decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Yarro et al Subpoena Everyone They Can Think Of (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al)
Sunday, February 20 2005 @ 10:05 PM EST

Well, this is interesting. The plaintiffs in the Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al litigation have served a Subpoena to Produce Documents on the following:

Parsons, Behle & Latimer
Morgan Stanley
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
William L. Prater, Esq.
KPMG, LLP
Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy

The affidavit of service on Morgan Stanley breaks off in mid-word, but presumably it was good service. They are the same, as far as what they want produced:

1. Any and all time records and invoices from January 1, 1998 to the present relating to work performed for and on behalf of The Canopy Group, Inc. ("Canopy"), Raymond J. Noorda, Lewena Noorda, the Noorda Family Trust, Ralph Yarro, Darcy Mott, Brent Christensen, Val Noorda Kreidel, Terry Peterson and/or William Mustard relating in any respect to Canopy.

2. Any and all documents and/or agreements from January 1, 1998 to the present (including, without limitation, finalized agreements, drafts of agreements, revisions of agreements, redline versions of agreements/documents, business documents, notes, correspondence, communications and evidences of communications, electronic documents, email, recordings, spreadsheets, or calendars), whether on hard copy or electronic format relating in any respect to Canopy compensation plans, distributions, bonuses or compensation of any kind paid by Canopy, as well as Canopy's ownership, recapitalization of Canopy, Canopy's valuation, Canopy's stock or stock options, Canopy's Board, and/or Canopy loans.

They also subpoenaed University of Utah Internal Medicine, but from them they want Ray Noorda's medical records. And they wanted to depose Zane Cope on February 18, last Friday, but I don't know if it actually happened on that date or not. Sometimes the lawyers get together and work out a different schedule, as you saw in the SCO v. IBM case. It may take a while for some of the PDFs to make it on to the server so you can download them, but keep trying.

No moss growing on these plaintiffs, for sure. But stop and think. Why do they need to send this flurry of subpoenas? Because they were tossed out on their ears, the judge wouldn't undo it for the moment, and they don't have access to the Canopy computers or records any more. So that is what this is about, trying to get the documents and records they need to pursue and prove their claims.

The medical records they want are the following:

"all medical records, including correspondence, notes, investigation, evaluations, charts, prescriptions, x-rays, photographs, reports, billing statements, or any other documents you may have in your possession pertaining to Raymond J. Noorda; and

"all psychiatric, psychotherapy, psychological, mental health counseling, alcohol and drug rehabilitation treatment and/or counseling notes or records, treatment summaries, intake records, discharge reports, daily treatment records, office charts, nurses' notes, correspondence and handwritten notes pertaining to Raymond J. Noorda."

Did you know such things could be requested in a legal battle? Well, they can. Of course, the party subpoenaed can move to quash a subpoena or narrow it. But you ask for everything, and let the other side whittle it down, if they can. It's a crying shame, but there is no mercy in litigation, at least none I've noticed in Utah. And Mr. Noorda's medical health condition is at issue, so the poor thing may be exposed to the world, all his private things, the nurses' notes, everything. The judge has already said that discovery is appropriate on that issue. All the things Mr. Noorda never dreamed would be a headline, the kinds of things you only tell those nearest and dearest to you.

Frankly, sometimes I hope he is so far gone he hasn't a clue what is being done to him. By all accounts, he viewed Mr. Yarro as a trusted employee, at least, and by Mr. Yarro's account, like a friend or a protege. This certainly violates everything a friend owes to a friend, in my view. I know for sure that if it meant all the money in the world, I'd never expose a friend's medical history to a court. Some things are inconceivable, when you truly love and respect someone.


  


Yarro et al Subpoena Everyone They Can Think Of (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al) | 87 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off Topic (O/T) here please
Authored by: AllParadox on Sunday, February 20 2005 @ 11:32 PM EST


---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here please
Authored by: AllParadox on Sunday, February 20 2005 @ 11:33 PM EST


---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can the medical stuff be kept under seal?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 20 2005 @ 11:33 PM EST
I can see the medical issues being part of the discovery, but don't his personal
privacy rights outweight the public's interest in this stuff entering the public
record, at least up until it's presented to a jury?

