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
Canopy Subpoenaes the Affidavit Chorus (Canopy v Kreidel)
Saturday, February 26 2005 @ 09:13 AM EST

The lawyers for the new Canopy Group seem to have noticed that all the affidavits submitted by the Yarro et al team sounded remarkably similar, and they seem to have a theory. They seem to suspect that the employees left Canopy not because Mr. Mustard was mean but because they want to hold on to their stock options and have a promise of their old jobs back if Yarro and the gang are reinstated to their old positions. They seem to believe they all got together and strategized, including about matters having to do with the health of the Noordas and their quitting Canopy, beginning with December 17th onward. They seem to believe that there has been some communication with at least one Portfolio company (hmm... which one, I wonder?), and they'd like to know if anyone is offering to or is paying their legal fees. They also have some questions about those stock options.

They'd like to be able to prove their theory, so they have sent subpoenaes to the following:

Allan Smart
Frankie Gibson
Barbara Jackson
Joyce Wiley

The list of documents they want to see is long.

This is what Canopy asks for:

1. All documents referring or relating to any communications you have had with Ralph J. Yarro, Darcy G. Mott, and Brent D. Christensen, including all phone records, cell phone records, and emails, from December 17, 2004 and thereafter.

2. All documents referring or relating to any Canopy stock, stock options or stock certificates allegedly held by you or any other present or former employee, officer, and/or director of Canopy.

3. All documents referring or relating to any communications you have had with any past or present employee, officer, and/or director of Canopy from December 17, 2004 and thereafter, including all phone records, cell phone records and emails.

4. All documents referring or relating to any communications you have had with any officer, director, or shareholder of any of the Portfolio Companies, from December 17, 2004 and thereafter.

5. All documents referring or relating to stock, stock options or stock certificates in any of the Portfolio Companies allegedly held by you or any past or present employee, officer, and/or director of Canopy.

6. All documents referring to or relating to any communications you have had, from December 17, 2004 and thereafter, with any any member of the news media or press.

7. All documents referring to or relating to any communications you have had, from December 17, 2004 and thereafter, with any person regarding your former employment with Canopy.

8. All documents referring to or relating to any communications you have had, from December 17, 2004 and thereafter, with any person regarding the termination of Ralph J. Yarro, Darcy G. Mott, and/or Brent D. Christensen.

9. All documents referring to or relating to any communications you have had, from December 17, 2004 and thereafter, with any person regarding this lawsuit or the lawsuit filed by The Canopy Group, the Noordas and the Noorda Family Trust against Ralph J. Yarro, Darcy G. Mott and Brent D. Christensen.

10. All documents referring to or relating to any communication you have had, from December 17, 2004 and thereafter, with any person regarding the management of Canopy or its Portfolio Companies.

11. All documents referring to or relating to any communications you have had, from December 17, 2004 and thereafter, with any person regarding the employment, resignation or termination of any other past or present employee of Canopy.

12. All documents referring to or relating to any communications you have had, from December 17, 2004 and thereafter, with any person regarding any communication you have had with any officer, director or shareholder of any Portfolio Company.

13. All documents concerning the termination of your employment with Canopy, including but not limited to, any notes prepared by you concerning the basis, pros and cons, grounds and/or decision.

14. All documents concerning the termination of any other employee's employment at Canopy, including but not limited to, any notes prepared by you or anyone else concerning the basis, pros and cons, grounds and/or reasons for such termination.

15. All documents referring to or relating to the health or medical condition of either of the Noordas.

16. All documents concerning the Noorda's service on Canopy's board of directors or actions taken by them as directors.

17. All documents regarding any arrangement for any third party to pay all or part of your legal fees in connection with this lawsuit or any related factual matters, including your stock options, resignation from Canopy Group employment, or other matters.

18. All documents regarding any possibility of your re-employment (and/or the re-employment) of other Canopy employees.

Meanwhile, on the other side, the Yarro team, evidencing their usual delicacy, have asked for all of Mrs. Noorda's medical records. At least that is what the header indicates. The body of the document asks for Ray Noorda's medical records, but I'm guessing some paralegal or secretary copied and pasted the language from Ray's subpoena and plugged it in to Mrs. Noorda's and then failed to change the name. I have a friend of many years, who is quite elderly now himself, and he always tells me, Don't get old and don't get sick. After watching what is happening to the Noordas, I think he is right.


