S01.E05: Claws

[chitowngirl]

A big class-action case against the prison system hits close to home for Matty when its lead plaintiff, jailed on drug charges, relapses.

[AnimeMania]

Piper Curda as Kira Yu

Atul Singh as Judge Ryan Price

Yuli Zorrilla as Gabrielle Alvarez

Chet Grissom as Warden Kenneth Larson

Kerry Cahill as Warden Nicola Caruso

Lynn Adrianna Freedman as Sonia

Andra Nechita as Katya Novik

Lorenzo Callender as Correction Officer Cooper Russel

[Bastet]

I'll have to properly concentrate on this episode upon a P+ rewatch tomorrow, but:

I truly LOL at Matty telling her husband to "Stop talking!" when he went overboard with his story to the computer repair person.

And got a chuckle, due to the delivery, at "Well, it's easier than cutting off her finger".

I also enjoyed Olympia's giggle when she followed Julian's advice to delegate.  And Matty's husband teasing her about sleeping with various people as a Plan Whatever, and her response to one scenario being she's too tired.

Interesting that Matty's mom was indeed an addict, too, that wasn't just a lie.

Like we didn't see the fingerprint on the phone ruse and needed to have it explained via flashback.  This remains the very worst part of this series; I am willing to stop talking about legal inaccuracies because it gets too inside baseball, but I'll criticize this storytelling device every damn week.

I knew as soon as Billy set up the dating profile someone was going to recognize Matty.

At least we got less of the annoying-ass kid.  But, given their conversation, I fear we're be back to more of him next week.

[Chicago Redshirt]

I was mostly disappointed with this one because they went too cartoonish with the evil plot to discredit Katya and most of the rest of it.

Some of my issue with the COW stems from what a class-action lawsuit is. It's a vehicle for suing when there is some large number of plaintiffs that is hard to determine and there's efficiency to be gained by allowing a smaller group advance the larger group's interests. And also, where the injury to each of the people is roughly the same. A bunch of people contract illness from asbestos, so it would be inefficient to have thousands of individual asbestos cases brought. It's better to have a fund set up and the victims share in it.

Here, however many people were (presumably) harmed by the previous warden's reign of terror, it's a finite, relatively easily discernable group. They were acting like there were just Katya and the two other plaintiffs, both of whom wanted to back out if Katya didn't want to stay involved. Doesn't seem like much of a class. Also, whatever happened to each person in this supposed class could be wildly different in circumstances and effect. 

The premise of the episode was that there was a bad warden who was allowing the guards to do bad things of some sort (I don't think it was made explicit exactly what except that there was at least medical evidence of some of it) to the point that guards involved were apparently all terminated and a new warden issued a bunch of reforms. It makes no sense why the defendants would attempt to go to trial in this situation. Nor would the case revolve around a single witness or set of witnesses. In such a case there would be reams of evidence from the prison itself about the misconduct that was committed, and the guards and ex- warden would still get called as hostile witnesses.  

The episode is premised on Katya's relapse is a devastating blow because it opens a line of cross that she's a drug user and therefore unreliable/money-grubbing. But that cross does not seem to me to go very far because it is pretty easy to explain addicts gonna addict, and the fact that she took drugs now doesn't really impact her desire to get money, nor does it change that she went through what she went through and that there apparently was some level of documentary proof of it. Not to mention that there would be the prison's own investigation that led to the firing/forced resignation of the ex-warden and his guards.

There is no way that someone who bills at $1200/hour, as Olympia does, would ever consider using anyone associated with the prison she is suing as an expert witness. They presumably would have their pick of experts to use who would be independent of the prison. There'd be an obvious conflict with her present job. And nobody representing the prison would allow the new warden to even so much as talk to Team Olympia outside their presence, let alone work as an expert for the other side.

I don't need to belabor the point that it would be out-and-out insane for New!Warden to a) dream up a plot to discredit Katya that involves trying to trigger her into taking drugs so she would not testify and b) personally getting involved as a key part of that plot and c) executing that plot at a place where there would be video evidence of her plotting. There are so many potential points for such a plot to fail, and so many risks if she is caught.

But even supposing that the new warden was in her own way as bad as the old warden -- I don't think the episode established exactly what was done but he presumably turned a blind eye to the misconduct of his underlings in pursuit of order, whereas this warden was directly involved in witness tampering and conspiracy -- and even supposing the crazy-ass scheme was guaranteed to work, the kicker here is the given motivation doesn't make sense.

The prison's budget is the prison's budget. It's not substantially going to rise or fall with the success or failure of the prison in this lawsuit.

Olympia says the settlement was $2 million for each plaintiff. The suit started off as a class-action with at least three plaintiffs, possibly more, possibly more to be determined. Some of them talked about dropping out. Let's for ease of discussion say that the total settlement is $6 million.

