Quashed! · 2008-04-21 20:20

From the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Case No. 1:08-mc-00013-JM:

ENDORSED ORDER granting MOTION to Quash Subpoena.

Text of Order: “Granted. Attorney Clifford Shoemaker is ordered to show cause within 10 days why he should not be sanctioned under Fed R Civ P 11 – see Fed R Civ P 45(a)(2)(B) which requires that a deposition subpoena be issued from the court in which the deposition is to occur and Fed R Civ P 45 (c)(1) commanding counsel to avoid burdensome subpoenas. A failure to appear will result in notification of Mr Shoemaker’s conduct to the Presiding Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia.”

So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James R. Muirhead.
(Entered: 04/21/2008)

Order (.pdf format)

Many thanks again to everyone who has offered their support.

Comments


  1. Speechless again…. (but smiling!)
    Congrats Kathleen

    — jypsy    2008-04-21 20:47    #

  2. Kathleen = dragonslayer!

    I’m absolutely thrilled! Excellent, excellent work!

    — isles    2008-04-21 21:00    #

  3. Yay! I like how Shoemaker is now expected to appear to defend himself.

    — Kathleen in Virginia    2008-04-21 21:10    #

  4. Great work. It’s nice to see a good person win in the legal system. Maybe the judge will include “Muslim or otherwise” in his/her impending slapdown.

    Keep fighting the good fight.

    — Bartholomew Cubbins    2008-04-21 21:14    #

  5. Congratulations! This is wonderful news. As Bartholomew said, “Keep fighting the good fight.”

    — S.L.    2008-04-21 21:21    #

  6. Alright!! The judge should order Shoemaker to apologize (and send you a nice big donation to keep your website going, Cliff’s not short on money, as far as I can tell).

    Also, I can’t wait to see what your next blog about Shoemaker’s vaccine court activities is going to be.

    — Ms. Clark    2008-04-21 21:27    #

  7. Made my day.

    Was McCormick’s motion to quash granted too?

    — Skeptico    2008-04-21 21:31    #

  8. Well done, Kathleen. An Order to Show Cause ain’t no foolin’ around. Maybe this will result in curbing further abuses of the judicial system by this attorney.

    — Anne    2008-04-21 21:37    #

  9. Woot! And I second Ms. Clark’s sentence for Shoemaker.

    — Tera    2008-04-21 21:38    #

  10. “Was McCormick’s motion to quash granted too?”

    No, not yet. Her motion was filed in the District of Massachusetts on April 9, ten days after mine. Different court, different judge, different deadline. There’ll probably be more news by the end of the month.

    — Kathleen Seidel    2008-04-21 22:00    #

  11. “Kathleen = dragonslayer!”

    He went on a fishing expedition but didn’t think he’d come across a dragonslayer, did he?

    — Joseph    2008-04-21 22:02    #

  12. That’s great news! I sure hope Dr. McCormick and her team (and judge) hear about this, and puts it all together. Let Shoemaker defend himself in two different courts. Congrats!

    — Clay    2008-04-21 22:41    #

  13. Yay! I’m sure he’ll just withdraw it, but it would be nice to see him turn up and court for a proper tongue-lashing. Props to you and Public Citizen!

    — William    2008-04-21 23:23    #

  14. HOORAY! congratulations, Kathleen. I pretty much knew the outcome of this one……I’m sure it’s a relief for it to be officially quashed though.

    Ya know I kind of hope that the man DOESN’T show up to explain himself. Because if he doesn’t, more people will hear about his conduct.

    Actually, I REALLY hope the coward doesn’t show up. Or, if he does, that his defense for his behavior is so utterly ridiculous that the judge decides to report him anyway, on the basis of sheer stupidity.

    Ivan of athenivanidx

    — Ivan    2008-04-21 23:30    #

  15. Great news! This may not reach the level of disciplinary sanctions for the Virginia State Bar, but the notification of Mr Shoemaker’s conduct to the Federal court here should place both Shoemaker and the court on notice of some of the firm’s tactics.

    — stan    2008-04-21 23:39    #

  16. “A failure to appear will result in notification of Mr Shoemaker’s conduct to the Presiding Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia.” “
    What does that imply?
    He will be reported to the bar?

    — Uncle Dave    2008-04-22 00:22    #

  17. W00t! Please do update us on Dr. McCormick’s motion to quash as well.
    A good day for First Amendment freedoms as they apply to citizen blogs. The state license plates are going to have to be updated to read “Live Free or Quash”. And now that the Mountain has shed its Old Man, maybe the background can be a side-profile of Kathleen, complete with wide-brimmed hat :-).