  


Canopy Subpoenaes the Affidavit Chorus (Canopy v Kreidel) | 119 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Anonymous corrections here
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 26 2005 @ 09:17 AM EST
Anonymous corrections go here, if there are any.

\Cyp

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anonymous Off Topic here
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 26 2005 @ 09:18 AM EST
Anonymous off topic posts, news of alien abductions, etc... go here.

\Cyp

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Go ... Here (n/t)
Authored by: digger53 on Saturday, February 26 2005 @ 09:19 AM EST
Hadn't checked yet, myself.

---
When all else fails, follow directions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"don't get old and don't get sick"
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 26 2005 @ 09:24 AM EST
Well, but especially avoid "friends" like Yarro.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-TopicThreads
Authored by: digger53 on Saturday, February 26 2005 @ 09:26 AM EST
Hilarious spoof of MS-liscensing: click

---
When all else fails, follow directions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Canopy Subpoenaes the Affidavit Chorus (Canopy v Kreidel)
Authored by: PenguinPride on Saturday, February 26 2005 @ 09:46 AM EST
Wow, a long list. But, as one of our GrokLawyers said, having almost identical
statements among members of a group who have a joint cause is not unusual and is
actually efficient legal practice. I'm sure they'll also want depositions before
too long to cover the angle of all the planning being done verbally and/or face
to face. However, what if all or some of the "gang" got together at
the attorney's office and talked about the situation with the attorneys in the
room (i.e. a legal strategy session), then wouldn't the info being privledged
and unobtainable either by subpoena or deposition? Would it have been ethical
for the defense attorney to insist to be a party to these communications so the
privelege would be there?

PP

[ Reply to This | # ]

Canopy Subpoenaes the Affidavit Chorus (Canopy v Kreidel)
Authored by: Stumbles on Saturday, February 26 2005 @ 10:18 AM EST
I had to read that title twice because I thought it said
"chorus" in there and it did. The first thought after
re-reading that was, sing a song of six pence, then just a
word, shills and lastly collusion.

The more I read this payton place episode the more my
brain is reduced to one line thoughts.

---
You can tune a piano but you can't tune a fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Medical records?
Authored by: Anni on Saturday, February 26 2005 @ 10:23 AM EST
Is it really possible in (US) civil case to ask for someones medical records?
That sounds disgusting. I bet the grounds have to be extremely good for that.

---
Organic chemistry is the study of carbon compounds;
Biochemistry is the study of carbon compounds that crawl.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Canopy Subpoenaes the Affidavit Chorus (Canopy v Kreidel)
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 26 2005 @ 10:24 AM EST
Is any of the following related to either or both the
Noordas: Smart, Gibbons, Jackson, or Wiley?

This is beginning to soung not like a bunch of outsiders
attempting a takeover but a family affair in which the
family attempts a takeover of papa's business.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Privilege?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, February 26 2005 @ 12:45 PM EST
It would seem trivial to have all of this material be privileged under Attorney
Client privilege. All that would need to be done if for the former employees to
engage a lawyer, then conduct all communications individually through the
lawyer. Even the dumbest of these people must know not to write any of this
stuff down.

Isn't Christensen a lawyer?

Yarro could have communicated through a third party (his lawyer?)advising each
person to seek legal counsel and recommending someone reliable.

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

A further Choral response...
Authored by: webster on Saturday, February 26 2005 @ 01:50 PM EST
...to all of these subpoenas might add further suspicion. It's gonna be hard
for them to amass enough credibility and sympathy to overcome the weight of
their easy wealth.

---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

Depositions
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, February 26 2005 @ 02:26 PM EST
Does anyone know if the depositions noticed actually happened?

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Communications with Yarro et al => Yarro's goose is cooked?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 26 2005 @ 03:09 PM EST
Yarro's (denied) motion for preliminary injunction alleges that he knows various
members of Canopy's staff are considering leaving.

How would he know unless he was in communication with these people?

And if, arguendo, Yarro were still validly on the board of Canopy, how could
persuading staff to leave the company possibly be acting in Canopy's interests
(and in line with his fiduciary duties). In other words, this is an 2nd
independent ground for Yarro's removal from the board.

