Slashdot Mirror


Blogger Subpoenaed for Criticizing Trial Lawyers

Cutie Pi writes "Katherine Seidel, mother of an autistic child and an avid blogger has been subpoenaed for her "family's bank records, tax returns, autism-related medical and educational records, and every communication concerning all of the issues to which [she] has devoted [her] attention and energy in recent years." The lawyer in question is representing a mother who is suing Bayer for $20M with the claim that mercury in their vaccines caused her child's autism. In her blog Seidel has spoken out against lawyers trying to cash in on thimerosal lawsuits, noting that the thimerosal-autism link has been debunked in several studies. But Seidel herself has had no direct involvement in the lawsuit."

14 of 500 comments (clear)

  1. Logic and evidence be damned by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These people are angry and want something to take their frustrations out on. The fact that no studies provide any evidence of a link between the vaccines and autism is an minor inconvenience to be ignored!

    Scumbag lawyers, shoddy science, willfully ignorant and upset parents - it's a perfect combination.

    1. Re:Logic and evidence be damned by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's even worse than that. The anti-vaccine movement operates much like a cult. It takes people who are in a situation where they feel isolated, helpless, and angry, and they give these people a strong support community that will not only alleviate their feelings of isolation and helplessness, but give them a boogeyman to lash out at. Once someone is in a community like this, they will continue to fight for the cause no matter how much evidence is stacked against them.

      It's really sad, because these people are risking allowing some truly horrible and often fatal diseases to come back decades after they were virtually wiped out. I'd much rather have a minuscule and totally unproven chance of a few kids getting autism, which is not fatal, than have a virtual certainty of thousands of kids getting fatal and/or permanently disfiguring diseases like pertussis or polio.

  2. This is why people hate lawyers... by R1Lawrence · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the worst of what our legal system allows. Now this woman is forced to hire an attorney just to defend her right to free speech. It makes me sick!

    1. Re:This is why people hate lawyers... by cprael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She's been given three weeks, give or take, to review virtually every electronic communication or posting, or scrap of paper, that has passed through her life in the last 4 years, and package it _all_ to take the deposition. She isn't even being offered a witness fee.

      It is not "probably" an abuse of the legal system. It is one. It is also overly intrusive, and has a number of other "defects".

      The last time I saw a subpeona like this, the lawyer quickly backed down, because he realized we were going to ask for sanctions for abuse of process as soon as we walked into the courthouse.

    2. Re:This is why people hate lawyers... by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't get me wrong -- it's still a pain in the butt and it's wrong and probably an abuse of the legal system. But her freedom of speech isn't at risk. She could respond by just giving the documents requested. She shouldn't have to do so, but her speech is in no way at risk.

      It's called a chilling effect. If this is upheld, it will send the message that if you criticise pseudo-science, you are in danger of being dragged before a court and having all your personal details examined for no good reason. It's an undue burden on speech that many people will not be willing to take just to speak out against some kooks.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    3. Re:This is why people hate lawyers... by dubl-u · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But her freedom of speech isn't at risk. I disagree totally. Yes, they are not asking for her web site to be closed down. But did you actually read the subpoena?

      They want her bank statements, her canceled checks, her tax returns, and any documents even vaguely related to any issue covered on her web site, including correspondence with her physicians, attorneys, and any member of the government. Imagine how you would feel about giving the last seven years of your correspondence and financial records over to a hostile party.

      And, of course, they want the right to grill her about anything related to any of that, while she pays a couple hundred bucks an hour in legal fees. And for why? Because she has blogged critically about them.

      That doesn't just have an effect on her right to free speech. It has an chilling effect on every blogger who sees themselves as a citizen journalist. Anybody who wants to blog about something important -- or even read blogs like that -- should oppose legal harassment like this.
    4. Re:This is why people hate lawyers... by Chas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Her right to free speech is not being interfered with

      The hell it isn't.

      • Blogger: Blah blah something inconventient blah
      • Lawyer: I don't want you to say that
      • Blogger: Sorry. It's protected speech.
      • Lawyer: I'll give you something else to do then. Bring out all records since the second you were born, package them up, and come all the way out to me so that I can verbally harass you. That should keep you so busy that you don't have time to say stuff I find inconvenient. It should also keep you so busy that you can't actually do anything else with your life (like work, take care of your kids, etc) either.


      It's not about denying someone their rights.

      It's about exerting social influence on them to distract/prevent them from exercising those rights.