IMHO this has the potential for Great Evil - he may settle just to keep his
privacy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yarro et al Subpoena Everyone They Can Think Of (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al)
Authored by: EnragedBeaver on Sunday, February 20 2005 @ 11:40 PM EST
Well, as far as looking-in-somebodyelse's-records-for-your
evidence-of-wrongdoing goes, I think we know where Darl & Co. got their
modus operandi, now don't we?

---
The Enraged Beaver wants to help gnaw away at anti-OSS claims

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yarro et al Subpoena Everyone They Can Think Of (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al)
Authored by: jlp on Sunday, February 20 2005 @ 11:48 PM EST
<<trying to get the documents and records they need to pursue and prove
their claims.>>

IMHO, more likely to destroy the evidence that would keep them out on their
ears.

John

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yarro et al Subpoena Everyone They Can Think Of (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al)
Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, February 20 2005 @ 11:57 PM EST
"all medical records, including correspondence, notes, investigation,
evaluations, charts, prescriptions, x-rays, photographs, reports, billing
statements, or any other documents you may have in your possession pertaining to
Raymond J. Noorda; and"

"all psychiatric, psychotherapy, psychological, mental health counseling,
alcohol and drug rehabilitation treatment and/or counseling notes or records,
treatment summaries, intake records, discharge reports, daily treatment records,
office charts, nurses' notes, correspondence and handwritten notes pertaining to
Raymond J. Noorda"

I'll take a wild guess and speculate that this subpoena has nothing to do with
Ralph Yarro being solicitous and worried about his father figure Ray Noorda's
health.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Privilege and medical history
Authored by: AllParadox on Monday, February 21 2005 @ 12:09 AM EST
Traditionally, four kinds of communication are considered privileged, exempt
from disclosure or forced production: doctor-patient, husband-wife,
attorney-client, and priest-penitent.

This is, however, the Common Law. Of course there are exceptions.

The actual source of privilege varys from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some
States, it is a matter of statute. In others, a matter of established
precedent. It is a rule of evidence, and so the jurisdiction matters. The
exact privilege will differ between State courts and Federal courts whose
districts lie within the State.

In some situations, the same privilege applies in one court but not another.
Often, attorneys who have represented clients in State court proceedings may be
compelled to disclose confidential communications. At the same time, attorneys
who may have represented the same client in similar Federal court proceedings
may not be compelled to testify about such matters.

At bottom, we have a conflict of two basic notions: that in certain
circumstances, we want extremely open and honest communications, versus a need
to get to the truth of a matter.

We very much want an attorney to occasionally say to his client: "No, you
nitwit. That is not legal. If you try it, you will be convicted."
Whereupon the client, being properly advised, refrains from stupid illegal
conduct.

We very much want, occasionally, a wife to say to her husband: "No, you
nitwit. That is not legal. If you try it, you will be convicted."
Knowing how much men typically listen to their wives, this is probably a lost
cause, but the motivation has merit.

There are two typical situations that stand out as exceptions to the
physician-patient privelege. When someone is suing for physical injuries plus
pain and suffering, there is open season on all medical records. Lawsuits for
injuries in auto accidents are characteristic examples of such situations.

The other typical situation is when there are allegations of mental impairment
suffered by one of the parties. Medical records relating to treatment for
mental impairment are quite relevant. In most jurisdictions, this opens the
door to all medical records, because people tend to be secretive about such
things, so searching all medical records may turn up an indirect reference to
secret treatment for mental problems. The tactic seems to work in divorce cases
painfully often.

This is not to say that there is no such thing as privilege. Just because there
is a divorce proceeding, mental impairment is not necessarily an issue,
especially when there are no children involved. The patient's doctor's attorney
will go to the courthouse, get the subpoena quashed, and demand attorney's fees
on top, and often get the fees.

---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yarro et al Subpoena Everyone They Can Think Of (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al)
Authored by: Erin on Monday, February 21 2005 @ 12:11 AM EST
I'm confused about something. Why are John Does 1-10 listed among the defendants? Weren't they supposed to be the employees loyal to Yarro, Mott and Christensen?

