Here’s the latest from Eaton v. Frisby. On September 6 Judge Weill entered an Opinion and Order Regarding a August 21, 2013 Special Master Report. Here is Judge Weill’s Order.

The order lists some interesting communications between Ed Peters, Michael Schaalman and Vic Leo:

On October 25, 2007, e-mails concerning the trial date were exchanged between Michael Schaalman, Ed Peters and Vic Leo. Schaalman told Peters that Eaton’s goal is to ‘keep the August 4 trial date’ and ‘to propose to the defendants [certain] changes to the scheduling order.’…This email was sent four (4) days prior to DeLaughter’s sua sponte removal of Jack Dunbar as Special Master….

Later on October 25, 2007, Schaalman e-mailed Vic Leo, presupposing an ‘August [trial] date,’ despite the language of the June 7th, 2007 Scheduling Order and stating ‘[i]f we act promptly Ed tells me that the court administrator would switch the August date for a September one.’ 

During November 1-2, 2007 Schaalman and Leo exchanged several e-mails concerning the trial date. Leo indicated that he wanted the judge to ‘just assign Sept. 18th’ without seeking Frisby’s agreement. Schaalman responded ‘I hope you mean August 18 and apparently he feels that he [DeLaughter] assigned the trial to August 4 over the protest of the defendants and is reluctant to move the date which he feels could draw further protest.’…

The Order also refers to litigation review meetings held between Leo, McGuire (General Counsel) and Cutler (CEO). The trial date–which Eaton was trying to have Ed Peters set on an ex parte basis with DeLaughter–was on the agenda at the meetings.

I don’t fully understand the importance of the trial date, but it was a big deal. I believe that its importance hinged on the then-pending criminal charges against the former Eaton employees. In any event, Leo knew Eaton was cheating in the litigation, which means Eaton knew it under basic principal-agent law.

Also on the docket is a motion for recusal that Eaton apparently filed on August 28.  This is at least Eaton’s third attempt to get Judge Weill off the case. Here is my post from the last time.

I haven’t seen the latest motion, but I assume it’s a “motion to recuse because we keep losing.” Expect this one to be denied as well.