WisGOP Assembly, and AG Schimel have no problem with deleting records and evidence

There was a lot of garbage pushed through State Assembly on Thursday's final day of the 2019 session, but none may be worse than a bill that seems to allow people in power to hide more information in court proceedings.

State Rep. Chris Taylor was sounding the alarm about this on Facebook on Thursday, and if you look at the text of Assembly Bill 773 and the associated amendments that were added on during the process, you can see why Rep. Taylor was trying to draw attention to it. Look at what this bill allows to be concealed.

The bill provides that upon the filing of a motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or a motion for more definite statement, all discovery and other proceedings must be stayed during the pendency of the motion unless the court finds good cause upon the motion of any party that particularized discovery is necessary.

The substitute amendment maintains the automatic stay upon the filing of certain motions, but specifies that the duration of the stay is a period of 180 days after the filing of the motion or until the court’s ruling on the motion, which is sooner, unless the court finds good cause upon the motion of any party that particularized discovery is necessary.

And while discovery of documents is being stayed, the electronic documents can magically go away, if it's considered too much trouble to produce them.

Production of Certain Categories of Electronically Stored Information

The bill and the substitute amendment provide that, absent a showing by the moving party of substantial need and good cause, subject to an assessment of whether the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, a party is not required to provide discovery of any of the following categories of electronically stored information (ESI):

 Data that cannot be retrieved without substantial additional programming or without transforming it into another form before search and retrieval can be achieved. - 5 -

 Backup data that are substantially duplicative of data that are more accessible elsewhere.

 Legacy data remaining from obsolete systems that are unintelligible on successor systems.

 Any other data that are not available to the producing party in the ordinary course of business and that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. In response to a motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the party from whom discovery is sought is required to show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may generally order discovery from such sources only if the requesting party shows good cause.

Preservation of Certain Categories of Electronically Stored Information

Under the bill and the substitute amendment, absent a court order demonstrating that the requesting party has a substantial need for discovery of the ESI requested, a party is not required to preserve the following categories of ESI:

 Data that cannot be retrieved without substantial additional programming or without transforming it into another form before search and retrieval can be achieved.

 Backup data that are substantially duplicative of data that are more accessible elsewhere.

 Legacy data remaining from obsolete systems that are unintelligible on successor systems.

 Any other data that are not available to the producing party in the ordinary course of business.

Limitations on Discovery Methods

The bill creates the following limitations on the specified methods of discovery, unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court:

 Twenty-five interrogatories, including all subparts.

 Ten depositions, none of which may exceed seven hours in duration.

 Requests for production of documents for a reasonable time period of not more than five years prior to the accrual of the cause of action.

The substitute amendment generally maintains the limitations provided in the bill, along with the exception that the limitations may be exceeded under a stipulation or court order. However, the substitute amendment provides that the limitation on requests for production of documents does not apply to requests for patient health care records, vocational records, educational records, or any other similar records.

It seems noteworthy that not ONE Republican chose to table this bill when Dems asked them to on Thursday night. Maybe the GOPs recognize that they ARE going to be gone soon, and want the ability to have deleting/shredding parties before the Dems take control.

Another tell here is that right-wing corporate fronts like WMC, NFIB, and the US Chamber [of Commerce] Institute For Legal Reform all testified in favor of this bill in January, and Koch Companies, the Dairy Business Association, the Builders Association and Associated Builders and Contractors (aka Diane Hendricks’ company) registered in favor of it.

It’s obvious that these guys don’t want the public to be able to sue them or find out what they are REALLY doing and who they are working with. Don’t give me this crap about how producing emails or other electronic evidence is an “undue burden.” This is all about covering up corruption and other revelations that would come from court actions.

And you know who likes this ability for corporations and other power-brokers to cover their tracks? Our crooked AG.

Also passed in the Assembly last night - AB 773. These common-sense reforms will make litigation simpler, less expensive for taxpayers, and more in line with the vast majority of states and the federal court system. Thanks @repborn & @rep89!

— WI AG Brad Schimel (@WisDOJ) February 23, 2018

Sounds like someone’s looking for more corporate contributions! How much do you want to bet most of those states Schimel is referencing also have legislatures owned by ALEC?

Time to get on the horn with some state senators and make sure this corrupt pile of trash doesn’t become law. It might also be worthwhile to ask Supreme Court candidates Rebecca Dallett and WMC/NRA puppet Michael Screnock what they think about this as well.

Actually, I know what Screnock will say, because this type of one-sided BS is exactly what he and other right-wing judges mean when they say they will “uphold the rule of law.” The second part of that statement “rule of law” is “….no matter how much those GOP laws violate the Constitution or hurt someone else.”

AB 773 is Banana Republicanism at its worst, and yet another reason that they all gotta go ASAP.