|
While I don't want to side-track this thread anymore than it is necessary, I'm beginning to understand why Chicago answered the SAC the way they did (I suppose that comes with the territory of reading all these briefs for the last 5 years).
What we have to remember (at all times) is that any particular attorney must present his clients case (in this instance, their defense) in the best manner possible, leaving as many options open as possible.
To say that they have no knowledge of the allegation, is to leave open the idea that they may later admit to the truth of the allegation. To admit that truth now, kills the opportunity to deny it later (if that case can be made later).
As esqappellate has already indicated, those affirmative defenses (even though we all think them rather bogus) have to bwe included, else they lose the claim, right at the outset.
Remembering that the law changed between the time the circuit mandate was given and the district received the case from the circuit. In essence, this is akin to starting from scratch. The extra delay in the discovery, is not really a delay, as now that the formal charges of additional law has been made, the discovery now proceeds on those additional charges. Not the older allegations in the FAC. Those are done. We are now looking at the added allegations of the SAC.
|