Martin Siegel and Stephanie Adams are Trying to Let Their Frivolous Lawsuit "Whither and Die"

We got this letter today from our lawyer, Neal (Truth Ninja) Johnston. Basically he's worried that Stephanie Adams' attorney, Martin Siegel, has been so thoroughly embarrassed by this ordeal that he plans to let the case just linger and die. Neither Neal, nor myself wants to see that happen, and we presume that the people following along do not want that either. Neal wants to bring bear the fruit of this case and hold Martin Siegel accountable for his distasteful actions. The problem being, they continue to refuse to answer any of Neal's interrogatories.

You can read Neal's letter to me after the jump, but basically to sum it up, we need to raise $1,090 to make sure that Stephanie Adams and Martin Siegel are brought to account for their actions. In order to do that we need to file a Request for Judicial Intervention ($90) and do a deposition on Stephanie Adams, which will cost around $1,000 for the court reporter to transcribe the meeting.

UPDATE: Thanks to everyone who kicked in towards this cause, now Stephanie and her lawyer wont' be able to avoid our questions anymore. I spoke with Neal and he's going to keep the money in a trust and use it as needed. He also said we will probably need more down the line so feel free to keep kicking and know that it's going to a good cause. It will all be accounted for by the Neal (Truth Ninja) Johnston.

Also, here's a list of those questions that Stephanie and her lawyer are dodging.

Interrogatories 1
Interrogatories 2
Interrogatories 3

Dear James:

I finally got a letter from Martin Siegel, a copy of which I enclose. As usual, it says nothing. First, he is working on a motion for a protective order; he's been doing that for weeks. Second, he thinks it would be inappropriate to indicate which interrogatories he will answer or which documents he will produce until he knows whether we will keep all the answers a secret. This makes no sense and is really nothing more than legal noise.

This aside, I have heard nothing substantive from Mr. Siegel. I have no expectation that I ever will, unless something is forced from him. Which means that unless we do something, Stephanie Adams' preposterous lawsuit against you will simply languish until it dies an eventual death by attrition.

There are a number of reasons for this.

When I spoke to Mr. Siegel - for the only time - over a month ago -- he said a number of remarkable things.

First, he indicated that he would not be writing to me again unless I would promise him that you would never again post any of his letters. He does not share your interest in having a transparent litigation. I would not give him that promise, so he has kept his promise. Silence, save the short, contentless letter of October 6.

Second, in what I take to be an effort to force me into a quiet settlement mode, he told me that he could not afford to walk away from the lawsuit. It would be dreadful news to his other clients to hear that he had abandoned Ms. Adams. The purpose of his 'warning', I think, was to warn me that if I didn't force a settlement upon you, I would have to be prepared for a long and expensive litigation. He did not seem to anticipate that I was actually looking forward to this adventure. (It is so rarely that one actually gets to take candy away from truly undeserving children.) While Siegel cannot afford to be seen walking away from Stephanie Adams, allowing the lawsuit to die on the vine is another matter entirely.

Third, I have to assume that the litigation is a real embarrassment to his law firm, Brown Rudnick. That firm is not one of the top-tier, or even second tier law firms. But it is a national law firm with a decent reputation. Right now, if you Google Brown Rudnick, you have to get to the second page to find a link to Stephanie Adams (or the stale story of the NY partner charged with stock fraud), but that is quite too close entirely to the top to be the least bit pleasant to a firm with aspirations. This silly suit has to be a serious embarrassment to the firm.

As you tell me the story, a few months back, Siegel called you to tell you that you couldn't afford to defend a lawsuit, and so should roll over and play dead, being careful before you did to delete all of the references to Ms. Adams which displeased her. Unless he had a good faith belief that there was something defamatory in the quite innocuous passages you posted, that was a despicable thing for him to do. When you called his bluff, he went ahead a served a complaint seeking $100,000 in damages. He should be ashamed of himself. In all probability, he is.

There may also be some concern that if his complaint is ever actually adjudicated, he may be liable to you for sanctions for the hopeless frivolity of his complaint, or, perhaps, more serious, that he may have to answer for his conduct here to the grievance committee. None of that will happen if the whole shoddy affair just continues to lie a-moldering.

He has simply refused to respond to the interrogatories and document demands we have served. He may well have arguable grounds to object to a very few of the interrogatories, but no more than a very few. For the most part, he simply dreads having to put himself and his client on the line by answering the rest. And so, he will answer none unless forced to.

He continues to threaten to move for a protective order against this discovery, and also seeking to censor you from publishing any of Ms. Adams' answers to any of the questions. Other than threaten, he has done nothing of the sort. He won't until after the cows come home, and you know how rare it is to see a homeward bound cow even in downtown Manhattan.

Nothing will happen unless and until we cause something to happen. That will take a little time and a little money, but since I'm sure you don't want this strange saga to dry up and blow away, I think we have no choice.

Therefore, I shall do two things.

First, I shall notice the deposition of Ms. Adams for November. She will not show up on that date. Siegel will take the position that she won't appear unless you agree that the transcript of her testimony will not be posted on your web site, that her sworn oral testimony concerning her claims against you and her allegations that your pretty straight forward reporting has or will cost her $100,000. Until we notice her deposition, a Court cannot order her to give it; meanwhile, it cannot hurt for her to contemplate a full and painful day of answering under oath the probing and hostile questions we will put to her.

Second, I shall file what is called a Request for Judicial Intervention, an "RJI". This will cause a judge to be assigned to the case who will, fairly promptly, schedule a conference at which a discovery schedule will be set. If Siegel has serious objections to answering our standard discovery demands, he will have to make his case to a judge and will not be able to sit back on a unilateral refusal to comply with the rules.

It costs $90 to file an RJI. It costs nothing to notice a deposition, but when we actually get to have one, I will have to hire a court reporter to take and then transcribe Ms. Adams testimony. That cost will come close to $1,000, depending in part upon how much she talks, and how much her lawyer attempts to intervene. (In this connection, the rules have recently changed and lawyers have recently been told by the judges to behave themselves and not attempt to disrupt a deposition with intrusive and instructional interruptions.)

If you can raise the money to pay for these costs, I will be pleased. If you can't, I will simply have to pay for them myself. What has been attempted here, by Stephanie Adams and her attorney simply cannot be allow to succeed. Success for them would be bad for journalism and bad for the law - and I have a pretty high opinion of each.

Sincerely yours,


Neal Johnston

NJ:ig