It's not as though the prison settling for $6 million will result in services being taken away. And it's not as though if the act had succeeded in not causing a high settlement NewWarden would be able to say, well, now that we beat that lawsuit, let's increase funding to the do-gooder programs of my choice by six million. That's just not how government works, and as someone who runs a prison, NewWarden would have to know that.

I continue to feel lukewarm about the Great Opioid Deception (GOD). However, I thought it was strange. The subtext/text of the episode: working with Katya and her addiction was triggering for Maddy because it was a constant reminder of her daughter and her addiction. I was looking forward to some more development of who Daughter was. At this point, it feels like they have still not really said much about her. Like I think they quickly name-dropped her as Emily, they said she wanted to be a lawyer and liked OG Matlock the TV show, and she had Alfie. I think that's about all that they've established, but maybe I missed something.

I don't think the show has said anything about what she looked like, what happened with Alfie's dad (or even who she is), how she got started on drugs, etc. TPTB blew their chance to flesh her out into more of a 3D character and less of a distant motivation to unravel the GOD and make whichever Jacobson Moore person pay. All that I got was that Emily relapsed a bunch, and that apparently Matty and Husband had previously gone to a shooting gallery like they did in this one with food and Narcan.

I also thought this episode would have been an excellent platform for Kathy Bates to bring her best acting game but I think the writing wasn't up to snuff to allow her to.

To turn to a more positive note, I did enjoy getting introduced to the flirty IT employee, Olympia and Matty taking a step closer to being allies/friends. I do hope that they allow eventually Olympia/Billy/Sarah to do more in their own rights to contribute to the win. I get the show is Matlock, and she's the star and all that. But at some point Billy and Sarah should get to notice something that Matty doesn't or come up with a solution to a situation in their own right.

Edited November 8 by Chicago Redshirt

[Ellee]

I have to watch again.   Only came now to say how I got a big giggle when I saw Olympia and Julian grabbing a hot dog from a street vendor.  And, then Olympia’s reaction after she took a bite.  Holy Matlock!!!  😁😁😁

 

[Gregg247]

I liked the flashback at the end of this episode.  I knew Maddie was pulling a "double stunt" - i.e. playing matchmaker AND getting something from the IT lady, but I didn't figure out the fingerprint thing until the flashback (Sorry!).

I liked the case-of-the-week since it tied in nicely with Maddie and Bernard's (I don't know his character's name on this show, just his name on "Lost") multi-year problems with their drug-addicted daughter.  The scenes in the drug house and at their home afterward (as well as with the grandson) were the best part of the episode for me.

I'm glad they're making Olympia less of a cardboard villain/antagonist.  The show is better when interesting characters act and react like actual people. 

Also, those hotdogs looked delicious!

[possibilities]

The Olympia + Jason Ritter amicable divorce intrigues me. Them bonding over their kids making fart jokes, and how they discussed the housing change, was a rare example of adults behaving like adults even if they are not in love, and I appreciated that. I continue to want to know why they split up and what Jason Ritter's character did that made his own father say he took Olympia's side against his own son.

Edited November 8 by possibilities

[babyrambo]

I was hoping they’d keep the grandson away from the scheming for a more than one episode, but it makes sense that he’s already back in the fold, since they have no one else for tech support. Though Matty’s husband did try. He and Bates have great chemistry and are very believable as a couple that’s been together for decades. 

39 minutes ago, possibilities said:

The Olympia + Jason Ritter amicable divorce intrigues me.

Same. I’ve come around to them a lot since the pilot. Olympia lets down her guard when she’s around him and I really like that they sincerely respect and care for each other. Their recent scenes have been so genuine. 

All the supporting characters are finally finding their footing (yay for Sarah getting to literally let her hair down and have a life outside of work!) so the main cast works for me, even if the cases aren’t always super interesting. 

I do wonder why the show is so blue though. Matty, Olympia, and various side characters are always dressed in some shade of blue and even some of the offices and Matty’s home, are painted blue. I thought it might be a nod to the original (I’ve never seen it) but if not, then I guess the show runner just wanted a specific look for the series and liked the colour? I didn’t notice it until a friend pointed it out but now it really sticks out. 

[AnimeMania]

I really don't understand Matty's character, I thought she said that she missed the signs that her daughter was an drug addict, then they say that she was an addict for years and has been in and out of rehabs.

I don't get why Matty thinks that some law firm's decision could have saved her daughter, when lots of money and rehabs couldn't.

[Ellee]

Is anyone else beginning to think Mattie’s mission to prove the law firm responsible for her daughter’s death is actually more her need to come to the terms of her daughter’s death?  
 

I keep hearing Mattie say ‘Life is blurry.’  And in this episode that Katya is someone’s daughter.  

[Bastet]

4 hours ago, possibilities said:

The Olympia + Jason Ritter amicable divorce intrigues me. Them bonding over their kids making fart jokes, and how they discussed the housing change, was a rare example of adults behaving like adults even if they are not in love, and I appreciated that. I continue to want to know why they split up and what Jason Ritter's character did that made his own father say he took Olympia's side against his own son.

