Image by Ignis [Ad.G] via Flickr
Small wonder that litigation is such an expensive proposition, these days, as lawyers will wrangle over anything for hours. Case example A: an exchange between a lawyer in a public-records case in front of the Ohio Supreme Court.
The case is about “whether deeds and other records at the county recorder’s office — records that were collected and are maintained with your taxes — should be readily available at reasonable cost.”
Plaintiffs’ lawyer: During your tenure in the computer department at the Recorder’s office, has the Recorder’s office had photocopying machines?
Deponent’s Lawyer: Objection.
PL: Any photocopying machine?
Deponent: When you say “photocopying machine,” what do you mean?
PL: Let me be — let me make sure I understand your question. You don’t have an understanding of what a photocopying machine is?
D: No. I want to make sure that I answer your question correctly.
. . .
D: When you say “photocopying machine,” what do you mean?
PL: Let me be clear. The term “photocopying machine” is so ambiguous that you can’t picture in your mind what a photocopying machine is in an office setting?
This exchange goes on for a full ten pages of transcript. At least they weren't attempting to determine what the meaning of the word, "is", is.