In other words 3 possible scenarios:

1. Yarro was validly removed on December 17, by the board meeting.

2. Yarro should be removed from the board by the court, from some or all of the
items alleged in Canopy's complaint, such as the incentive plans, etc.

3. (i) Yarro was still validly on the board after December 17. (ii) Yarro
should not be removed by the court because of the items alleged in Canopy's
complaint -- BUT (iii) Yarro tried to persuade staff to leave Canopy after
December 17, acting in conflict with his duty of loyalty to Canopy, and thus
should be removed for that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Caught off guard?
Authored by: pallthayer on Saturday, February 26 2005 @ 08:10 PM EST
Someone with legal knowledge/experience please tell me, should they have seen
this coming? Is this going to catch them off guard or is it going to be as well
choreographed as affidavits?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another view...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 27 2005 @ 01:39 AM EST

Seems to me that these depositions might also be part of the "document" that some were "forced" to sign.

I highly suspect that it probably contained wording regarding not speaking to Ralph (or a more general "others") about Ralph's dismissal, data about compensation plan, etc.

Kind of looking for violations of what I suspect was an NDA type of document.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Educated guess: What might have been part of the mysterious doc signed by employees
Authored by: dmarker on Sunday, February 27 2005 @ 03:57 PM EST
I would guess that one clause in the document the employees signed, could have
included that while they remain employed by Canopy they are not to have any
contact with the three former executives Yarro, Mott & Christensen. This
could be justified by a statement that it would jeopardise ongoing
investigations.

So, it could follow that these staff members were in fact contacted by Yarro
(but probably or the other two on his behalf) & so in order for them to then
throw in their lot in Yarro's attempted revival, they subsequently needed to
resign.

Reason for this speculation is that all these employees claim they signed the
paper under 'duress' (coerced) & thus are trying to justify their subsequent
actions (being in communication with these three despite signing a paper stating
they wouldn't).

Also, one additional factor that could have been the 'straw that broke the
camel's back' for Penrose, would be if he was contacted by any of the three
& esp if they put pressure on him to either tell them what computer records
had been passed over to Mustard and/or was Penrose willing to support (help)
them as they sought to regain control. Any pressure in regard to deleting or
obtaining copies of computer data would have placed Penrose under even greater
stress.

Assuming Penrose was contacted by any of the three, and his talking to them was
in violation of a paper the had signed, it could explain why he felt he needed
ploice protection.

But, this is just an educated guess, related to the tone & similarities of
the employee affidavits.

DSM

[ Reply to This | # ]

Medical records request may be high hurdle
Authored by: drichards1953 on Monday, February 28 2005 @ 04:41 PM EST
I do not presume what the Courts in Utah may do, however here in Tennessee and
in the 6th Federal District, there is a high hurdle to leap over to obtain a
person's medical records in a non-injury case. The standard for release of
medical record in a situation like this is very high here.

No one is disputing that Mr. Noorda is an older man with some medical issues,
but what they are wanting may well be "over the top." This litigation
is starting to look more and more like the "SCO v. IBM" case. All
fluff and no stuff! (The head of this firm is 81 years old and there are good
days and bad days for a variety of reasons, not due to a specific illness but
things to do with getting older! WE all will get there, some in better shape
than others.)

Mr. Mustard was mean to Yarro and company. Welcome to the real world of
employment. Though I really like working as Director of Research &
Technology for a law firm, there are days the lawyers really are terrible to me.
Oh well. It increasingly looks like the Canopy folks have little or no legal
basis to their action except Mr. Mustard was a meany and he asked them hard
questions. Darn. That and and a dollar gets you coffee at Wendy's. (At least
here in Knoxville, TN. For another dollar you can get fries with that. Hint
hint for Darl, new job prospect)

As near as I can figure things out Mr. Noorda still owns controlling interest in
Canopy and he or any one he designates can run the company. Personally, I think
his daughter got curious and started to look into what was going on and did not
like what she found. A certain portfolio holding SCO has been in the news too
much. It appears Yarro and company may have been trying to steal the company.

I do find it interesting that all the affidavits are just a little too much
alike. If this happened at this firm some very serious questions would be
raised about the verasity of the affidavits. Something looks really suspect
here.

[ 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 )