Keeping with what appears to have become "judicial week" here on WWL:We've been receiving emails leading us to believe there is a growing uprising of attorneys who would like to voice their opinions regarding Discovery Commissioner Bonnie A. Bulla and her, let's say, "demeanor" lately.
We are happy to provide a forum for such comments, with the following caveat: keep it above the belt. We're not trying to turn this into a bash-fest.
Keep in mind that Comish Bulla is (very likely) a reader (or about to become one), and she may take some of your constructive criticism to heart. Hey, we're trying to be optimistic here.
So you have some background for the discussion, here is an excerpt from one of the emails we received:
There is a growing, but silent, consensus that our Discovery Commissioner is tantamount to the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland. She might as well just say "off with their heads" for all the actual nonsense that actually does spew forth from her courtroom. I know that there are countless stories of the petty reasons folks have been summoned to appear before her majesty. I just spoke with another practitioner who said that he spent 2 1/2 hours with her and of the 35 items she heard, only 2 were actual discovery disputes, the rest was her scheduling nonsense. Her courtroom is packed to the gills, but if you stand outside, you risk missing your item because she calls things out of order. I am particularly fond of her new practice of sanctioning attorneys who don't appear on matters that don't involve their client. Plus, she makes Judge Leavitt look like a pleasant, cordial jurist. Her behavior is unprofessional, rude and bordering on dictatorial. The sad thing is, there's no way to avoid her because she is the discovery monopoly. I would love to have a mass call-in day to Judge Gonzales where everyone just unloads. I'm willing to bet Judge Gonzales has no idea about the insanity that now reigns on the Fifth floor. I never thought I'd say it, but I miss Tom Biggar.So, commenters ... your thoughts?
I think she has an insane job. Trying to manage the discovery of the entire district court has to be an overwhelming position.
ReplyDeleteI'll admit that I've lost some I should have won and won some I should have lost in front of her, but I disagree that she like Leavitt - one of the most horrible people I've had the displeasure of coming across in my life.
Bulla isn't corrupt, Biggar was. Given the choice between an unpleasant demeanor (Bulla) and a stacked deck (Biggar), I'll take Bulla.
ReplyDeleteBulla is a definite improvement over Biggar. That said, she sometimes seems a bit disorganized and frantic during hearings. This may be a result of her workload.
ReplyDeleteShe seems more patient than Biggar ever was, although she can get riled up with the best of them.
I think she is doing the best she can, but she is going to piss off everyone at some point.
I like Bulla and have agreed with most of her rulings. That being said, she does set a lot of needless status checks and discovery conferences. I don't think she realizes that she is costing clients close to $1,000.00 for every conference she sets.
ReplyDeleteI know at my firm, we have found it is cheaper to file a motion to continue discover, even if the parties all stipulate to continue because a motion with no opposition is easier to get through than a stipulation.
She does have a crazy job, but she signed up for it so she cannot complain.
I have found Comm. Bulla to be well-prepared and consistent in her rulings. I get frustrated when two (or more) consenting attorneys agree to a modest discovery extension for a legitimate reason (not because they lazy at the outset), but have to take the time and expense of having their modest agreement "approved". Other than that, no real criticisms here.
ReplyDeleteThere has to be a better way to deal with the discovery conferences. I have spent 3 hours waiting to hear opposing counsel get sanctioned $25 for attaching pages to a discovery report. How can this not be handled through a letter to all parties? Instead, we spend $1000 for each party for a three minute hearing.
ReplyDeleteI recently saw a conference regarding the failure to send a courtesy copy to the discov office. Everyone had to attend that one too.
These conferences are a senseless waste of time. I don't have issues with real discovery motions. It's the over-scheduling of conferences that is getting out of hand.
I've made my thoughts known out here in the cloud RE Queen Bulla. I was not fan of Lord Biggar, until he retired and Queen Bulla's reign of incompetence and inconsistency began.
ReplyDelete@12:38 PM: Stop trying to pretend that you are not Queen Bulla.
My criticism (if you could possible listen) Queen Bulla:
You are not prepared are the majority of your hearings. Even though you state that you have read everything, is there anything to add (an obvious lesson learned from Bell), you have not read everything. You miss many of the most crucial legal elements of the discovery process and the basis for limiting or expanding the realm of discovery. You need to enforce the rules and exclude witnesses CONSISTENTLY, not just against defendants. Trying a case on the merits is important, though, not when parties play games with discovery.
Biggar had really tightened up the 'monkey business' in discovery. That is why people complained so much. Since Bulla, the lines are blurry again and dishonesty is rewarded. There is definately an 'in' crowd with her.
Your courtroom is a disaster zone. You are fooling no one when you refuse to record the activity in your courtroom, unless counsel brings their own courtreporter. This is the most contentious part of litigation and your staff is not recording the minutes accurately. At least we got that from Biggar and a preliminary ruling.
On a kinder note: You started off well. You were a 'kinder, gentler, discovery commissioner'.
You do need to invoke the 'preliminary ruling', if you really want to clean up your courtroom and let us know that you have actually read & thought about the issues.
You need to get back to that OR go all the way and sanction everyone evenly.