Yeah, I love their relationship, that for whatever reason - which we will presumably learn - they can no longer be spouses, but they're still a family and they still like and respect each other.  Co-parenting isn't something they're gritting their teeth and enduring for the sake of the kids, it's a commitment to continuing the family they created, just in a different form.  And they've reached a place where they can genuinely enjoy each other's company again. 

I laughed when he told her she needs to, and she cut him off, threatening him if he was about to say she needs to calm down, and he said he was married to her for 11 years, no way is he that stupid. 

[seacliffsal]

It's probably just me, but I'm kind of liking the 'suspects' in the law firm better than I like Maddy.  In the previouslies she stated that the guilty person could have shut down the drug companies 10 years prior which I think means 10 years prior to her daughter's death.  But, there's no guarantee her daughter would have stayed sober.  The other consideration (and this will probably be unpopular) is that if all the drug companies had been shut down-would they still have been able to produce other drugs that are essential for various illnesses, medical needs, etc.?  And, how does she know the missing documents would have led to convictions of various drug companies? 

Also, I read Reddit every once in a while and no way do I necessarily believe everything (or even some things) that I read there.  It seems like she heard/read something that allows her to put all responsibility she may feel and all the decisions her daughter made onto someone else (crooked lawyer) and thus resolve all issues related to her daughter's death.

[Nashville]

12 minutes ago, seacliffsal said:

Also, I read Reddit every once in a while and no way do I necessarily believe everything (or even some things) that I read there.  It seems like she heard/read something that allows her to put all responsibility she may feel and all the decisions her daughter made onto someone else (crooked lawyer) and thus resolve all issues related to her daughter's death.

This particular part of the plot line is one of the areas in which I’m finding it the most difficult to suspend my disbelief; two oldsters who are so techno-incompetent they can’t do much as manage email attachments are also Redditors savvy enough to parse out legitimate evidence of corporate misdeeds from the bottomless well of Reddit user comments???  Bullbleep.

The only way I can come up with to make this story line halfway believable and/or palatable is to assume Grandkid is supposed to be some kind of super-techno-savvy Wunderkind genius who stumbled across evidence of a coverup while cruising around subreddits, THEN found enough corroborating information to validate the claim before taking it to GMom and GPop - and I will guarandamntee ANY kid getting THAT deep into Reddit ain’t gonna be coming off like the innocent cherub Production seems determined to try to sell to us.

(Personally, I can’t stand the kid; every time I see him, I’m getting flashbacks to the kid from the old Gary Shandling Show.)

[Bastet]

3 minutes ago, Nashville said:

two oldsters who are so techno-incompetent they can’t do much as manage email attachments are also Redditors

It's the grandkid who came across the post on Reddit. 

[preeya]

3 hours ago, AnimeMania said:

I don't get why Matty thinks that some law firm's decision could have saved her daughter, when lots of money and rehabs couldn't.

I've also been wondering about this. I can't figure out how or what the suspects could have done or not done that would have saved the daughter. Actually, this is the only reason I've decided to stick with the show because the weekly antics of Mattie and the lawyers are underwhelming.

[shapeshifter]

3 minutes ago, preeya said:

I've also been wondering about this. I can't figure out how or what the suspects could have done or not done that would have saved the daughter. Actually, this is the only reason I've decided to stick with the show because the weekly antics of Mattie and the lawyers are underwhelming.

Likely there was a cover-up at the law firm that could have saved many lives, but if/when it is revealed, Mattie will acknowledge that it might not have saved her daughter if it hadn't happened.

Edited November 8 by shapeshifter

[eel2178]

1 hour ago, seacliffsal said:

 she stated that the guilty person could have shut down the drug companies 10 years prior which I think means 10 years prior to her daughter's death.  But, there's no guarantee her daughter would have stayed sober.  The other consideration (and this will probably be unpopular) is that if all the drug companies had been shut down-would they still have been able to produce other drugs that are essential for various illnesses, medical needs, etc.?

So far, they haven't shown us this side of the dilemma, and if they don't somewhere in the story, I'm going to be plenty ticked off.

Yes, her daughter may have chosen some other even less safe method of getting high.

Yes, big pharma makes the drugs, but does that really make them responsible for everyone who gets addicted?

Yes, shutting down a pharmaceutical company can interfere with non-addicts getting drugs that they need including opioids.

They seem to be on the high horse of "no one but patients with terminal illnesses should be allowed to have pain meds." As a chronic pain patient, I totally resent that. Not everyone with pain uses his meds irresponsibly. We should not be banned from getting relief from our pain just because of the people who have been irresponsible.

 

[MissLucas]

I think they did a really great job with Olympia those past couple of episodes. And I appreciate how much thought they put into the trauma Matty and her husband went through and are still struggling with. There's definitely guilt and self-recrimination bubbling underneath their crusade. 

Less serious: I loved the MI inspired musical grace note when Matty pulled out the phone with the print, lovely attention to detail.

