Creating false affidavits is not very prestigious, Mr. Gallion.

I can't follow this anymore.

Is is possible to be employed simultaneously at 2 law firms?

http://www.internalinvestigationlaw.com/Bio/MarcDurant.asp

http://www.durantlaw.com/attorneys/marcdurant.html

So what the heck is going on here? Is S&C trying to pin everything now on Gallion or will Gallion bring S&C along for the ride?

"So what the heck is going on here?"

Charney hasn't a leg to stand on with regard to spoilation and is trying to smear S&C through more bad publicity hoping that will make all the bad stuff go away. Lat is doing all he can to help.

I don't agree with 4:32. I think S&C is a pack of dirty dogs. Not saying Charney is a perfect guy or anything but S&C has tooooo much to explain away at this point.

4:32 that is an interesting take. Do you think that Fried is working with Lat to smear S&C?

4:32: What's Lat supposed to do, ignore Justice Fried's order? That would be biased in favor of S&C. He's just repeating the allegations of a party, which news sources do all the time, and posting a publicly filed court document.

What is the basis for your claim that "Charney hasn't a leg to stand on with regard to spoilation"? Do you have any firsthand knowledge of this case? Or are you just an S&C apologist?

4:32 that is an interesting take. Do you think that Fried is working with Lat to smear S&C?

4:32 is full of crap. s&c conspiring to create a false affidavit would go along with their alleged creation of a false performance review of charney, as detailed in his complaint. interesting stuff.....

I agree 4:17; this is starting to become too convoluted to be an interesting distraction.

S&C didn't oppose. Sounds like they have nothing to hide. Just more of Charney Razzle Dazzle.

Wrong. S&C was trying to get some info. out of Charney first. My feeling is that if S&C REALLY had zip to hide, it wold have just let the depositions go with an open field.

Interesting question 4:18. Sounds like Gallion's prestigious "firm" was nothing more than a group of solos

Charney is making "unsupported allegations" that they're conspiring to create false affidavits against him. S&C would love to have this out there. It makes Charney seem paranoid.

The real question is what's up with the AG's moustache?

Why would S&C want Grinberg's atty client priv. with gallion to be waived ? S&C is looking worse and worse

Fried seemed to grant the order based on the fact that S&C didn't oppose it. Fried calls Charney's allegation of false affidavits "unsupported."

Wow. This has become slow, boring, and complicated at the same time. Just let me know when the NY Court of Appeals weighs in and the Supremes deny cert.

*Judge Fried* labelled Charney's new claim "unsupported allegations."

which part of morphy and rogers at s&c allegedly creating a false performance review of charney does not jibe with s&c partners and gallion conspiring to create another false document? charney obviously has a sound basis for suspecting such things, and is entirely justified here. 4:47, 4:42 and 4:32 are s&c apologist trolls with nothing to offer.

hence the Judge is saying Charney may procede with the discovery o the issue. Frankly, what's to keep any of these S&C people from lying under oath in a depo anyway. I put niothing past them at this point. I just wanna hear what Charney has on those infamous tapes from the actual case.

S&C didn't really oppose
Judge Fried calls this an "unsupported allegation"
This is more Charney bs.

I think it is a lot of things, but boring? Are you for real? One of the most prominent law firms in the world is accused of conspiracy to commit perjury and you find that boring? I guess you found greater pleasure reading in this year's tax code? Judge expands depositions without substantiation? You think he does not have some inkling of what is going on such that he does not need support for the allegations? This is the stuff of interesting litigation.

4:58. what's to stop Charney from making false allegations?

Slow, boring and complicated. Just post the link to the NY Court of Appeals opinion when this is all done.

Nobody from S&C is going to admit under oath that they conspired to make a false affidavit. Neither will Gallion.

They might as well resign from the bar at that point. Unless Charney has some corroboration for his allegations, this is going nowhere.

4:58 what is to stop S&C from lying? S&C thinks it is unstoppable and acts that way.

I wish the Virginia Tech guy had done it at the partners' meeting at Sullivan & Cromwell.

Can we talk about Charney's outfit again, that was more interesting than the continued mudslinging.

5:04: This is "complicated" only if you are dumb. The salaciousness of a top international law firm conspiring with one of its former associates to create false evidence, in a pending court proceeding in which it is the defendant, is obvious.

(FYI, I am not a Charney supporter. The guy sounds like a total d-bag to me.)

5:29, it can also be complicated if you bang your head against a wall and lose full use of your cerebellum. don't exploit the only if conditionals, yo

This case gets more bizarre by the day indeed. Imagine how much more bizarre, interesting and scandalous this case would be if it was made up of more than just "unsupported allegations."

Exactly. Cannot WAIT to hear those tapes

anyone remember Alice? This was a song about Alice.

Grinberg, Grinberg, Grinberg. You guys are all missing the most interesting point in the judge's Order. What's going on with Gera Grinberg, the elusive character whose photo has yet to surface, whose notes of the January 31 meeting are now central to proving or disproving S&C's spoliation claim, who discharged Gallion sometime after the meeting (and after Gallion allegedly destroyed those notes of the meeting... perhaps as part of a plot to cook up this affidavit with S&C?), against whom a disciplinary charge may have been filed?