With regard to evaluation of Bulla:
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/npol6c
I agree that the hearings can go long, but it seems to be because the comissioner wants to make sure all parties are in agreement and understand where she is coming from, thus proactive rather then trying to catch up and fix things when the case is old. I recently attended a CLE she gave privately and she explained that she wanted to make sure everyone stayed on the same page to keep disputes at a minimum from the beginning. Having practiced in CA for years, I find the whole discovery commissioner thing unproductive, but if you have to have it, I believe she does a good job for the volume of cases and personalities she has to deal with and anyone who complains is doomed to later be in the "careful what you ask for category" for if she just sanctioned first and asked questions later, who here would be happy about that?
ReplyDelete"Bulla isn't corrupt." Bullshit. Wait until you're against one of her old friends.
ReplyDeleteLegally Unbound puts it well as "an in crowd."
I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with LU.
ReplyDeleteI have found Bulla to be pretty fair. I feel that since she was a practicing attorney, she is more sympathetic to the demands of the office and willing work with all the attorneys to extend deadlines reasonably. I do agree that the scheduling conferences and status checks are tedious.
ReplyDelete@ 8:41 AM
ReplyDeleteNow, that wasn't so tough, was it?
The truth can hurt, not just when you are wrong (Bulla), but when someone you despise is right (me).
Bulla's a problem. But, don't delude yourself. If she quit tomorrow, there would be a lot of complaining about her successor.
ReplyDeleteA significant contributing factor to this problem is the structure. Let's have a Discovery Commissioner who is just that, nothing more. Move all Case Management to the Judges who have the cases anyway, and make them set an initial status conference 30-45 days after the JCCR to set dates, then perhaps at 6 month intervals after that. Judge Gonzalez does a fair amount of Status Check hearings and they generally work.
My opinions:
ReplyDeleteCommissioner Bulla should request that pro-tem Commissioners be appointed to help her out with the caseload. I'm sure that there woul be no shortage of volunteers. We do it with ADR, Justice and Family Court already.
Commissioner Bulla should issue written rulings, or rulings via teleconference, in advance of the hearing on no-brainer issues, or even in advance of a Reply brief, surrebuttal brief, etc. like they do in US District Court.
Commissioner Bulla's push for professionalism is commendable, but a lot of attorneys take advantage of that to the detriment of the court system, and both plaintiffs and defendants. In other words, ruthless attorneys will be "professional" but still end up sodomizing the judicial system with their procedural reindeer games. And, again, with no accountability.
Discovery Commissioner hearings should be videotaped and recorded. There is a camera in there.
The biggest change needed: Commissioner Bulla needs to enforce Rule 37. She refuses to issue sanctions for conduct that drags down the system. Her failure to enforce 37 on a consistent basis has completely bogged down discovery across the board.
Attorneys should have the option of filing discovery motions with the judges directly. It would save time and money.
@ 1:39 PM
ReplyDeleteSomehow you worked in "sodomizing" and "reindeer" within 7 words of each other and still have made the most sense in the thread.
I agree with advance opinions, video, Rule 37 & direct motions to the judge, but not with pro tem commissioners lending a hand. There is not that much work. Some of this can be put back on the judges . . .that are never in chambers or in court.
Some judges simply have "bad days." In Bulla's case, thats about every other day. Don't ever say "with all due respect" if you disagree with her on anything, as she will rip your head off. She drags attorneys in on non-issues and they have to sit and wait. Please, Commish, think about the elevator situation and the expense. Much of this can be handled by stipulation. However, the Commish really wants you to appear and kiss her. . feet. Its a tough job, I'm sure.
ReplyDeleteDiscovery disputes need the strong, decisive hand of a man, not the estrogen-soaked flop of a feminine flipper.
ReplyDeleteBulla will soon retire to explore weight loss and stress reduction in some California commune. What we should focus on is making sure her successor is not some new loon.
Discovery is meant to be the strict teutonic side to the femme loosey goosey common law: when our progressive forefathers got together to propound these rules, it was with the explicit purpose of, to use a yucky modern phrase, "leveling the playing field." Bulla lacks the balls to stamp out infidelity to the rules; our new discovery commissioner must have balls of steel. Big balls. Most of all, balls at all.
** Everytime I've ever called Bulla with a question, she's always been great about giving an immediate response.
ReplyDeleteIn other news, I thought they were creating two additional discovery commissioners. Anyone know anything?
** 8:39 PLEASE tell me you are kidding. Please. I must believe that male attorneys are not that sexist at heart.
ReplyDelete8:39 and 10:29 are both idiots.
ReplyDelete8:39 completely undermines any legitimate criticism he may have had against the commish by resorting to sexist ad homenin attacks.
10:29 somehow thinks that some dipshit speaks for all male attorneys.
I'm just glad I get to practice against these geniuses. Although, admittedly, they both have a legitimate shot at beating me in front of the commish.
Her demeanor has never bothered me, and I appreciate her willingness to do CLEs etc. Improvements I'd like to see:
ReplyDelete1. written orders without a hearing on small issues (as noted multiple times above).
2. sanctions to be more real world, when appropriate (like federal court)... $250 didn't cover my time for the hearing, let alone the meet and confer, drafting motion to compel, reply, etc.