[Morrigan2575]

18 hours ago, Bastet said:

I knew as soon as Billy set up the dating profile someone was going to recognize Matty.

Same

18 hours ago, Bastet said:

Like we didn't see the fingerprint on the phone ruse and needed to have it explained via flashback

I'll be honest,  I didn't catch that until the flashback

18 hours ago, Bastet said:

At least we got less of the annoying-ass kid.  But, given their conversation, I fear we're be back to more of him next week.

I was hoping Kiera would be the new tech support instead of Sarah's love interest but, it is what it is.

I enjoyed the case of the week, the character development and growing interactions/relationships; the weakest part remains the Opiod/daughter story. I want to think that Olympia and Junior weren't involved and that it was all Senior but, I can see them setting Junior up as the surprise bad guy, since he comes across as Mr Nice Guy.

[incandescent]

7 hours ago, babyrambo said:

I do wonder why the show is so blue though. Matty, Olympia, and various side characters are always dressed in some shade of blue and even some of the offices and Matty’s home, are painted blue. I thought it might be a nod to the original (I’ve never seen it) but if not, then I guess the show runner just wanted a specific look for the series and liked the colour? I didn’t notice it until a friend pointed it out but now it really sticks out. 

I think it's an attempt to make the setting look colder and more New York while the show is actually filmed in LA.

 

Sarah's (I learned the other associates' names!) hair looked amaaaaaazing in the second half of the show. I'm gonna go ahead and head-canon that it was because she was suddenly aware of potential girlfriends in the workplace.

[Dowel Jones]

I thought the scene where Matty is outed on the dating profile was the best part of the show.  "It was then that she knew she screwed up..."

You would think a high powered law firm such as this would employ 1 or more investigators for each case they draw in.  I get it that gathering evidence gives the actors face time, but still.

Long ago, there was a movie called A Civil Action, with John Travolta.  At a crucial point in his cross of somebody on the other side, he does what no trial lawyer should ever, never do; he asks the witness why..., and his case gets blown out of the water on the reply.  Olympia almost went down the same path with the prison warden.  She could have lost the entire case there.

[Chicago Redshirt]

3 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

I thought the scene where Matty is outed on the dating profile was the best part of the show.  "It was then that she knew she screwed up..."

You would think a high powered law firm such as this would employ 1 or more investigators for each case they draw in.  I get it that gathering evidence gives the actors face time, but still.

Long ago, there was a movie called A Civil Action, with John Travolta.  At a crucial point in his cross of somebody on the other side, he does what no trial lawyer should ever, never do; he asks the witness why..., and his case gets blown out of the water on the reply.  Olympia almost went down the same path with the prison warden.  She could have lost the entire case there.

I understand the reasoning behind generally not asking the witness a question that you don't how they will answer, because they can go in some unexpected direction.

But putting aside that this is TV and there's no way Warden would give an unsafe answer, I don't know if there is an unsafe way for Warden to answer, particularly after having pled the 5th Amendment.

Hypothetically, one you plead the Fifth to one thing, pretty much any related question you'd probably have to plead the Fifth to as well. So Warden should probably have pled the Fifth to the question about why someone might have committed the crime Olympia was accusing her of committing.

But let's say we live in the world where Warden doesn't want to give a true answer.

Her options for responding are essentially "I don't know," X reason, "they wouldn't" or similar. I'm not sure how any of those types of answers reverses the notion that Warden was captured on camera at Katya's nail salon having her nails worked on by Katya after denying that she had ever met her, and that a drug dealer then enticed her with drugs.

[andromeda331]

I'm really surprise the show isn't giving us the usual soon to be divorce couple at each other's throats at the same time it's really nice. 

I'm surprise Olympia was able to delgate. 

As soon as Katya mentioned a terrible customer I knew it was going to be important to the case. 

I love it that Billy ends up blowing Matty's cover. 

I didn't expect Sarah to looking at the IT woman the way I look at Ewan McGregor and Liam Nesson. It was unexpected and kind of funny, kind of cute.

Matty's husband started out well with the computer guy until he killed off his grandson's friend. Oh, that was bad. 

[shapeshifter]

4 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Matty's husband started out well with the computer guy until he killed off his grandson's friend. Oh, that was bad. 

Did I miss something?

[Daff]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

Did I miss something?

Computer game-one of the live action ones?

[peachmangosteen]

13 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I want to think that Olympia and Junior weren't involved and that it was all Senior but, I can see them setting Junior up as the surprise bad guy, since he comes across as Mr Nice Guy.

Yea, I've been kinda worried for a couple weeks that they may make Julian the bad guy. I hope not because he's starting to find his footing in this show.

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

Did I miss something?

When Matty's husband was talking to the computer guy in the opening, he ended up saying that his grandson had a friend that had suddenly died.

[preeya]

9 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Hypothetically, one you plead the Fifth to one thing, pretty much any related question you'd probably have to plead the Fifth to as well. So Warden should probably have pled the Fifth to the question about why someone might have committed the crime Olympia was accusing her of committing.

