Some guy named Jim Eddy wrote a great letter to the editor yesterday in response to John Straka's letter to the editor. One has to wonder why Straka cares so much about helping Tim Spradlin. He even has magnetic signs all over his pick-up demanding that the PUD "Pay Spradlin" and "Fire Rick Lovely."

Can't trust anything that yahoo writes!

Of the four candidates for PUD Commissioner, only Al Smith supports the PUD's decision to appeal the Spradlin verdict. The other three seem to think that the "public" is on Spradlin's side, and that it will get them votes to side with him. We will see. Most people I have talked to do not side with Spradlin, but maybe it's because the people I know are a little more aware of the facts of the case and realize that Judge McCauley's pretrial order basically gutted the PUD's case.

When a candidate states "I believe in the judcial system and would accept the jury's verdict" I have to laugh. The appellate courts are part of the judicial system. Trial judges make mistakes -- all the time -- that's why we have appeals.

"...Judge McCauley's pretrial order basically gutted the PUD's case."


Do you happen to agree with the judge's pretrial order, or if you disagree with it, why do you think his order is in error?

I'll let the Court of Appeals decide whether he was in error. That's why it exists. All I will say is that I have read some of the pretrial pleadings and briefs in the case and the pretrial order does not make a lot of sense to me. My guess is that the PUD and its lawyers believe that it was in error, or the PUD would not be spending time and money on the appeal.

I take it from your response that even having read some of the pretrial pleadings and briefs in the case, that deciding whether the pretrial order is in fact an error is difficult. If it's that difficult to determine, I surely hope the PUD and their lawyers have a high degree of certainty that an error did occur.

"A high degree of certainty"? What would that be, anyway? 100%? 90%? 50%?

I happen to know there was a high degree of certainty that the origional case was pretty good. No one, except Parker perhaps, expected the pre trial ruling. If the Commissioners or Manager should only do or fight or disagree with issues they have 100% (again, how high degree of certainty is appropriate?), then not much will get done.

I heard a caller on the radio this morning during Al Smith's interview: "Well, I think those commissioners are representing the PUD, not the public!" I did a spit-take.

I certainly would not take it to appeal without a better than 50/50 chance of winning. So what degree of certainty do you think they should have before pursuing the case further? For sure they must have more than a hope and a prayer.

I think that's fair. I think they have a better than 50/50 chance. But, they MAY lose. That doesn't mean it was wrong. Standing up to injustice, even when it is only screwing the ratepayers is always a good thing.

But, there is also the opportunity for settlement. By paying the whole shibang, the opportunity for settlement would be lost. Sometimes an appeal is an opportunity to continue talking.

No one, except Parker perhaps, expected the pre trial ruling.

A key point.

The PUD's attorneys should have expected that some sort of estoppel argument would be presented at trial by Spradlin's attorney--whether in the form of a motion, as did occur, or in the jury instructions, as probably also occurred. Yet, it seems, the PUD attorneys were caught with their pants down.

I am regularly in the position of reviewing a case in progress, or just tried, to consider taking over, or doing the appeal. There is always more to the story than the prospective client tells you. And there is always more to a story than might be properly covered in the local media. But what I have heard of what happened in this case does make sense to me as a trial lawyer.

While I have not reviewed the case file, and I would expect to find more of an untold story after having done so, I certainly don't consider a pretrial legal ruling applying the law of estoppel to limit the facts presented to be unexpected or out of line.