We’ve had a couple of inquiries since our last post on Riegel went up asking for the papers filed concerning the belated disclosure of the plaintiff’s death. We like to think of ourselves as a full-service blog, so here they are. The first thing filed was plaintiff’s suggestion of death and motion for substitution. The defendant thought it rather strange that Mr. Riegel could have died in December, 2004, and yet counsel would not have known about that until June, 2007, and said so in its response – which also pointed out that the the Supreme Court’s deadline for substitutions was mandatory. That brought a retort from the plaintiff arguing that the Supreme Court’s rule didn’t apply because Mr. Riegel had died before certiorari was sought. Plaintiff appears to argue that, because she had blown the deadline so badly (before even filing the petition), there was no deadline at all. There’s some other stuff in there, too, mostly about New York law on suggestions of death. That’s where things stand. We’ll have to see how the Supreme Court responds – especially to the plaintiff’s last argument.