Do attorneys even bother fact checking

[shanendoah]

Sure, your thermometer says 147 deg, and they agree that they've looked at your thermometer and it says 147 deg, but what if, in the course of the investigation, they discover that your thermometer was actually purposefully calibrated to be 10 degrees off, so the coffee is actually 157 deg? If their lawyer hadn't named you from the start, nothing could be done about that, even though your company was, in fact, breaking the law. To go along with that, it's probably never occurred to you to doubt the company thermometer, and no one is going to have told you that the thermometer is incorrectly calibrated, so when you get the request for documentation about the temp of your coffee, you think it's silly and frivolous, because it's so easy to just look online and see that your self reported coffee temp meets regulations.

[cronewitch]

Cats are smarter than you give them credit for. ISO brought his cat to visit and his log splitter to split logs. He goes home and leaves his truck running and keys in to unhook log splitter. Cat locks the doors so he goes to neighbors to get coat hanger to open doors. When he gets back the cat had rolled down one window and gotten out made it as far as the field. Who would think cats would be so mean and sneaky or know how to lock doors and roll down windows.

[Abby Normal]

Nov 3, 2014 15:06:04 GMT -5 shanendoah said:

Sure, your thermometer says 147 deg, and they agree that they've looked at your thermometer and it says 147 deg, but what if, in the course of the investigation, they discover that your thermometer was actually purposefully calibrated to be 10 degrees off, so the coffee is actually 157 deg? If their lawyer hadn't named you from the start, nothing could be done about that, even though your company was, in fact, breaking the law. To go along with that, it's probably never occurred to you to doubt the company thermometer, and no one is going to have told you that the thermometer is incorrectly calibrated, so when you get the request for documentation about the temp of your coffee, you think it's silly and frivolous, because it's so easy to just look online and see that your self reported coffee temp meets regulations.

I get that.     But they fail to realize (or ignore) that the requirement says 145-150 and that we have coffee inspectors that come in and independently verify that it is 147 degrees (required testing). All of which is available on google.

Now if they have a problem with the fact that is allowed to be 147 degrees (which is the issue), they should take that up with the government agency that says it can be 147 degrees.

[shanendoah]

Nov 3, 2014 16:20:11 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

Nov 3, 2014 15:06:04 GMT -5 shanendoah said:

Sure, your thermometer says 147 deg, and they agree that they've looked at your thermometer and it says 147 deg, but what if, in the course of the investigation, they discover that your thermometer was actually purposefully calibrated to be 10 degrees off, so the coffee is actually 157 deg? If their lawyer hadn't named you from the start, nothing could be done about that, even though your company was, in fact, breaking the law. To go along with that, it's probably never occurred to you to doubt the company thermometer, and no one is going to have told you that the thermometer is incorrectly calibrated, so when you get the request for documentation about the temp of your coffee, you think it's silly and frivolous, because it's so easy to just look online and see that your self reported coffee temp meets regulations.

I get that.     But they fail to realize (or ignore) that the requirement says 145-150 and that we have coffee inspectors that come in and independently verify that it is 147 degrees (required testing). All of which is available on google.

Now if they have a problem with the fact that is allowed to be 147 degrees (which is the issue), they should take that up with the government agency that says it can be 147 degrees.

Please note that I am simply playing your Devil's Advocate here, as I know nothing about you, your company, or even what industry you are in.

Sure, but there's always the chance that the "independent" inspector is not so independent. Collusion between companies and "independent" inspectors is not unheard of, in fact, it is so "not unheard of" that the government has a billion pieces of paper they make "independent" and government inspectors fill out to try and cover their (the government agency's) butt when the collusion is revealed.

There is also the idea that while they are going after the government agency involved in setting the regulations, it is widely believed that that agency is not independent of businesses, and that, in fact, the businesses that agency is supposed to oversee actually set the rules and regulations, either through industry groups, lobbying, monetary donations, promises of favors, etc.

I get that you have a bias toward your employer. I have had those biases, too. But as an outsider, I can see a million reasons why I, as a complainant, and my lawyer, would want to include supposedly "clean" organizations in our lawsuit, especially since we have no idea what discovery might turn up, and we can't add people to our complaint after the fact.

[Abby Normal]

Nov 3, 2014 16:48:23 GMT -5 shanendoah said:

Nov 3, 2014 16:20:11 GMT -5 Abby Normal said:

I get that.     But they fail to realize (or ignore) that the requirement says 145-150 and that we have coffee inspectors that come in and independently verify that it is 147 degrees (required testing). All of which is available on google.

Now if they have a problem with the fact that is allowed to be 147 degrees (which is the issue), they should take that up with the government agency that says it can be 147 degrees.

Please note that I am simply playing your Devil's Advocate here, as I know nothing about you, your company, or even what industry you are in.

Sure, but there's always the chance that the "independent" inspector is not so independent. Collusion between companies and "independent" inspectors is not unheard of, in fact, it is so "not unheard of" that the government has a billion pieces of paper they make "independent" and government inspectors fill out to try and cover their (the government agency's) butt when the collusion is revealed.

There is also the idea that while they are going after the government agency involved in setting the regulations, it is widely believed that that agency is not independent of businesses, and that, in fact, the businesses that agency is supposed to oversee actually set the rules and regulations, either through industry groups, lobbying, monetary donations, promises of favors, etc.

I get that you have a bias toward your employer. I have had those biases, too. But as an outsider, I can see a million reasons why I, as a complainant, and my lawyer, would want to include supposedly "clean" organizations in our lawsuit, especially since we have no idea what discovery might turn up, and we can't add people to our complaint after the fact.

It would make more sense if you knew the industry.  But no, we will get dropped. The type of claim isn't even valid for what we do.   it's just a PITA in the meantime.  It's a stemming from another case that was settled recently because the company thought it would be cheaper to settle.  They are named again in this one and we got a tag along.

[8 Bit WWBG]

...:::"I know it's just not worth the legal time for our lawyers to repond to these kinds of things, but it gripes my ass that these bottom trolling lawyers and their clients end up with anything at all.":::...

My father thinks that if more defense lawyers responded to frivolous claims with "see you at the deposition", that bottom feeders and ambulance chasers would back off instantly.  I'm sure that is true to some degree.  The bottom trollers are counting on a settlement because they know that the claim would not likely hold up in court.

Its just going to take some people who are willing to establish that they would rather spend $10,000 to go to a deposition than $5,000 to settle.

[truthbound]

Oct 30, 2014 12:26:54 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Attorneys never met a fact that they didn't like to ignore. 

Or a check they didn't like to cash which is what it's all about.