Home
An Application for a Restraining Order is an odd cookie. Initially, a "Temporary Restraining Order" is issued on the presumption that the person who needs to be restrained may seriously be an immediate danger to others. However, in our system of justice, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Odd contradiction here. Still, things are how they are.
The judge in this case may be convinced that the "Applicant" has failed to prove their case. If that is true then the judge needs not hear Bob's "defense". The Applicant for the restraining order has failed to show that Bob is "guilty". Considering the concept of the presumption of innocence, the judge needs go no further.
Real life story - I once had a court date - I don't remember the details - but in being questioned by the judge I gave an obvious, truthful answer to what he'd asked me. But then I began to explain why else I wasn't guilty (of speeding, or something like that). The judge stopped me, and sternly said: "That's enough! If you keep talking you may say something that causes me change my mind. Not Guilty. Case dismissed! You may leave." My point? Sometimes the judge knows that they don't need to hear 3,4 or 5 more days of testimony - because the party is clearly not guilty.
For a little more perspective, in many/most cases looking into placing a restraining order on someone, the evidence against the individual is probably much more valid and has a better foundation. The party who may need to be restrained then must be granted enough time to refute the claims (and/or evidence) that he/she is a danger to others. In that type of case, the potentially restrained (perhaps for a couple years time) party may actually get MORE time for their defense than the applicant for the order gets.
As things stand, there's no way to be sure of the outcome. But, what happened yesterday in Court may be indicative of a GOOD outcome for Bob.
If the judge could participate here she may be posting the following:
"Bob, stop complaining about not being able to defend yourself
. The other side hasn't succeeded in making their case!" 
bobk wrote:brianscharp wrote:bobk wrote:Final arguments are scheduled for 2pm on February 24th, 2015.
Why the long breaks between sessions? Is that typical?
I don't know if it's typical. The judge usually proposed a date and then the two lawyers would say "I can't make that date, how about this date...". So they all negotiated until they found a date that was open to everyone. Of course more distant dates tended to be more open on people's calendars, so I think that's what took so long.
But your point is very good. Robin's lawyer was bringing the case, and I don't know if they provided the judge with an accurate estimate of the time that needed to be allocated for their case. It's been 3 months that I've been unable to fly at Torrey Pines with nothing more than their assertion that I present a threat of "workplace violence".
Robin's side took almost 5 days to present their case, and we got 1 hour. They could present a few witness, and then think about it for a week or so, and then present some more witnesses, and then think about it a little longer for another week or so. They were able to do that across 5 court appearances. We got one hour immediately after they rested. They had witnesses that couldn't appear on certain dates, but they dragged it out and were able to get their testimony eventually. We had 5 days of asking our witnesses to take time off from work, drive to the courthouse, pay for parking, and then not get to testify. We didn't have the luxury of scheduling our trial around our witnesses schedules. As it turns out, two very important witnesses - who had been there on several other days - weren't able to be there this last day.
I should point out that it's hard to say what all of that means. It's possible that the judge recognized that Robin had no justification for requesting the workplace violence restraining order, and she didn't want to waste the court's time by giving us equal time. But other things are possible as well. So we'll have to see how it ends before we know what's really going on. The judge has said that she would issue a written ruling, so it's possible that this may become a precedent-setting case.
