Power to the Plaintiff

This is a tricky problem.

We need to remember what courts are all about. They take someone who is accused of something, and if they decide it is appropriate to do so, then they take away possessions and/or restrict freedom. That is a serious thing to do, particularly since any old person can be accused, whether they did anything wrong or not.

Thus, there are good reasons why the U.S. justice system is all about protecting the defendant. And even if the defendant is a company for whom the situation is all in a day's work, the principles still apply.

So watch out for language like this:

> But plaintiffs — the party who did nothing wrong — do not enjoy comparable protections.

On the contrary, you do not have to do something wrong to be a defendant. And the plaintiff may very well have done something wrong: false accusations, evidence tampering, etc. This is why we have court cases, and not simply mandated payment when one is at fault.

But the article is right about one thing: there is a problem here.

I wonder a lot why this issue is not solved at the level of judges. Surely, after years as a judge, one can tell when a defendant is BS'ing or needlessly prolonging a case. It seems simple enough to say, "Do this or be found in comtempt." Why isn't that the solution to so many instances of this problem?