An order from U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Presnell in Avista Management, Inc. v. Wausau Underwriters Insurance Co. (paragraph breaks added):
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to designate location of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition (Doc. 105). Upon consideration of the Motion -– the latest in a series of Gordian knots that the parties have been unable to untangle without enlisting the assistance of the federal courts -– it is ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED.
Instead, the Court will fashion a new form of alternative dispute resolution, to wit: at 4:00 P.M. on Friday, June 30, 2006, counsel shall convene at a neutral site agreeable to both parties. If counsel cannot agree on a neutral site, they shall meet on the front steps of the Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave., Tampa, Florida 33602. Each lawyer shall be entitled to be accompanied by one paralegal who shall act as an attendant and witness.
At that time and location, counsel shall engage in one (1) game of “rock, paper, scissors.” The winner of this engagement shall be entitled to select the location for the 30(b)(6) deposition to be held somewhere in Hillsborough County during the period July 11-12, 2006. If either party disputes the outcome of this engagement, an appeal may be filed and a hearing will be held at 8:30 A.M. on Friday, July 7, 2006 before the undersigned in Courtroom 3, George C. Young United States Courthouse and Federal Building.
Incidentally, such random (or close to random) decisionmaking isn't entirely novel to the legal system: In some courts, the chief judge is selected from among the court's members based on seniority and related factors, and when there's a tie in those factors, the tie is broken by a coin flip. Tied elections are sometimes resolved the same way; in Nevada, they may also sometimes resolved by drawing cards (no joke).
On the other hand, in In re Brown, 662 N.W.2d 733 (Mich. 2003), the Michigan Supreme Court censured a judge for using a coin flip to make a substantive decision (item numbers omitted):
[The judge] encouraged the parties to resolve the matter themselves, but when they were unable to agree and where each side had equally compelling arguments as to why the children should be with one party on Christmas day instead of Christmas Eve she told the parties it was nothing more than a coin flip. Instead of just issuing a decision regarding the dispute, Respondent stated that she would decide it by the flip of a coin.
The court ordered the judge to "[r]efrain from resolving any disputed issue by the flip of a coin." (Of course, even if coin flips are improper for making substantive decisions, they may still be proper for relatively minor procedural matters such as the location of depositions.)
Thanks to Diane Knox for the pointer; she also reports that a fellow lawyer in Miami says that "the use of rock/paper/scissors (a.k.a. roshambo) has become such a prevalent means of resolving discovery disputes that some local law firms now take a student's roshambo skills into consideration when making hiring decisions." I can't claim great confidence in the "now take skills into consideration" assertion, but, as we say in Russian, "I'm selling it to you for what I paid for it."
UPDATE: OK, this I can't endorse -- "A jury unable to decide on a verdict tossed a coin last week to convict a man of murder." The procedure quite properly "prompt[ed the] judge to declare a mistrial."
If it's simply a tough call, a court shouldn't duck its responsibility by flipping a coin; but where there legitimately is no basis to distinguish between the claims of the two sides, a court shouldn't have to pretend that one side has the better case.
I understand why, in bitterly contested divorce cases, the parties sometimes can't work out seemingly straightforward decisions, but it's silly to see the same thing happen regarding discovery disputes in commercial litigation that the lawyers should simply work out.
First, the judge doesn't specify that they must play until there's a winner. What if on the first game it's a tie? Sure you can assume she meant one game as in until there's a winner, but really, if they can't agree on the site of depos, can you REALLY assume that the rules for rock, paper, scissors will not be contested?
Second, every one knows that you play 2 out of 3 for any meaningful dispute resolutions.
http://www.rpscityleague.com/home/?page_id=3
Hey, if it's good enough for the World Cup...
But then, the court might expect the frivolity of the exercise to calm the parties down and make them more amenable to compromise. In other words, and this is pure speculation, wasting a little time might be just what the court intends.
http://www.scjc.state.ny.us/Determinations/F/friess_(2).htm
If the parties avail themselves of the appeal mechanism, I'd love to be a fly on the wall in those chambers on July 7th.
In You Only Live Twice,(1964)James Bond finds himself playing against a Japanese Secret Service chief whom he doesn't really want to beat, but thinking about it, he realizes it would be just as hard to lose as it would be to win. They aren't, I should make clear, playing as a form of dispute resolution, but as a game at a geisha party.
According to CNN, the opposing attorneys' offices are in the same building, four floors apart.
0.2 review order setting hearing, ltr to client
1.3 travel to and from court
0.8 wait for hearing
0.4 negotiations w/ opposing counse re: game rules
0.1 play rock paper scissors
0.2 prepare entry journalizing results
0.2 ltr to client re: rock paper scissors results
0.1 consider whether it's ethical to bill my client just because I threw a temper tantrum about holding a deposition in my opposing counsel's office.
Of course, the judge's whole point here is that this isn't a "substantive decision." As RichC points out,
According to CNN, the opposing attorneys' offices are in the same building, four floors apart.
The judge is politely telling these two attorneys to start acting like professionals and stop acting like juvenile twits. If they are unable even to agree on a location for their "match," they're going to be forced to do it in public. You'll note that the judge chose 4:00 on a Friday on the courthouse steps. You can bet that every member of the local legal profession will be there to point and laugh.
2006 Inglewood City Council Election by coin flip
2005 Pepper Pike City Council Election by coin flip
2004 White Pine County Comission Election by high card draw
2004 Cheval West Community Development District Board of Supervisors Election by high card draw
2000 Fife Lake Township Supervisor Election by coin flip
2000 Louisville City Council Election by high card draw