This is the first lesson fans learn in "TV Lawyering 101"

Actually, it's the 2nd. The first is "never ask a question you don't know the answer to."

Edited November 9 by preeya

[schnauzergirl]

I'm glad to see Edwin getting more involved rather than just greeting Maddy at home with "How are you, darling?"  And I continue to have a soft spot for Alfie and the young actor playing him.  Learning his craft with the best of them.  

[AheadofStraight]

Nothing new to add to the discussion other than I thought the tech support person's opening line of "So what dating apps are you on?" to be really bizarre. 

[possibilities]

24 minutes ago, AheadofStraight said:

Nothing new to add to the discussion other than I thought the tech support person's opening line of "So what dating apps are you on?" to be really bizarre. 

It works as a way to find out if she's single and looking, and also some apps don't allow same sex matches, so it's also a way to check iof she's a lesbian... though the way Sarah reacted to Kiera's presence pretty much took care of the second question.

[Nashville]

23 hours ago, Bastet said:

It's the grandkid who came across the post on Reddit. 

Yeah, that was kinda the point of the second half of my post you quoted - but it still takes us down yet another rabbit hole of disbelief suspension: namely, are we expected to believe two extremely well-off white collar retirees were 100% in on investing a significant amount of time and resources into concocting a wide-casting web of deception at the drop of a hat because… their grandkid read something on the internet…?

Must’ve been one HELL of a Reddit post, that.  😆

[Bastet]

13 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

As soon as Katya mentioned a terrible customer I knew it was going to be important to the case. 

When they made a point (because this show has never even heard of subtlety) of showing the new warden's two-handed handshake, I wondered what the significance was going to be.  I didn't think of it when they were just talking about a horrible customer, but once Matty was looking at footage of said horrible customer, I realized it was going to be the warden and Olympia would recognize her hand.

2 hours ago, AheadofStraight said:

I thought the tech support person's opening line of "So what dating apps are you on?" to be really bizarre. 

If it was out of the blue, I'd have found it bizarre, but she walked into a conversation about Sarah's dating app profile, so - especially at their ages - I don't think it's bizarre, even in a workplace, for her to ask which one (and then say no judgment, as she's on all of them).

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Bastet said:

When they made a point (because this show has never even heard of subtlety) of showing the new warden's two-handed handshake, I wondered what the significance was going to be.

I clocked the warden as the baddie immediately, and I'm sure many other viewers did too.

[Bastet]

30 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

I clocked the warden as the baddie immediately,

I did, too, just because she's a warden, and that she was claiming to be so much better, but then the shot of the handshake was so deliberate, I knew that, specifically, was going to be something that later got her caught -- but I couldn't see the birthmark (I was too far from the TV), so I couldn't figure out what was going to turn out to be significant about the handshake (she's not the only person to shake hands like that).  When they were watching the salon footage, I finally figured out there was something about her hand that Olympia would recognize.  I never actually saw the birthmark until the courtroom scene, when I was standing closer to the TV.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

I clocked the warden as the baddie immediately, and I'm sure many other viewers did too.

 

1 hour ago, Bastet said:

I did, too, just because she's a warden, and that she was claiming to be so much better

Same! I thought-she’s behind it all!

[seacliffsal]

I still don't get the Warden's motivation for arranging a drug dealer to entice Katya in order to undermine Katya's testimony.  Oh well.

[Bastet]

9 minutes ago, seacliffsal said:

I still don't get the Warden's motivation for arranging a drug dealer to entice Katya in order to undermine Katya's testimony.  Oh well.

Her explanation was that if she tanked the case, the money that would have been paid out to the victims would be there to instead fund rehabilitation programs and such.  Because, yeah, prisons are just famous for opting of their own free will to spend money on things that actually help those incarcerated.

[retired watcher]

This show is going downhill for me. I'm tired of the over arching story. I'd rater just concentrate on the main story of each week. Her two co workers are getting on  my nerves with their bickering. I'd say they had a thing for each other if she wasn't a lesbian. I like Maddie as an investigator.

[possibilities]

If the reddit post is real, not only is there someone at the firm who did whatever terrible thing they did, but there is also someone who knows about it and is a whistleblower type. I'm as interested in finding out who that is as I am in finding out who did the allegedly terrible thing.

But yes, the show is badly written.

[Percysowner]

On 11/8/2024 at 5:43 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

I was mostly disappointed with this one because they went too cartoonish with the evil plot to discredit Katya and most of the rest of it.

Some of my issue with the COW stems from what a class-action lawsuit is. It's a vehicle for suing when there is some large number of plaintiffs that is hard to determine and there's efficiency to be gained by allowing a smaller group advance the larger group's interests. And also, where the injury to each of the people is roughly the same. A bunch of people contract illness from asbestos, so it would be inefficient to have thousands of individual asbestos cases brought. It's better to have a fund set up and the victims share in it.