---
e. (williams) tian

Inconstancy is the hobgoblin of a fickle mind.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Noteable omission?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 21 2005 @ 12:38 AM EST
I didn't yet read the PDFs, but I didn't see anything in the summary about Mrs
L. Noorda's medical records.

If you read Yarro's complaint, he alleges that Mr R. Noorda and/or Mrs L. Noorda
are incompetent.

So the questions are:

1 - Is it an ommission?

2 - Has he given up on hoping to find Mrs L. Noorda incompetent?

3 - I know Mr Noorda's competence came up during the 1/31 hearing, but did Mrs
Noorda's?

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

A little puzzled
Authored by: Tufty on Monday, February 21 2005 @ 01:30 AM EST
If Yarro proves incompetence for 1 or 2 or 3 years does that not put him on the
spot as to having to explain his actions? He says in his complaint that he knew
Noorda was past it but didn't want to act yet he certainly acted on many things.
Could this back fire on him?

If a history of dodgy stock dealing were proved would this tend to shift any
control issues in the direction of the Noorda clan?


---
_____________________
There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yarro et al Subpoena Everyone They Can Think Of (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al)
Authored by: jim Reiter on Monday, February 21 2005 @ 01:31 AM EST
I think that I would counter this by starting depositions, starting with the
lower level Canopy employees regarding their financial arrangments, what they
understood, what they were promised, what they did with the money, did they pay
taxes on the money they got, who told them to exercise their stock options,
were they aware of the Canopy takeover, etc.?

Can you subpoena tax records?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yarro et al Subpoena Everyone They Can Think Of (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al)
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 21 2005 @ 01:48 AM EST
No moss growing on these plaintiffs, for sure.

It's funny. They drag things out just as long as possible in SCO v IBM, but NOW they want a rocket docket.

I'll be sure to keep these names close by, and if I ever see them get into a company I own stock in, I'll dump it...fast.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did Yarro + Mott get a Vultus bonus?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 21 2005 @ 01:59 AM EST
Here's what we know:

1. SCO bought Vultus. Presumably, Yarro, as chairman of the board of SCO,
approved this purchase. Presumably Mott, also on the board of SCO also approved
of this purchase.

2. One year after buying Vultus, SCO reports in its SEC filings, that Vultus is
worthless after all.

3. SCO bought Vultus from Canopy, which at that time Yarro was running. So
presumably, Yarro, in his Canopy that, approved the sale.

4. For the last several years, when Canopy sold it's investments in many
portfolio companies, 10% of Canopy's share went into a bonus pool, from which
Yarro, Mott took a big chunk.



So Question - Was there a Canopy bonus pool for the sale of Vultus? If so, did
Yarro and Mott get a chunk from this bonus pool?

If so (and we don't know if so), the scenario would be this:

1. SCO buys Vultus, with Yarro's and Mott's approval (indeed Yarro was in
control of the seller too!)

2. SCO later suddenly (!?) "discovers" Vultus is worthless

3. Yarro and Mott get about an awfully big chunk of the money SCO paid for
Vultus

4. Everyone's a winner. Except for Canopy. And except for SCO stockholders.
Well okay, not quite everyone's a winner - but you sure are, if you are called
Yarro or Mott

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yarro et al Subpoena Everyone They Can Think Of (Yarro et al v. Kreidel et al)
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 21 2005 @ 03:26 AM EST
As to medical details, some things, as PJ has pointed out,
are private and should remain so. Only people as low as a
snakes belly would do such things like subpoena medical
records. That's disgraceful. The even worse thing is
that the US legal system allows this to happen - it makes
a complete and utter mockery of the Privacy Act. I see no
difference between so called "trade secrets" and a persons
medical history, in fact I value a persons medical history
far, far, far, far more than any non living trade secret.

Thoroughly disgusted with this sort of behaviour and I
glad I don't live in the US.

Dave

[ Reply to This | # ]

Subpoenaing Yarro and McBride
Authored by: ak on Monday, February 21 2005 @ 01:08 PM EST
Maybe medical documents for Ralph Yarro, Darl McBride etc. can also be
subpoenaed?

(No, that is no suggestion.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )