Oldie but goodie

[Dark Energy]

The Mamloschen in Court

Yiddish in Federal Court - Actual court summary

In the heat of litigation, tempers often flare and lawyers sometimes
have difficulty expressing their frustrations. When English fails,
Yiddish may come to the rescue. So, it happened that defense counsel
for Sherwin-Williams, arguing in a recent summary judgment motion
federal court in Boston wrote, in a responsive pleading: "It is
unfortunate that this Court must wade through the dreck of
plaintiff's original and supplemental statement of undisputed
facts."

Plaintiff's attorneys, not to be outdone, responded with a motion
that could double as a primer on practical Yiddish for lawyers:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS

MONICA SANTIAGO, Plaintiff, v. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
Civ. No. 87-2799-T

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPERTINENT AND
SCANDALOUS MATTER

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
=

Plaintiff, by her attorneys, hereby moves this Court pursuant to
Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to strike as
impertinent and
scandalous the characterization of her factual submission as
"dreck" on page 11 of Defendant's Rule 56.1 Supplemental Statement of
Disputed Facts, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

As grounds therefore, plaintiff states: For almost four years now
plaintiff and her attorneys have been subjected to the constant
kvetching by defendant's counsel, who have made a big tsimmes about
the quantity and quality of plaintiff's responses to discovery
requests.

This has been the source of much tsuris among plaintiff's counsel and
a gontzeh megillah for the Court. Now, that plaintiff's counsel has,
after much time and effort, provided defendants with a specific and
comprehensive statement of plaintiff's claims and the factual basis
thereof, defendant's counsel have the chutzpah to call it "dreck" and
to urge the Court to ignore it.

Plaintiff moves that this language be stricken for several reasons.

First, we think it is impertinent to refer to the work of a fellow
member of the bar of this Court with the Yiddish term "dreck" as it
would be to use "the sibilant four-letter English word for
excrement." (Rosten, The Joys of Yiddish, Simon & Schuster, New York,
1968, p. 103).

Second, defendants are in no position to deprecate plaintiff's
counsel in view of the chozzerai which they have filed over the
course of this litigation.

Finally, since not all of plaintiff's lawyers are yeshiva buchers,
defendants should not have assumed that they would all be
conversant in Yiddish.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the Court puts an end to this
mishegoss.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++