This is turning into quite a convoluted story, but hardly boring. I think Grinberg is central to everything now... and remember that he is the third person who is supposed to be deposed in this next round to try to find out what was going on. To wit, the reference to S&C requesting the judge to make a finding that Grinberg waived the privilege concerning his communications with Gallion.

Now, maybe that means that S&C is counting on Gallion to make S&C look good during his deposition, which requires him to disclose things that Grinberg said to him and the contents of whatever notes Grinberg allegedly gave to him. I'm wondering why it was S&C that asked the judge to rule on the privilege, and not Gallion? But then, Gallion asked for an "evidentiary hearing" about.... what?

Who can figure out what's really going on here? Is this all muddying the waters to distract folks from the thinness of Charney's discrimination case?

this all gets so confusing. that's why it good alexandra korry is around -- able to keep things fairly clear when dealing with screaming obscenity abusive evil incarnate around

I wish the Virginia Tech guy had done it at the partners' meeting at Sullivan & Cromwell.

The last comment is a bit over the top. I think it should be deleted and I'm not a fan of S&C at all!

Dammit. My request for an evidentiary hearing was denied. When will my moment in the spotlight come?!?!?! I hope I can be present for Field Marshal DiBlasi's deposition. I have a few questions I want to ask him about the conduct of the North Africa campaign in late 1941. Bloody brilliant.

Gallion OUT!

Charney should grow a moustache, it would give him more credibility.

I don't know. I read Order as saying that there was no support, i.e. exhibits, submitted with the letters, but I don't think that it was a comment that Charney's allegations cannot be supported. At least, that's what would make sense as to why the depositions are allowed to go forward, right?

Hire me, should have settled, Fasman, etc. etc.

As someone who has litigated against S&C in the past and deposed a S&C partner (and no, I'm neither prestigious nor exclusively hand-picked, just a litigator), I'm pretty impressed by this development. Of course the judge called Charney's allegations "unsupported"; most allegations are. That's what discovery and trials are for. What's significant about this is that the judge found the allegations significant enough to enlarge the scope of discovery, which the court had severely limited earlier.

Unfortunately, none of the letters referenced in the order are available on the NY Courts' e-filing system, so who knows what the heck the assertion were. In any event, this makes S&C and the extremely prestigious Gallion smell pretty stinky...

Of course Charney could have made an allegation that had no basis in fact.

The judge went out of his way to call the allegations "unsupported" and did not call the allegations "signficant." All he did was enlarge the scope of discovery by one question to put an end to the sideshow.

If the judge hadn't enlarged the scope of discovery by *one* question, we would be faced with howls from Charney and his supporters that S&C never proved these allegations to be untrue. The grief the judge would have gotten by not enlarging the scope of discovery by one question is far outweighed by just letting Charney's team of lawyers ask this question, as unsupported as it is.

Charney and his lawyers certainly won this round. They make an "unsupported allegation" and it's assumed there *must* be something to it. Of course anyone can make an unsupported allegation, it doesn't make it true. Remember the Duke rape case. I mean, why would Charney make an allegation that wasn't true? Then again, why would he send client documents that mysteriously showed up at his doorstep to the WSJ?

Instead of a presumption of innocence, S&C is now in the position to prove a negative – to come up with evidence that they *didn't* try to conspire to create a false affidavit. What Charney supporter is going to believe a denial after all.

This is actually relatively simple:

1) A judge ordered Charney to preserve his hard drive.

2) Charney had a meeting wherein no settlement was made but S&C did accuse him of stealing documents and likely indicated that they were going to come after him for it (i.e., they may have made him away of the suit they were about to file against him).

3) Charney destroyed his hard drive the day after the meeting.

4) Charney had to establish a legal defense for this criminal act.

5) Charney's lawyers are trying to establish that he was coerced into destroying the hard drive: thus the story of being terrified and invocations of the Nazis (i.e., he acted on the basis of intimidation and fear of psychological injury).

6) Apparently no one at the meeting remembers it the way that Charney did.

7) Charney's lawyers need to establish that everyone but Charney is lying.

8) Charney's lawyers also seem to be trying to create a spoilation inference against S&C by way of Gallion.

8) Lat is doing his part to help Charney's efforts by invoking the "a discovery process means allegations are true" rule.

I don't get it. What does all of this have to do with the fact that Alexandra Korry is a stark raving maniac who abuses her position and makes my boyfriend do inappropriate things?!?

Lat is reporting, that's all. The judge's order indicates that Charney's attorney asked permission to ask questions about these two issues because they have reason to believe that evidence of what was really said at the Jan. 31 meeting was deliberately destroyed, and as part of the discovery (which the judge sharply limited) into that subject, they want to pursue these two issues. Presumably this is based on something, and the most likely sources are Grinberg and Gallion, to judge by who was there and who is subject to discovery on these issues.

I don't think that means Lat is "helping Charney." And I don't think he is invoking a "discovery process means allegations are true" rule. He's saying here's the judge's order and here's my speculation as to what might be going on. Legal gossip obviously carries a fairly large dose of speculation in the absence of solid information but interesting hints.