 or '97 and they (SSA) pressured OPM to allow them to hire some 150 Judges in 2005 (please correct me if I'm wrong). We all were part of the dam that burst on May 4, 2007 when they opened the application process for four whole days. The only way you were getting in was if you were a 10 pt. vet. Now there were good candidates and Members of this Board who sat on the Register for years and years and a couple got hired in 2008, but for the most part OPM was happy to deny most applicants a shot at being an ALJ. That's abdicating your duty to fulfill your mission in my book. When Ms. Springer of OPM came before Congress and was asked about this she pulled a Sgt Schultz. Yeah, they're just a bunch of misunderstood folks who fell behind. They've been listening to too much of the Boss 'cause I guess they're convinced they are the boss. And who is to dispute that? Surely not the D.C. Circuit....
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 26, 2009 8:51:56 GMT -5
Far be it from me to return to the topic, but people seem to assume that OPM refreshed the register at the request of the Commissioner or under pressure from SSA. I had a conversation in 2007 with an OPM staffer. It was her opinion at that time that OPM had fallen behind on the register and, because of that, would be reopening the exam the following year to catch up. After that, they expected to reopen the exam every other year. In fact, that is exactly what has happened so far. The exam reopened in 2008 and, under the plan she suggested, it would not be expected to reopen again until 2010. Technically that could happen right after the first of the year or at some later point in 2010. By that time, everyone on the current register would be able to apply again, because it has been longer than one year since they last took the exam. So maybe SSA pressure has nothing to do with it and OPM is already proceeding under its own schedule. Or perhaps OPM is proceeding under its "own schedule" because of pressure from SSA and the desire to preclude congrssional involement? Pix.
|
|
|
Post by ruonthelist on Jul 26, 2009 9:16:05 GMT -5
How long was the Register closed due to the Azdell litigation? That suit commenced in '96 or '97 and they (SSA) pressured OPM to allow them to hire come 150 Judges in 2005 (please correct me if I'm wrong). We all were part of the dam that burst on May 4, 2007 when they opened the application process for four whole days. PA is right. The Azdell case became final in 2004, and the stay was dissolved. This allowed agencies to hire off the then-existing register. SSA hired large groups in both 2004 and 2005. With the stay dissolved, OPM could have re-opened the register at any time after the Fed Circuit decision, but they waited three years to do it.
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jul 27, 2009 10:59:46 GMT -5
I would guess that OPM would want to create a new Register to ensure the experience through which people are rated and ranked is current.
|
|
|
Post by latinlawyer on Jul 27, 2009 11:12:44 GMT -5
I just read the last post by Jagghag. It caused come confusion for me (guess I'm "easily" confused!)
Does it say anywhere that the "experience" judged by OPM has to be current? For that matter, is experience that was current when the current Register was created suddenly aged or irrelevant so that it requires a new register?
I don't understand!
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Jul 27, 2009 12:45:42 GMT -5
. . .Does it say anywhere that the "experience" judged by OPM has to be current? For that matter, is experience that was current when the current Register was created suddenly aged or irrelevant so that it requires a new register? No, it doesn't "say it anywhere" - but OPM has this non-delegable duty to maintain a register of properly rated and ranked individuals and it likely behooves the federal government to ensure the candidates have current experience.
|
|
|
Post by learnedhand on Jul 28, 2009 21:04:38 GMT -5
I never intended to defend OPM and some of you need to chill a bit. My point was that OPM officials appear to be proceeding along a schedule they established in 2007. To me that is valuable information. The test for me will be this fall. If the exam reopens this fall, then SSA would appear to have ongoing, powerful pressure. If it does not open until 2010, then it appears OPM will proceed on its own schedule and reopen the exam every other year, i.e., 2010, 2012, 2014, etc.
As far as refreshing the register in 2010 and the register ending in 2010, those of us placed on the register in 2010, will be taken off the register as of the end of October 2010. Ideally, we'd like to have the opportunity to stay on it rather than get knocked off and spend awhile in limbo. Are those who made the register in late 2008 only on for 2 years or will their expiration dates be in 2011?
|
|
|
Post by noah on Jul 28, 2009 21:13:04 GMT -5
Expiration date is October 2010 for those who made the register in late 2008.
|
|
|
Post by learnedhand on Jul 28, 2009 21:34:39 GMT -5
Thanks, Noah. That seems a bit of a ripoff to me and I can now see why someone might ask about refreshing in 2010 if it expires later in the year.
|
|