In an order yesterday, in a case involving two people who were formerly in a relationship and who now accuse one another of battery (among many other things), Judge Buchwald resolved various discovery disputes with a warning against “irrelevant invective”:

As the Court’s rulings demonstrate, these motions would have been unnecessary if counsel had conducted themselves in a more professional manner. The inclusion of any kernel of a meritorious argument in the briefing was in danger of being obscured by the amount of irrelevant invective. Indeed, the constant bombardment of the Court with such irrelevant invective makes defendant’s frequent refrain about the imposition on counsel’s time and his client’s resources ring hollow. Counsel are reminded once again, as the Court did early on, about the need to maintain objectivity and a professional distance from their clients.

Later the same day, defense counsel wrote a letter that began, “Plaintiff seems to continually misapprehend the Court’s rules, the local rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” and urged that one count be severed and that the case be transferred to California. Judge Buchwald responded swiftly with a letter to counsel today stating, with “some regret,” that the motions would likely only waste more of the Court’s time.

The Court has no authority to preclude you from making a motion, but it does have the authority to order the opposing party not to file a response unless directed by the Court. As the resolution of both of these motions requires the Court to exercise its discretion within the boundaries of the applicable case law (which itself involves the balancing of a number of factors), I can say with some confidence (and some regret) given my familiarity with this case and the applicable law, that pursuing these motions would not likely be the best use of your client’s “limited war chest.” Please let me know how you intend to proceed.

H/T Volokh Conspiracy