USA Waste of California, Inc. vs. City of Irwindale - We believe attorney Stuart Price from the Bryan Cave law firm is the attorney for the defendant in this matter. The court's tentative ruling refers to counsel Stuart Price. The Los Angeles online case summary for this matter lists attorney Stuart W. Price. A State Bar search shows Stuart Winston Price with Bryan Cave LLP.

From the tentative ruling this is what happened:

Attorney Stuart Price represents a defendant.

Plaintiff sent Mr. Price's client a request for production of documents.

The response from attorney Stuart Price's office included objections and that any responsive documents would be provided upon agreement to a protective order.

Get this ....

Per the judge - plaintiff's counsel then sent a letter to Mr. Price advising him a protective order was already in place. He sent him a copy.

Note: Maybe there is a good explanation for this, but it sure appears that Stuart Price, Esq., was not familiar with the orders in his case.

When documents were produced many were redacted and there was no privilege log.

In arguing the motion the firm first argued documents were produced as they were kept in the course of their client's business. However, defense counsel also stated documents were "filtered" by the attorneys. The judge said the two representations appear to contradict each other and wanted an explanation from the attorneys.

In other words: Price's firm needs to explain itself to show why it did not lie to the court.

Then, attorney Stuart Price's firm argued it did not providge a privilege log because plaintiff had not when plaintiff answered discovery.

The judge politely said this argument is "not well-taken" and said during a prior hearing it was represented plaintiff had not withheld any documents due to privilege and thus had no log to prepare.

With respect to discovery, Price's office said it would make "additional records" available. In other words, all documents had not been provided.

As to objections, the judge said defendant had not shown its objections were valid.

The judge then pounded defendant and its attorney (listed in the records as Stuart Price / Bryan Cave) with an intended $2210 in sanctions. A huge amount.

To recap, this is what we see the judge noted about Stuart Price and his firm:

- Stuart Price was not familiar with an order in the case.

- The attorneys needed to explain themselves for making apparent contradictory representations to the judge.

- A misrepresetation was made relating to plaintiff not providing a privilege log.

- All documents had not been produced.

- Objections to providing other documents were not valid.

Would you hire Stuart W. Price to be your attorney?

We have concerns, especially given the billing rate the Bryan Cave firm likely requests.

It appears from the judge's comments attorney Price was not prepared or familiar with the orders in the case. The judge seemingly believed something untruthful was being misrepresented by his firm and at another point called out an incorrect assertion about the other side.

In our opinion this is worse than simply losing an argument about objections to discovery. It goes to the competence of a law firm and its attorney actions and the value received by a client for expensive legal fees.

There is another attorney lised in the tentative ruling, whom we believe is Mr. Price's associate. It is hard to discern from the ruling what actions may belong to her, but ultimately, we believe, the responsible attorney for overseeing the legal work is Stuart Price.

was admitted to the California Bar in 1986. Bar Number 125918.

Bryan Cave Limited Liability Partnership
3161 Michelson Drive Suite 1500
Irvine, California 92612

Law School: University of California Los Angeles