Here, however many people were (presumably) harmed by the previous warden's reign of terror, it's a finite, relatively easily discernable group. They were acting like there were just Katya and the two other plaintiffs, both of whom wanted to back out if Katya didn't want to stay involved. Doesn't seem like much of a class. Also, whatever happened to each person in this supposed class could be wildly different in circumstances and effect. 

The premise of the episode was that there was a bad warden who was allowing the guards to do bad things of some sort (I don't think it was made explicit exactly what except that there was at least medical evidence of some of it) to the point that guards involved were apparently all terminated and a new warden issued a bunch of reforms. It makes no sense why the defendants would attempt to go to trial in this situation. Nor would the case revolve around a single witness or set of witnesses. In such a case there would be reams of evidence from the prison itself about the misconduct that was committed, and the guards and ex- warden would still get called as hostile witnesses.  

The episode is premised on Katya's relapse is a devastating blow because it opens a line of cross that she's a drug user and therefore unreliable/money-grubbing. But that cross does not seem to me to go very far because it is pretty easy to explain addicts gonna addict, and the fact that she took drugs now doesn't really impact her desire to get money, nor does it change that she went through what she went through and that there apparently was some level of documentary proof of it. Not to mention that there would be the prison's own investigation that led to the firing/forced resignation of the ex-warden and his guards.

There is no way that someone who bills at $1200/hour, as Olympia does, would ever consider using anyone associated with the prison she is suing as an expert witness. They presumably would have their pick of experts to use who would be independent of the prison. There'd be an obvious conflict with her present job. And nobody representing the prison would allow the new warden to even so much as talk to Team Olympia outside their presence, let alone work as an expert for the other side.

I don't need to belabor the point that it would be out-and-out insane for New!Warden to a) dream up a plot to discredit Katya that involves trying to trigger her into taking drugs so she would not testify and b) personally getting involved as a key part of that plot and c) executing that plot at a place where there would be video evidence of her plotting. There are so many potential points for such a plot to fail, and so many risks if she is caught.

But even supposing that the new warden was in her own way as bad as the old warden -- I don't think the episode established exactly what was done but he presumably turned a blind eye to the misconduct of his underlings in pursuit of order, whereas this warden was directly involved in witness tampering and conspiracy -- and even supposing the crazy-ass scheme was guaranteed to work, the kicker here is the given motivation doesn't make sense.

The prison's budget is the prison's budget. It's not substantially going to rise or fall with the success or failure of the prison in this lawsuit.

Olympia says the settlement was $2 million for each plaintiff. The suit started off as a class-action with at least three plaintiffs, possibly more, possibly more to be determined. Some of them talked about dropping out. Let's for ease of discussion say that the total settlement is $6 million.

It's not as though the prison settling for $6 million will result in services being taken away. And it's not as though if the act had succeeded in not causing a high settlement NewWarden would be able to say, well, now that we beat that lawsuit, let's increase funding to the do-gooder programs of my choice by six million. That's just not how government works, and as someone who runs a prison, NewWarden would have to know that.

I continue to feel lukewarm about the Great Opioid Deception (GOD). However, I thought it was strange. The subtext/text of the episode: working with Katya and her addiction was triggering for Maddy because it was a constant reminder of her daughter and her addiction. I was looking forward to some more development of who Daughter was. At this point, it feels like they have still not really said much about her. Like I think they quickly name-dropped her as Emily, they said she wanted to be a lawyer and liked OG Matlock the TV show, and she had Alfie. I think that's about all that they've established, but maybe I missed something.

I don't think the show has said anything about what she looked like, what happened with Alfie's dad (or even who she is), how she got started on drugs, etc. TPTB blew their chance to flesh her out into more of a 3D character and less of a distant motivation to unravel the GOD and make whichever Jacobson Moore person pay. All that I got was that Emily relapsed a bunch, and that apparently Matty and Husband had previously gone to a shooting gallery like they did in this one with food and Narcan.

I also thought this episode would have been an excellent platform for Kathy Bates to bring her best acting game but I think the writing wasn't up to snuff to allow her to.

To turn to a more positive note, I did enjoy getting introduced to the flirty IT employee, Olympia and Matty taking a step closer to being allies/friends. I do hope that they allow eventually Olympia/Billy/Sarah to do more in their own rights to contribute to the win. I get the show is Matlock, and she's the star and all that. But at some point Billy and Sarah should get to notice something that Matty doesn't or come up with a solution to a situation in their own right.

Yes, the premise of this week's case was weak and you have pointed out all the holes in it. I'm pretty sure that the point as to show how their daughter's death has affected her parents and led to this obsession to find the "guilty" party who could have stopped the drug company from distributing the opioids. The show pretty much relied on the general public knowing certain catch phrases about legal matters so most viewers would nod and go along with the premise.

