Her paralegal said:
We would like to continue until approximately February 21. It will be necessary for Dr. Johnson to be at the hearing, and the court would not give me his availability until I have some specific dates to suggest. I can't suggest specific dates to the court without (1) knowing whether you are agreeable to continue this matter and (2) your availability. As to whether Ms. Gray needs the preparation for Dr. Johnson or other witnesses, I am not aware what her preparation will entail, and this matter is covered by work product privilege at any rate.I responded:
You want to delay a month because Gray is out for 2 weeks? You want me to agree to a delay without telling me how long the delay will be? To whom are you talking at the court?The paralegal responded:
I would like to come to an agreement on this, but you are not giving me much to work with. It sounds like the two main problems, from your point of view, are Gray's lack of preparation and Dr. Johnson's availability. But you don't even know whether Gray needs preparation time for Dr. Johnson. If you find out Gray's needs and wants, then maybe we can work out a compromise.
The purpose of this e-mail is to give you notice that we are appearing ex parte for an order shortening time to hear a motion for an order to continue the evidentiary hearing set in the above-referenced matter on January 21, 2005. At that motion, we will also request reasonable attorney's fees and costs for the necessity of bringing the motion. The ex parte will be heard on Thursday, January 13, 2005, at 1 p.m., in Department 6 of the Santa Cruz Superior Court, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz, California.That was 7 hours ago. I did not appear. If she has scheduled an emergency hearing, she should have told me by now. I really don't see how she could think that I owe attorneys fees to pay for her stalling tactics. A friend of mine has bet me a dinner that I will have to pay anyway, just because the court is so biased against me.