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withdrawn.
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.
There
is
no
question
Ms.
Panzer’s
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.