Sunday, March 6, 2016

Lol redundancies in legal documents are hilarious!

I was reading the government's new filing in the Apple case today, (the one where they asked a district court judge to renew the order that was just denied last week,) and I found this little piece of hilarity:
"In finding burdensomeness, the magistrate judge improperly looked beyond this case: to
the “at least 70 times” in the past where Apple has already complied with similar orders —
without once raising any claim of burden; the “dozen more” cases in which orders have
issued during the pendency of this matter — in which Apple has similarly made no claim of
burden; and to cases where the government has sought a different type of relief than the one
requested here (a type of relief that even Judge Orenstein admitted is “more burdensome” to
that sought here)."
First of all, "burdensomeness?" Is that like me saying "pro se-ness while trying to demonstrate PACER back in 2014? Lol, it actually seemed like someone forgot what they were writing, and made up a word or something. I haven't seen that anywhere that I know of. Burdensome is the adjective here, that I know of, it doesn't usually need "ness" put on top of it. I did look it up, and apparently it's a word that's actually used.
Secondly, if you're going to say "burdensomeness, you probably don't need to say "more burdensome" in the same paragraph, that just makes things redundant. What happened to "burdensomeness?" OK OK so it would probably sound strange if you used it that way, but a lot of the government's filings read a bit strange anyway. I even had to ask my mom, and she said that was "totally redundant."

No comments:

Post a Comment