3 ms·

There is a similar story about an office worker not knowing what a photocopy machine is. The New York Times did an amazing reenactment from transcripts of the

There is a similar story about an office worker not knowing what a photocopy machine is. The New York Times did an amazing reenactment from transcripts of the legal deposition https://youtu.be/PZbqAMEwtOE https://youtu.be/PZbqAMEwtOE

mtlynch 5y ago
I loved that scene. It features the fantastic but tragically underused John Ennis, most famous for his work on Mr. Show. I remember when it came out, I felt like the Verbatim series was really well done, but it was surprising coming from the NY Times since it was so outside their wheelhouse. It seems like they abandoned it pretty quickly but I wish someone more like Funny or Die would pick up the idea.
js2 5y ago
Here's the fuller story: The Cuyahoga's Recorder's Office charged $2 per page... even when it was simply a CD full of documents. That literally meant they were charging over $200,000 for a single CD of publicly available documents. The companies that needed these documents were understandably frustrated. That's why they sued. The recorder's office spent $55,000 of taxpayer's money defending themselves... and they lost. The person refusing to acknowledge what a photocopier is, was Lawrence Patterson. He was head of information technology for the recorder's office, and even after the loss of the case was still working for the county on a salary of $65,000(!). The lawyer questioning him was David Marburger. He pointed out afterwards that if the recorder's office had just accepted the more reasonable sum of $50 per CD, which the companies suing the recorder's office had offered, they would have made $25,000 -- instead they lost $55,000. Marburger has said of the video that the emotions were all wrong: "I actually wanted [Patterson] to keep up what I perceived as a charade. Once he chose the path that he took, I didn't want a straight answer; I wanted him to keep it going. That was why I kept pushing over the course of 10 pages of transcript. To me, the testimony became too good to be true. It was perfect." He also said that Patterson wasn't the slightest bit intimidated in real life. Marburger used the absurd testimony to win the case, and the court unanimously agreed that they only charge $1 per CD moving forward. -- thunderpeel2001
- Lochleg 5y ago
  I knew exactly what "jargon" the IT worker was going to use, and I've never worked in an office like that. Of course, I assumed he was being pedantic at first. If a lawyer only needs to find a government office worker that has lost his mind to win a case, it's just not fair.
kcplate 5y ago
I worked in a place that had two very different machines with two very different functions that used the same colloquial name “Photocopy Machine” and “Photo Copy Machine”. I have to say, I would have been obstinate about which was being referred to in that case if disposed.
- wodenokoto 5y ago
  Oh come on. If you were any bit cooperative you’d say “yes” or “yes, we have two machine we call photo copy machines, but we use them for different things”
  - kcplate 5y ago
    That’s volunteering additional information and you should not do that in a legal proceeding, deposition or in court.

mtlynch 5y ago

I loved that scene. It features the fantastic but tragically underused John Ennis, most famous for his work on Mr. Show. I remember when it came out, I felt like the Verbatim series was really well done, but it was surprising coming from the NY Times since it was so outside their wheelhouse. It seems like they abandoned it pretty quickly but I wish someone more like Funny or Die would pick up the idea.

js2 5y ago

Here's the fuller story: The Cuyahoga's Recorder's Office charged $2 per page... even when it was simply a CD full of documents. That literally meant they were charging over $200,000 for a single CD of publicly available documents. The companies that needed these documents were understandably frustrated. That's why they sued. The recorder's office spent $55,000 of taxpayer's money defending themselves... and they lost. The person refusing to acknowledge what a photocopier is, was Lawrence Patterson. He was head of information technology for the recorder's office, and even after the loss of the case was still working for the county on a salary of $65,000(!). The lawyer questioning him was David Marburger. He pointed out afterwards that if the recorder's office had just accepted the more reasonable sum of $50 per CD, which the companies suing the recorder's office had offered, they would have made $25,000 -- instead they lost $55,000. Marburger has said of the video that the emotions were all wrong: "I actually wanted [Patterson] to keep up what I perceived as a charade. Once he chose the path that he took, I didn't want a straight answer; I wanted him to keep it going. That was why I kept pushing over the course of 10 pages of transcript. To me, the testimony became too good to be true. It was perfect." He also said that Patterson wasn't the slightest bit intimidated in real life. Marburger used the absurd testimony to win the case, and the court unanimously agreed that they only charge $1 per CD moving forward. -- thunderpeel2001

Lochleg 5y ago
I knew exactly what "jargon" the IT worker was going to use, and I've never worked in an office like that. Of course, I assumed he was being pedantic at first. If a lawyer only needs to find a government office worker that has lost his mind to win a case, it's just not fair.

kcplate 5y ago

I worked in a place that had two very different machines with two very different functions that used the same colloquial name “Photocopy Machine” and “Photo Copy Machine”. I have to say, I would have been obstinate about which was being referred to in that case if disposed.

wodenokoto 5y ago
Oh come on. If you were any bit cooperative you’d say “yes” or “yes, we have two machine we call photo copy machines, but we use them for different things”
- kcplate 5y ago
  That’s volunteering additional information and you should not do that in a legal proceeding, deposition or in court.