America has no shortage of attorneys who are, in fact, petty-ass bitches. Most of them don’t talk about it on social media. Which is how most of those petty-ass bitches avoid having to drag in a federal magistrate to adjudicate their contextual level of petty.
So if you know me in real life, you probably know that I am a petty-ass bitch. And one of my favorite things to do is drop a bunch of bullshit on opposing counsel’s desk at like 4:45 on a Friday afternoon, and then be like, thanks so much. Have a great weekend!
Attorney Katie Panzer posted a video explaining all this moments after zipping over some discovery requests in a discrimination dispute brought by her client against his former employer. Those requests did, in fact, arrive under a cover email that concluded, “Have a great weekend!” prompting defense counsel — who also know how Instagram works — to demand that she withdraw the discovery requests as promulgated for an “improper purpose” under Rule 26(g). Well, technically, they called Panzer’s co-counsel to demand the discovery requests withdrawn.
First Draft To Final: How To Use AI To Accelerate Legal Drafting Workflows
Discover how LexisNexis Protégé™ transforms legal drafting into a strategic collaboration between lawyers and AI—enhancing quality, speed, and defensibility.
Methinks there may be multiple petty-ass bitches involved.
After the issue was appropriately returned to Panzer, she refused to withdraw. At that point, the defendant moved for sanctions and then Panzer moved for sanctions citing the frivolity of defendant moving for sanctions just to get out of responding to discovery and an “attempt to embarrass, bully, and harass Ms. Panzer into withdrawing proper discovery requests.”
Magistrate Judge Daphne Oberg entered the chat and managed to produce 20 pages of content that boiled down to “y’all need to chill out.”
Does posting about being a “petty-ass bitch” who serves “a bunch of bullshit” make those discovery requests objectively improper under Rule 26(g)? No. Of course not. Because if “a bunch of bullshit” rendered something presumptively improper, the whole enterprise of American litigation would collapse.
USCIS shift to electronic payments: What immigration firms need to know
As of October 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services requires electronic payments for filing fees. Learn key updates, exemptions, and how firms can prepare.
There is no question Ms. Panzer’s Instagram post was unprofessional and imprudent. But Ms. Panzer’s reference to the requests as “a bunch of bullshit” does not, on its own, establish the requests themselves are objectively improper or propounded for an improper purpose. Although it calls into question the subjective purpose of the discovery requests, it does not automatically establish an improper purpose under an objective standard of reasonableness. While the video must be considered in the totality of the circumstances, if the requests are relevant and proportional, it would be illogical to find them objectively improper on the grounds that counsel made ill-advised statements on social media calling them “bullshit.”
While the court correctly evaluated the requests on their own merits, any honest textualist also understands that “a bunch of bullshit” does not necessarily make a qualitative claim. It’s can be a bunch of stuff. Perhaps a bunch of annoying stuff to deal with. But not necessarily unimportant stuff. In this way, bullshit functions as the “smurfy” of our times.
The court also wondered why complaining about discovery requests on a Friday afternoon amounts to anything but performative pearl-clutching:
Where a party has thirty days to respond to such requests, the time of day and day of the week on which they are served has no practical effect on the burden or expense of responding. The fact that Ms. Panzer served these requests on a Friday afternoon did not objectively constitute harassment, cause unnecessary delay, or increase the cost of litigation—even if Ms. Panzer intended them to.
Lodging requests doesn’t mess with the litigation… it messes with litigators who can’t compartmentalize. If a lawyer can’t get a document on the way out the door and tell the difference between an emergency and a “wait for Monday,” that’s on them. And if the purpose of sending these specific requests on a Friday was to needle lawyers known for that level of obsession-compulsion… it may be petty, but it’s also very funny.
That said, Judge Oberg did clarify that the Instagram post was sufficiently dumb that the defendant was justified in raising the objection, even if the objection was ultimately fruitless. And with that, both sanctions motions fell.
However, Judge Oberg notified Panzer at the hearing that the court is “considering imposing sanctions on her sua sponte under the District of Utah’s local rules and the Utah Standards of Professionalism and Civility.” Panzer has until November 4 to show cause why she shouldn’t be sanctioned “for the reasons stated on the record.” In other words, the post didn’t make the discovery improper, but might still constitute sanctionable unprofessional conduct.
As they say, the first rule of being a petty-ass bitch is: you do not talk about being a petty-ass bitch. Which is also the second rule. The oft-forgotten third rule is do not let your appetite for petty drag your client into litigation over it. For the record, the rule for being on the other side of such behavior, is not to let it turn you into one too.
Neither side seemed to follow their assigned rules here.
(Opinion on the next page…)
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.