As to the daughter, I think the show is doing a pretty good job of fleshing out all the characters slowly. They are all getting edges or getting edges sanded down. We are learning about them the way most people learn about new coworkers, over time as you find out more about their lives. I do expect a good look into the daughter at some point, especially since we don't know anything about Alfie's father or why he isn't in the picture. There is a story to mine there and I trust that they are working to reveal it when it will be most effective.

I'm not sure Matty et al. think the drug company would have been shut down if evidence hadn't been buried, more likely that the FDA would have pulled the drug off the market and/or a big lawsuit against the drug company would have started 10 years earlier and the company would have stopped certain practices that made getting access to their drug so easy. I don't know that they are right in this belief, but losing a child can make you a little crazy and make someone obsess to find someone to blame and make pay. I'm not sure Matty is SUPPOSED to be the "good guy" protagonist in the show. She may well be intended to be the villain. Certainly enough viewers are questioning her actions that the writers may want us to see this as a shades of grey situation and Matty et al. being a lot darker grey than most series protagonists are.

[Bastet]

59 minutes ago, Percysowner said:

more likely that the FDA would have pulled the drug off the market

Yes, that's what she said -- someone at the firm hid documents (which presumably means the firm was defense counsel in a case against a pharmaceutical company) that "could" have resulted in opioids being taken off the market ten years earlier (which I guess means 10 years earlier than her daughter died).

As I've said before, there is so much tied up in that -- there are legitimate uses for opioids, they are made by more than one pharmaceutical company, could isn't would, etc. -- that the writers better have something solid waiting in the wings to plausibly, even for TV, explain what documents could have, if admitted in whatever this case was, resulted in an entire class of drugs being banned.

[Yeah No]

7 hours ago, Bastet said:

If it was out of the blue, I'd have found it bizarre, but she walked into a conversation about Sarah's dating app profile, so - especially at their ages - I don't think it's bizarre, even in a workplace, for her to ask which one (and then say no judgment, as she's on all of them).

I didn't find it bizarre but I did find it inappropriate in a workplace in the context in which it was said. I saw it as an obvious flirtation and at least where I've worked in the corporate world that would have been a definite no-no, especially as a first line out of the blue in front of other coworkers and especially in a legal department. 

[shapeshifter]

11 hours ago, possibilities said:

If the reddit post is real, not only is there someone at the firm who did whatever terrible thing they did, but there is also someone who knows about it and is a whistleblower type. I'm as interested in finding out who that is as I am in finding out who did the allegedly terrible thing.

But yes, the show is badly written.

Excellent points. 
Maybe the writers will redeem the plot when Mattie has a perhaps season-finale-fade-to-black conversation in which she angrily confronts The One Who Knew about the now-found documents and the erstwhile whistleblower simply replies: What took you so long? I leaked that information a year ago.

[Chicago Redshirt]

On 11/9/2024 at 7:17 PM, seacliffsal said:

I still don't get the Warden's motivation for arranging a drug dealer to entice Katya in order to undermine Katya's testimony.  Oh well.

She gave her motivation slightly disguised as expert testimony as to hypothetically why someone who is exactly in her position would have done the things Olympia is accusing her of.

Her answer was that the money that would the plaintiffs would win would be better spent on do-gooder stuff at the prison instead of on this junkie.

If you were more talking about how this given explanation doesn't make sense and is artificial, 100 percent agree.

No matter how strongly she might believe in trying to get better rehabilitative programing, it would be insane to a) risk criminal charges for it b) think that her plot would succeed in undermining the lawsuit c) think that if it did undermine the lawsuit that the "money saved" would be hers to use in support of whatever programs she might want.

It would have made it a much better story if there was just the one warden, if there had not already been a concession that the prison had abused its inmates, and they didn't try to make the face-heel turn happen.

On 11/9/2024 at 8:48 PM, retired watcher said:

This show is going downhill for me. I'm tired of the over arching story. I'd rater just concentrate on the main story of each week. Her two co workers are getting on  my nerves with their bickering. I'd say they had a thing for each other if she wasn't a lesbian.

Originally, I thought that they were setting up Billy and Sarah to be dating eventually, with a will-they-or-won't-they sort of tension where eventually her uptightness and competitive nature and his easygoing and mellow personality are a case of opposites attract. Or if either of them were gay, I thought that they were going to have Billy be that one.

But they put the kibosh on that by having Billy be in a committed relationship for 8 years and Sarah being a lesbian. However, it could be that the Billy-Claudia relationship eventually fails (that is a long time without proposing -- it seems like there's got to be more of a backstory there than I didn't have a male role model, no?). It could be that Sarah is bi and eventually they go for whatever their shipper name would be...Sally? Birah?

22 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I didn't find it bizarre but I did find it inappropriate in a workplace in the context in which it was said. I saw it as an obvious flirtation and at least where I've worked in the corporate world that would have been a definite no-no, especially as a first line out of the blue in front of other coworkers and especially in a legal department. 