      And, failing that, it's about creating pain points when one decides to exercise those rights. Like electroshock therapy. Sure, nothing's STOPPING you from doing "Activity A", but if you get a painful jolt every time you do "Activity A", you'll soon find that you either reduce or completely stop doing "Activity A".

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  3. Re:Silent Spring all over again by brianf711 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What do you think the cost-benefit ratio is for reducing measles, mumps, polio, small pox, diptheria, strep pneumonia, N. meningitis HPV, etc? Between that and no known link between vaccination and autism, I think such a belief against vaccinations is one not based on evidence and one that is not reasonable.

  4. What is the judge thinking? by vinn01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The lawyer may be a sick farker, but the judge who allows this, without sanction, is even sicker.

    Third party subpoenas should be looked at under a microscope for relevance. This lady didn't manufacture, sell, or administrate the vaccine in question. What does she have to do with the underlying lawsuit?

  5. Re:Silent Spring all over again by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately people are not rational, and when they're child is stricken by such a disorder, rather than simply accepting that in a world full of luck good, bad and indifferent, they want to strike out, to make someone pay. There are plenty of things in the world that cause damage to children, but other than the odd bad batch, vaccines are not among them, at least as far as autism goes.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. Subpoenas by GrifterCC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am not a lawyer, but you just wait about six months.

    The thing to understand about subpoenas is that in most states, once litigation commences, the lawyers (as officers of the court) for each side have the power to issue subpoenas to anyone who might have information relevant to the lawsuit.

    The major limitations on such subpoenas are ethical limitations (attorneys' behavior is governed by a complex but far-from-bright-line set of rules) and the rules against discovery abuse, which can be found at Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) and elsewhere. The decision to grant sanctions is up to the discretion of the court, which basically means that an appellate court will go with what the judge decides, unless, for example, the discovery sanction is death.

    However, it looks like Ms. Seidel is in good hands lawyer-wise. Her motion to quash the subpoena (the way that one tries to avoid having to comply) hits a lot of different theories and defenses, including the most important one: that the subpoena won't lead to discoverable evidence.

    Postscript of Surprise: The plaintiff's attorney filed the suit in the Eastern District of Virginia, a federal court whose nickname is "The Rocket Docket." The consensus among attorneys is that once you file a case there, you should go ahead and say goodbye to your family for a few months. Rather than let litigation drag out for years, the Rocket Docket judges set -extremely- aggressive discovery schedules. Filing any complaint there is ballsy, no less a thimerosal one, since whether thimerosal causes autism is far from crystal-clear. Long discovery would mean more time for the plaintiff to gather evidence (and for new autism studies to come out).

  7. Re:Blinded by the light by Oxy+the+moron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a father of an autistic child, I can totally understand an emotional and illogical response to the suggestion of a Thimerosal/autism link. Believe me, at first it had me somewhat enraged as well. In light of some other drugs that have come under fire in past years for either under-delivering on promises or outright harming people that take them, it only makes sense that some people are going to look at a statement like that and say "Oh, look, something *else* the FDA missed!"

    The problem is most people nowadays seem to either 1) lack the capacity to think for themselves (either mentally or as a result of time constraints, etc.) 2) lack the desire to think for themselves. After all, why bother doing that when someone else has already done it for me?

    I also think that both sides are sitting too much in the area of absolutes. It seems that most scientists insist that *every* vaccine is safe for *every* child, and the inverse is true for those who think Thimerosal causes autism. Obviously, just the mere presence of Thimerosal doesn't cause autism, because if it did we'd all be autistic. But at the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the large number of vaccines that are administered at once nowadays, along with other possible factors, are at the source.

    Autism can be very difficult to work with as a parent, and I hope they find out the cause/cure soon. But flying off the handle, on either side, isn't going to get it done.

    --

    Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.

  8. Re:Blinded by the light by tthomas48 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Scientists don't "insist that *every* vaccine is safe for *every* child". They insist that the small number of side effects in the small number of children is far better than the massive side effects (like death) of having to treat the diseases in large populations including children. They are fully aware that there are going to be a tiny number of kids that have negative reactions to vaccines. That doesn't outweigh the number of deaths that are prevented by getting rid of these diseases.

    And these are planetary efforts. Sure in the US most of these diseases are not going to kill your kid (unless they're born prematurely), but outside the US these childhood diseases are much more serious. Vaccines are for the good of mankind.

  9. Re:Silent Spring all over again by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personal anecdotal nonevidence beats reason and statistics every time. This is why humanity will fail.

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)