can someone explain a bit the reasonning behind banning opposing lawyers from the defendant's venue?
I feel like it's to reduce "on the ground" discoveries in civil cases, but I don't understand why, as far as I know those are neither forbidden nor unethical, there is a later opportunity to debate whether those discoveries gets introduced as evidence in the case.
There isn't any information they could discover. The lawsuit is not against MSG the venue, but against a restaurant somewhere else that happens to be owned by the same umbrella corporation.
I feel like it's to reduce "on the ground" discoveries in civil cases, but I don't understand why, as far as I know those are neither forbidden nor unethical, there is a later opportunity to debate whether those discoveries gets introduced as evidence in the case.