Justice-Denied · Editorial cartoons
Cartoon 11 of 26
The Comprehensive Review
Satire. Dialogue is imagined; the underlying rulings and records are linked below.
Read cartoon text
Masthead: JUSTICE-DENIED | SATIRE
Title: THE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW
Panel 1 — THE REVIEW - DEC. 2021
Judge Miller sits behind a tall stack marked HUNDREDS OF PAGES. His order reads PLAINTIFFS’ ACCOUNT and LACKING IN CANDOR. Craig waits beside the bench with a MISSING TEXTS report.
Judge Miller: A comprehensive review.
Panel 2 — THE FINDINGS - DEC. 2022
The stack remains at the bench. A forensic technician presents a smartphone and an order headed LATER COURT FINDINGS, followed by SEAN DELETED TEXTS and SEAN LIED UNDER OATH. Craig points toward the earlier pile of reviewed papers while Miller looks at it.
Craig: Did you review the missing ones?
Footer:
SATIRE - IMAGINED SCENES AND DIALOGUE
Doc. 154, p. 15; Doc. 366, pp. 11-17. Sources in review guide.
Behind the cartoon
Craig and Marie asked the court to make the defendants provide more evidence. In his December 21, 2021 order, Judge Miller denied all three motions to compel, credited the defendants’ discovery conduct, and called the plaintiffs’ characterization of discovery ‘lacking in candor’ after reviewing hundreds of pages. The December 6, 2022 order later found that Sean lied under oath about deleting text messages. The cartoon places the earlier rebuke alongside that later finding and asks the reader to reconsider where the court directed its skepticism.
Underlying records
- December 21, 2021 discovery order — Doc. 154P. 15, paragraph 7(f)(ii), candor rebuke; pp. 14–18 give the discovery context. All three motions to compel were denied.
- December 6, 2022 order — Doc. 366P. 16: Sean lied under oath about deleting text messages. Pp. 11–12 recount the admitted earlier deletion; pp. 15–19 set out the forensic-expense award and the requested remedies the court declined.
- September 15, 2022 hearing — Doc. 278P. 4, lines 9–16: plaintiffs’ counsel expressly raises the earlier candor/good-faith assessments and subsequently exposed deletion. This is the hearing about the second deposition, rather than the deposition itself.
Sean’s deletions followed receipt of the complaint in 2020. The December 2021 candor rebuke preceded his false February 2022 deposition testimony and the December 2022 judicial finding. The later order required Sean to pay specified phone-examination costs and fees. It refused the requested inference that missing messages were unfavorable to the defendants. The panel dates identify the rebuke and later findings. Dialogue and visual metaphors are imagined satire.
More record detail
Stevenson v. Stevenson, 56-CV-20-2928. Doc. 154, December 21, 2021 discovery order, p. 15 ¶7(f)(ii), criticizes the plaintiffs’ characterization of discovery as “lacking in candor”; pp. 14–18 provide context, and the order denied all three motions to compel. Doc. 278, September 15, 2022 hearing transcript, p. 4 lines 9–16, records plaintiffs’ counsel raising the earlier candor/good-faith assessments and the exposed deletions. This was a hearing concerning a second deposition, not the deposition itself. Doc. 366, December 6, 2022 order, p. 16, finds Sean lied under oath about deleting text messages. Pp. 11–12 recount the earlier deletion; pp. 15–19 address the specified forensic-examination costs and fees and the requested remedies the court declined, including an adverse inference. The December 2021 rebuke preceded the false February 2022 testimony. The cartoons compare the earlier rebuke with the later findings.
