Our client was involved in a dispute over a violation of a non-disparagement clause, which had serious consequences, including the loss of an opportunity for a prestigious job. During litigation, opposing counsel filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming there were no genuine disputes of material fact and seeking to avoid trial. A key issue in the case was their repeated attempts to block the deposition of a third-party witness with critical knowledge.
On the last possible day, opposing counsel withdrew their motion for summary judgment, admitting that their client had submitted incorrect information under penalty of perjury. This admission forced them to reevaluate their position and exposed strategic efforts to obstruct the discovery process.
How Stone & Sallus Helped:
Stone & Sallus represented the client throughout the dispute, strongly opposing the motion for summary judgment by identifying and emphasizing material facts that required resolution by the judge and jury. The firm also highlighted the importance of the blocked third-party deposition and brought the opposing party’s obstruction to the court’s attention.
Their persistent legal strategy and realistic guidance led to the withdrawal of the opposing motion and exposed the opposing party’s false declarations. By doing so, Stone & Sallus not only steered the case back on course but also eased the client’s concerns about the litigation process, positioning the case for a more favorable resolution.