    — Phil Schwarz    2008-04-22 00:33    #

  18. Huzzah!

    — Karl    2008-04-22 00:34    #

  19. Order to Show Cause = best possible outcome :-)

    — Scote    2008-04-22 01:23    #

  20. Excellent news, Kathleen!

    I hope the bastard gets sanctioned out of the profession – the arrogant, sneaky snivelling piece of shit!

    As for yourself, well done! Pleased for, and proud of, you :)

    — David Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)    2008-04-22 01:48    #

  21. After a long and discouraging day, I came home to the email announcing the order to quash. Hooray!

    Let us hope that this marks the beginning of the end of the autism = vaccine-injury industry.

    — Liz Ditz    2008-04-22 03:00    #

  22. Huzzah! (seconded)

    — Ralph Smith    2008-04-22 03:18    #

  23. Excellent news!

    — JQH    2008-04-22 03:30    #

  24. Dragons are noble creatures – can we go for “slugslayer”?

    Congratulations, Kathleen!

    — Catherina    2008-04-22 04:40    #

  25. Congratulations :)

    — bullet    2008-04-22 04:40    #

  26. What great news. You must feel relieved.

    You have dealt so well with this whole disgraceful incident. Kathleen the Dragonslayer indeed!

    — Sharon    2008-04-22 04:42    #

  27. Yay, Kathleen! I’m so glad you and common sense prevailed over stupidity!

    — Dawn    2008-04-22 06:58    #

  28. Talk about being hoisted on your own petard. Cliffy eviscerated himself.

    I wonder how he feels going forward with the Sykes suit. This may be the end of the road.

    — Tom    2008-04-22 08:21    #

  29. Rock On!

    — Doug S.    2008-04-22 09:01    #

  30. @Catherina, rather than think of the mythical dragon, think of the Komodo Dragon. If it doesn’t overpower and kill you immediately, the toxic bacterial mix in its mouth ensures that you don’t live long after being bitten or chewed. Often dying from the shock of massive, and I do mean massive, multiple infections.

    Looked at that way, dragonslayer is a very apt analogy for defeating one such as Shoemaker. After all, his tactic is to try and shock and overwhelm with financial and legal consequences arising from what is effectively a SLAPP.

    So well done indeed, Dragonslayer.

    — John Phillips    2008-04-22 09:04    #

  31. Justice Prevails. Another Huzzah!

    — Suzanne    2008-04-22 10:10    #

  32. I hope you find an attorney to sue him for wrongful use of a civil procedure, and legal malpractice. If he fails to convince a judge of a proper motive for his subpoena, that may be per se evidence of the above.

    Please, review your case with an expert in the law of lawyering.

    — Supremacy Claus    2008-04-22 10:17    #

  33. I hope they green his license to practice, if you know what I mean.

    — Joseph    2008-04-22 10:25    #

  34. Congrats!! I saw this on Overlawyered.com.
    Did Shoemaker appear in Court against your motion? Or was your motion submitted without oral argument (did not have to argue before the judge)?
    It should be interesting to see if he appears as the Court directed. I would like to see sanctions for this, but Courts are notoriously loathe to impose sanctions, but Mr. Shoemaker may have crossed that threshold.
    A complaint to the presiding judge of the US District for the Eastern District Virginia is good too, nothing like the chief judge to start getting complaints from other judges about lawyers in their courtroom.
    Whether you have a claim for damages, you should seek an attorney and discuss that matter with them.

    — Rich    2008-04-22 10:41    #

  35. Great news!

    — Rev. BigDumbChimp    2008-04-22 11:29    #

  36. Congrats! I’ve been on pins and needles. Excellent news.

    — Karina    2008-04-22 11:57    #

  37. Congratulations! That’s great.

    — Elaine    2008-04-22 12:18    #

  38. Oh that’s wonderful and even more wonderful that Mr Shoemaker has to come up with some reason not to be sanctioned by the Court. Not that I’m a particularly vengeful sort of person, but this I plan to enjoy :)

    — Alyric    2008-04-22 12:46    #

  39. Excellent news – congrats :) Good to see the mention of potential sanction, too.

    — Jon    2008-04-22 13:01    #

  40. Very, very well done Kathleen. Congrats!

    — hj    2008-04-22 13:18    #

  41. Don’t mean to take a thing away from Kathleen, but I am most happy for the tiny bit of evidence that there is still some integrity in our courts.

    This story needs a lot of ink.

    Hang in there—there is justice, sometimes.

    — Larry Sheldon    2008-04-22 13:26    #

  42. This makes my day!

    — Bink    2008-04-22 13:56    #

  43. This is great news, not only for you, Kathleen, but for all bloggers.

    Commenting on legal cases, using public information, should never expose one to para-judicial harassment.