I would guess that even in the most uptight corporate environment, some people still flirt and date. It's human nature. It's only a problem if the flirting is unwanted, which in this case it most definitely wasn't. It also probably would have to be more blatant and repeated to be a potential problem -- it's possible that IT woman would have asked about what dating apps Sarah was on not because she was looking to date her but because she was curious about dating apps in general, because she was looking for dating apps that were better to find hetero partners and wanted to get Sarah's input, because she wanted to commiserate about how much dating apps suck, or some other reason. 

In the world of Matlock, Olympia dated and married Julian. Although the relationship could have started before they were at the firm, it at least had a fair degree of overlap with her time there. And Olympia had been until recently dating Elijah, even if it's on the down low. So there is at least some leeway for office relationships at Jacobson Moore.

And we have to take things with a grain of salt as usual...I can't conceive of a work environment where anyone would think it a good idea to set up a dating profile for yourself or a coworker on company time and company computers. But Billy did that for Matty.

I do think that at some point Senior is going to hit on Matty thinking that she is single. 

On 11/9/2024 at 8:56 PM, possibilities said:

If the reddit post is real, not only is there someone at the firm who did whatever terrible thing they did, but there is also someone who knows about it and is a whistleblower type. I'm as interested in finding out who that is as I am in finding out who did the allegedly terrible thing.

But yes, the show is badly written.

Potential sources of the Reddit post could include:

1. A whistleblower at the firm, like you suggested. But if it's someone at the firm with actual knowledge of the misconduct or the ability to get proof, posting on Reddit seems like a poor method of whistleblowing.

2. Someone at the opposing firm who suspects Jacobson Moore of having pulled some shady stuff to beat them back in the day. This makes more sense to me as they would not have access to potential proof and might vent about the loss on the Internet as a result.

3. Someone at the client company Jacobson Moore was defending. They would be in a position to know what incriminating documents there were, what was shared with the firm and what the firm did to suppress them. They'd also potentially be willing to shift blame to the lawyers rather than the pharmaceutical company that knew how addictive things were.

4. Some random person who has followed enough opioid litigation to know that Jacobson Moore handled the ground zero litigation that defended 

[Yeah No]

41 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I would guess that even in the most uptight corporate environment, some people still flirt and date. It's human nature. It's only a problem if the flirting is unwanted, which in this case it most definitely wasn't. 

Yeah but that's why sexual harassment training advises not to flirt precisely because you don't know whether or not it's going to be wanted. And it's especially taboo to do it in front of other people in the workplace. These days people wait until they're pretty damned sure they're going to be well received before taking that chance because even a seemingly harmless flirtation can make someone feel uncomfortable. Walking up to a stranger with a comment like that at work is seen as risky so people wait until they know the person better before they make their intentions known, and even then they do it very carefully, and preferably somewhere other than at work if possible. And law firms and corporate offices are generally pretty uptight places. I worked in them for over 30 years.

[peachmangosteen]

I just don't really see how 'What dating apps are you on?' as a follow up to hearing a group of people discussing dating apps is like an overwhelmingly obvious flirtation tbh. We know it was here but only because we already know that this new person will be Sarah's love interest.

[AnimeMania]

I thought the whole dating app comment was so that she could get on that app and select Sarah for a match. This is a way to ask Sarah out without any pressure or impropriety and not asking in the law office where whatever exchanges is already a matter for HR. Since everything would happen off the premises of the law office, probably using equipment not owned by the law office, HR need not be informed or involved until they are formally dating.

[shapeshifter]

8 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

I just don't really see how 'What dating apps are you on?' as a follow up to hearing a group of people discussing dating apps is like an overwhelmingly obvious flirtation tbh. We know it was here but only because we already know that this new person will be Sarah's love interest.

And we know the dating app was just a plot device/anvil to shoehorn Mattie's being found out on social media, which I thought was way too clunky writing, but I guess it worked, creating DRAMA.
I didn't notice. Did the background music go: Dun dun da Dun?

Edited November 11 by shapeshifter
too not to

[Chicago Redshirt]

36 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

I just don't really see how 'What dating apps are you on?' as a follow up to hearing a group of people discussing dating apps is like an overwhelmingly obvious flirtation tbh. We know it was here but only because we already know that this new person will be Sarah's love interest.

Paired with body language, tone of voice and other context, anything can be an obvious flirtation.

There's a certain amount that the show made it even more obvious to us viewers that IT Woman was flirting.

But I think IT woman took it from possibly ambiguous to pretty clear flirting when she then talked about how she's on all of them. 

[AheadofStraight]

On 11/9/2024 at 4:18 PM, Bastet said:

If it was out of the blue, I'd have found it bizarre, but she walked into a conversation about Sarah's dating app profile, so - especially at their ages - I don't think it's bizarre, even in a workplace, for her to ask which one (and then say no judgment, as she's on all of them).

OK, clearly I was not paying attention for a moment (very likely my dog was in my face lol)  because I do not remember that she overheard anything about dating apps. Makes more sense now.