The discovery requests were comprehensive. Fifty-three items spanning internal communications, financial records, safety inspection reports, executive testimony. Everything needed to prove Hessington Oil knew about the safety violations and chose profits over protection.
I filed them Monday morning. Harvey filed a protective order motion by Tuesday afternoon.
The ergency hearing was scheduled for Thursday. Judge Morrison's courtroom, sa judge who'd ruled in my favor during the TechVista patent case. She rembered —small advantage in a battle where every edge mattered.
Harvey arrived with an associate I didn't recognize, both carrying briefcases that suggested extensive preparation. I had Rachel helping with research, Zane observing from the gallery, my own case file organized to the page.
"Mr. Specter, your motion," Judge Morrison said without preamble.
Harvey stood, confident as always. "Your Honor, plaintiff's discovery requests are overbroad, burdenso, and designed to interfere with my client's ongoing criminal defense. The requests seek communications that would expose our defense strategy, violate attorney-client privilege, and prejudice Ms. Hessington's Fifth Andnt rights. We request protective order limiting discovery to materials directly relevant to the civil negligence claim."
"Mr. Roden, response?"
I stood, keeping my tone asured. "Your Honor, the criminal and civil cases involve completely different legal elents. Criminal prosecution requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that Ms. Hessington ordered murders. Our civil case requires proof by preponderance that Hessington Oil's negligence caused worker deaths. Different standards, different evidence, different theories. We're not seeking Mr. Specter's criminal defense strategy—we're seeking evidence of corporate safety violations that killed six workers."
"The cases overlap," Harvey interjected. "Evidence from civil discovery will inevitably inform the criminal prosecution."
"That's not my problem," I countered. "Ms. Hessington chose to defend both cases while they're pending simultaneously. Any strategic complications from that decision are hers, not ours. Our clients deserve access to evidence proving their family mbers died due to corporate negligence."
Judge Morrison flipped through the discovery requests. "Mr. Specter, specifically which requests do you believe are overbroad?"
"Items twelve through twenty-seven seek internal communications between executives discussing budget allocation. That could reveal privileged strategic discussions—"
"About safety equipnt repairs," I interrupted. "Not about criminal defense. These are business records showing managent chose cost-cutting over worker protection. Standard civil discovery."
[ **Argunt Crusher: Real-Ti Analysis** ]
Harvey's Weakness: Conflating criminal and civil standards His argunt assus evidence overlap creates privilege Counter: Different legal elents an different discovery rights Judge's Likely Ruling: Narrow protective order at most, full discovery more likely
The hearing lasted forty minutes. Harvey argued privilege, strategic prejudice, constitutional protections. I countered with tailored relevance, separate proceedings, clients' rights to evidence.
Judge Morrison took ten minutes to deliberate, then ruled from the bench.
"Mr. Specter, I understand your concerns about the criminal case. However, Mr. Roden is correct that civil and criminal proceedings have different evidentiary standards and different discovery rights. His requests are appropriately tailored to the civil negligence claim. Motion for protective order is denied. Discovery shall proceed as requested, with standard protections for privileged attorney-client communications. Nothing more."
Victory. Complete, unqualified victory.
Harvey's jaw tightened slightly—the only visible reaction—before he gathered his materials and left.
Outside the courtroom, he caught up to in the hallway. No associate present now, just the two of us and the tension that had existed since Arc 1.
"You know what you're doing," Harvey said quietly. "Using the civil case to undermine the criminal defense. Making my job harder."
"I'm building my clients' case. If that creates problems for yours, that's not my concern."
"Six families lost loved ones. You're using their grief as a weapon against my client."
That stopped . I turned to face him fully.
"Your client's negligence killed those six people. Her company cut corners, ignored warnings, prioritized profits over safety. Those workers died because Hessington Oil made choices—deliberate, docunted choices—that Miguel ndez and his colleagues complained about for months. Don't lecture about grief when you're defending the person responsible."
Harvey's expression was hard to read. Anger, certainly. But sothing else underneath—recognition, maybe, that I believed what I was saying.
"You've changed," he said finally. "Used to be all calculation, all strategy. Now you actually care. That makes you more dangerous."
"Or it makes a better lawyer."
"Sa thing."
He walked away. I stood in the empty hallway processing the exchange. Harvey thought I was being ruthless. Using victim families strategically to advance case objectives while harming his defense.
Was he right?
My phone rang. Donna.
"Heard about the discovery fight. You okay?"
"Harvey thinks I'm being ruthless. Using the families' grief as weapon."
"Are you?"
I thought about Maria ndez's face during the video call, about the surviving workers' testimony, about six n who'd died because managent chose quarterly profits over equipnt repairs.
"I don't think so. I genuinely want justice for them. But I'm also using their case to build strong discovery record that happens to hurt Harvey's criminal defense."
"Intent matters. If your primary goal is serving your clients, and tactical benefit exists secondarily, that's effective advocacy. If your primary goal is hurting Harvey and clients are justification, that's ruthless." She paused. "Which is it?"
"The first one. I hope."
"Then Harvey's wrong. You're not being ruthless—you're being effective. There's a difference."
After we hung up, I walked back to the office thinking about that distinction. Effective versus ruthless. Both achieved similar results, but motivations differed fundantally.
I wanted the families to win because they deserved justice. The fact that achieving that justice undermined Harvey's defense was collateral consequence, not primary goal.
That distinction mattered.
At least to .
MORE POWER STONES And REVIEWS== MORE CHAPTERS
To supporting in Pateron .
with exclusive access to more chapters (based on tiers more chapters for each tiers) on my Patreon, you get more chapters if you ask for more (in few days), plus new fanfic every week! Your support starting at just $6/month helps keep crafting the stories you love across epic universes like [ In The Witcher With Avatar Powers,In The Vikings With Deja Vu System,Stranger Things Demogorgon Tar ...].
By joining, you're not just getting more chapters—you're helping bring new worlds, twists, and adventures to life. Every pledge makes a huge difference!
👉 Join now at patreon/TheFinex5 and start reading today!
User Comments
0 comments from readers