    PJ of Groklaw.net had similarly been subpoenaed under the unsubstanciated rationale that she may or may not have received information from IBM.
    SCO publicly accused her of undermining their case, such as it is. PJ home address, and PJ’s mother home adress had also been published by one of SCO shills (with photos of both homes).

    — _Arthur    2008-04-22 14:10    #

  44. AwRIGHT!!!!! Not much to say that hasn’t been said already, but dammit, yeeHAW! i admire your levelheaded perseverance in the face of what’s right, true and fair.

    — tr kelley    2008-04-22 14:18    #

  45. A great day for democracy and the Rule of Law. Kudos to Judge Muirhead: a honest and thoughtful jurist! God bless you!

    — doc edwards    2008-04-22 14:37    #

  46. I’ve been lurking in the background and following this from a distance – congratulations!

    — Artemis    2008-04-22 15:35    #

  47. Congratulations, Kathleen! I read about this originally on Slashdot, and submitted the follow-up article to them as well!

    Again, Congratulations, and keep us informed as to how Dr. McCormick’s motion goes as well!

    — Jason    2008-04-22 15:46    #

  48. Jason, thank you very much for this. Fortunately, TextDrive didn’t let us down last time. Let’s hope they can hold up over a second round!

    — Kathleen Seidel    2008-04-22 16:42    #

  49. Allright!!! Well done!

    — Martijn Dekker    2008-04-22 16:55    #

  50. Q: What’s the difference between a rat & a lawyer?

    A. There’s some things even a rat wouldn’t do…

    Just kidding

    — Sean Cochoran    2008-04-22 17:03    #

  51. Nicely done, to both you and your lawyer.

    — tonyk    2008-04-22 18:56    #

  52. Congratulations! As someone who recently spent a year’s salary defending against a SLAPP suit, I know how frustrating this can be.

    You’ll be doing the world a favor if you pursue this and see that this jerk gets sanctioned.

    — Ed Falk    2008-04-22 19:29    #

  53. wonderful.
    it’s a shame you had to go through this but hopefully shoemaker will lose his ability to intimidate and threaten honest folk and with a bit of luck he will also be prevented from preying on those unfortunate people who are vulnerable to his ambulance chasing.

    — harebell    2008-04-22 19:43    #

  54. Bravo, Kathleen! Well done!

    This is an out-and-out win for the good guys. Not only was Shoemaker unethical, but if he really ever thought he could get away with this, then he’s an arrogant ass as well. I hope he’s duly punished for his abuse of the subpoena power, and I certainly hope this whole affair gives pause to the next thug who’s tempted to use the legal system as a means of retaliation against his critics.

    — Ebonmuse    2008-04-22 19:46    #

  55. Yay! I had a crummy day but this makes it all better. (Don’t forget to make a Bar complaint.)

    — LW    2008-04-22 19:46    #

  56. Cliff Shoemaker looks like he’s on his way to becoming the next Helena Kobrin (a $cientology attorney who became the Rule 11 poster child to a generation of law students).

    — ebohlman    2008-04-22 19:48    #

  57. As a member of the Virginia bar and having practiced before the Eastern District, I can tell you that the court here will not look kindly on this attorney’s conduct.

    — Edward Grass    2008-04-22 21:50    #

  58. Beautiful, beautiful, poetic justice!

    — Jesse    2008-04-22 22:01    #

  59. IANAL, but as I read it, he’s already being sanctioned. No need to see to it, no way he can “just withdraw it” now. All he gets is his statutory opportunity to explain himself before the judge decides on the sanction.

    — sabik    2008-04-23 00:22    #

  60. Congrats. Did this happen even before Public Counsel could file anything in support of your pro se motion? Either way, that’s a huge win for you and a major humiliation for Shoemaker.

    — Ken    2008-04-23 01:04    #

  61. Public Citizen made a few phone calls on my behalf, attempting to contact Mr. Shoemaker and solicit local counsel, but hadn’t filed anything yet. Fortunately, it appears that it will not be necessary. Judge Muirhead took action as soon as it was legally permissible for him to do so. I did not have to further argue the matter of sanctions (that is, beyond my minimalist assertion that issuance of the subpoena constituted a sanctionable abuse of judicial authority) for him to recognize that sanctions might be appropriate under the circumstances.

    — Kathleen Seidel    2008-04-23 01:46    #

  62. Hereafter, the 21st of April shall be known as 1st Amendment Day! :)

    — Melody    2008-04-23 03:01    #

  63. Lovely. I haven’t followed the case, but I read the previous few posts. I have the feeling that you are quite skilled in legal matters or at least have outstanding council supporting you, and I am indeed pleased you won. My dad has worked for Bayer all his life, making, among other things, plastics for CD’s. Bayer is no clean slate, but it also has brought some good things to this world. I’m glad you pulled this one off.

    — skjaero    2008-04-23 04:32    #

  64. Best possible outcome would be sanctions, but, at the very least, the order forces him to explain his actions AND puts him on notice that his actions are being monitored.

    Dr. Buttar’s disciplinary hearing is today…maybe we can get a two-for!!!

    Great job, Kathleen!

    — bones    2008-04-23 07:58    #

  65. Kathleen,

    I had faith….in you.

    — Estee Klar-Wolfond    2008-04-23 09:52    #

  66. Great news

    — Kevin (your brother)    2008-04-23 10:04    #

  67. This is good news, indeed. Hopefully Justice will be served against Shoemaker’s unethical practices and his horrendous abuse of our legal system. I can’t wait to see the outcome

    — Patti Shepard    2008-04-23 11:05    #

  68. Beautiful. I can’t stand lawyers who are bullies.

    — Dan Winkler    2008-04-23 11:11    #

  69. Congratulations Kathleen!
    This is indeed sweet justice. Now Mr. Shoemaker will reap the rewards of his actions….I hope too that reactions by people of conscience rising to stand beside you show those who seek to silence by intimidation that what happens to one is considered to happen to all and will not be tolerated.

    — Anna Baggs    2008-04-23 11:15    #

  70. For everyone asking what might happen to Shoemaker: if he doesn’t show up or shows up and can’t defend himself, the judge will fine him under Fed R Civ P 11. If the judge buys his reasoning, then he’ll just look bad and not get what he wanted. It’s too late to withdraw the subpoena now, though.

    — James    2008-04-23 12:23    #

  71. Where would the money from a fine go?

    — Lenora    2008-04-23 13:42    #

  72. If he’s fined, the money probably would go to Kathleen to reimburse her for her time and expense defending herself. Let’s hope so.

    Great job Kathleen!

    — abfh    2008-04-23 15:54    #

  73. Congrats! I’m happy to hear this.

    — Joe Bingham    2008-04-23 18:20    #

  74. Congrats, Kathleen! :)

    — Sithsnoopy    2008-04-24 01:28    #

  75. “For everyone asking what might happen to Shoemaker: if he doesn’t show up or shows up and can’t defend himself, the judge will fine him under Fed R Civ P 11. If the judge buys his reasoning, then he’ll just look bad and not get what he wanted. It’s too late to withdraw the subpoena now, though.”

    So, basically, the bloody idiot’s shat in his shoes… now he gets to wear them, right?

    — David Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)    2008-04-24 13:47    #

  76. Way to go! Like to see the SOB explain his way out of this one….

    — jane    2008-04-25 01:09    #

  77. Kathleen, congratulations!

    As to some of the comments that in general are wary of the justice system, it makes me sad that we’ve reached this point. I still believe in the system, and have particular faith in the Federal system (not so much in state, where judges face reelection regularly and, therefore, take campaign money from lawyers who will come before them).

    I am so glad that Public Citizen came to your defense! That speaks so well for them and for our system. I hope that you don’t need their help going forward, but I hope that you appreciate that their weighing in on your side helps highlight how wrong this subpoena was and helps you. It also raises the potential costs to Shoemaker, and reduces what he can expect to get out of you even if he had won on the subpoena. Both are powerful.

    — Bad mommy    2008-04-25 09:46    #

  78. Why don’t you send a brief email to journalists working for legal magazines, if they follow it up and write an article, it will act as a cautionary tale for other attorneys on fishing expeditions.

    Link broken on purpose:

    http://www.law.com/ jsp/tal/contact_us.jsp

    http://www.vsb.org/site/about/ bar-staff/ look down the list for contacts at Virginia Lawyer Magazine

    — Lulu    2008-04-25 15:03    #

  79. It’s been 10 days – more than that, really.
    Has Mr Personality appeared before Judge Muirhead yet?

    I can’t wait to see what happens next. The possibilities are almost endless…

    — JerseyBoy    2008-05-01 09:50    #

  80. No, I’ve just checked the docket, and see that nothing has been filed yet. In deadline-speak, “ten days” means ten days from the date of service. I believe that if a document is served by first-class mail, three days are added to allow it to arrive at its destination.

    — Kathleen Seidel    2008-05-01 10:09    #

  81. Ten business days, or ten days counting weekends? I can’t wait.

    — isles    2008-05-01 10:41    #

  82. “Hereafter, the 21st of April shall be known as 1st Amendment Day!”

    Instead, I propose that hereafter the 21st of April be knows as Seidel Day! :)

    Joe

    — Club 166    2008-05-02 21:08    #