|
|
| Paul Allen v. the World lurches forward - Judge says no delay on initial disclosures |
 |
|
Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 08:51 AM EDT
|
The Paul Allen against the World case is moving forward. In fact, faster than the parties probably expected. There was a stipulation to extend time to complete initial disclosures from November 1 to two weeks past whenever the claims were clearer, either through an amended complaint or two weeks after infringement contentions are due. But the judge denied it. And he goes on to remind the parties that the date for filing the joint status report is November 8. The strange part is, I don't see how the parties can comply when Allen's complaint is so vague. Even Gene Quinn, who thinks the sun rises and sets on patents, said it was "a complaint without any substantive information and naked recitation of a variety of patents that have 'one or more' unspecified claims being infringed for unspecified reasons." How do the defendants provide initial disclosures to that? Plus Google has
an undecided motion seeking to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Maybe the judge found the complaint a little annoying too, and so he intends to punish the plaintiff by insisting on the schedule even though nobody knows what the claims specifically are? Dream on. This is the style, Quinn wrote, that trolls favor, and courts don't seem to ever clip their wings. Here's what initial disclosures are.
Everything is happening on November 8, SCO's bankruptcy hearing where they have to reveal the highest bidder, if any, for their assets, this scheduled deadline, and the EFF Pioneer Awards ceremony. Good thing Groklaw is a group effort.
11/01/2010 - 117 - MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Defendant Yahoo! Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/1/2010, (Walters, Mark) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
11/01/2010 - 118 - NOTICE of Withdrawal of Motion re 117 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery ; filed by Defendant Yahoo! Inc. (Walters, Mark) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
11/01/2010 - 119 - Agreed Stipulated MOTION to Extend Time for Service of Initial Disclosures by Defendant Yahoo! Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/1/2010, (Walters, Mark) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
11/01/2010 *** Motion terminated: 117 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery filed by Yahoo! Inc. (IM) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
11/01/2010 - 120 - ORDER denying 119 Stipulated Motion by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(IM) (Entered: 11/01/2010)
The reason the parties wanted a later date sounded good to me: The parties, through undersigned counsel of record, hereby move jointly for an order to extend the deadline for the service of Initial Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). The current deadline for initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) is November 1, 2010. (See Docket Entry No. 25, Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement.) The parties seek an order extending this deadline until the earlier of two weeks after infringement contentions are due under the Court’s scheduling order or two weeks after the plaintiff serves an amended complaint.
Here's the judge's thinking:
This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated motion to extend the time for service of initial disclosures. (Dkt. No. 119.) The Court DENIES the motion. The Court does not find good cause to amend the date for initial disclosures. The parties must comply with the Court’s initial scheduling order. (Dkt. No. 25.) The Court reminds the parties that the Joint Status Report/Discovery Plan as required by FRCP 26(f) and Local Rule CR 16 is due by November 8, 2010. But look at what the parties are to provide:
(1) Initial Disclosures.
(A) In General. Except as exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties:
(i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information — along with the subjects of that information — that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;
(ii) a copy — or a description by category and location — of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;
(iii) a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party — who must also make available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered; and
(iv) for inspection and copying as under Rule 34, any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.
Presumably, Allen has to comply and finally tell us what this lawsuit is actually about. Until he does, how in the world do the accused comply with any of it? You don't know what documents are relevant or what employees might have evidence until you know what it is you allegedly did. Maybe that's the judge's point, to force the issue and cut the gaming short.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: jwvess00 on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 08:59 AM EDT |
Corrections go here
---
Your friendly firmware engineer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jwvess00 on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 09:00 AM EDT |
Off topic comments here, please.
---
Your friendly firmware engineer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball gets Elizabeth Smart kidnapping trial - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 09:47 AM EDT
- Fedora 14 has been released! - Authored by: robobright on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 10:04 AM EDT
- Public has right to court exhibits, appeal judges rule - Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 10:11 AM EDT
- Times and Sunday Times readership falls after paywall - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 10:36 AM EDT
- Oracle buys ATG - Authored by: hAckz0r on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 10:51 AM EDT
- VLC, Jean-Baptiste Kempf, and iTunes - Authored by: Vic on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 01:01 PM EDT
- VLC, Jean-Baptiste Kempf, and iTunes - Authored by: jonathon on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 03:46 PM EDT
- The same restriction is in place outside the US, too - Authored by: Tolerance on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- VLC, Jean-Baptiste Kempf, and iTunes - Authored by: dio gratia on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- VLC and MPEG LA - Authored by: Tolerance on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 09:25 PM EDT
- It would help if you looked at the right Terms of Service - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 03 2010 @ 02:07 AM EDT
- What may have changed since the original GPL issue with the App Store - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 05:05 AM EDT
- Microsoft Patents the Record Button - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 01:32 PM EDT
- Supreme Court Debates Violent Video Game Ban - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 03:26 PM EDT
- Coders decry Silverlight change - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 04:02 PM EDT
- Court rules that a 4 year old can be sued - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 04:38 PM EDT
- Women don't sense pain in the same way men do - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 05:39 PM EDT
- Financial Times clip on EMI lawsuit - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 09:32 PM EDT
- Google Buzz User Privacy Litigation - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, November 03 2010 @ 01:29 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: jwvess00 on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 09:02 AM EDT |
Don't forget to tell us what newspick is being discussed...
---
Your friendly firmware engineer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 09:02 AM EDT |
:-)
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 09:49 AM EDT |
| It is all happening. PJ's award, SCO in court, Paul Allen's bogus
lawsuit..... Anything else interesting? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- November 8th - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 06:14 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
The reply goes like this ...
(A) In General. Except as exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or as otherwise
stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery
request, provide to the other parties:
(i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each
individual likely to have discoverable information — along with the subjects of
that information — that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or
defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;
A copy of a full world phone directory, with the statement, all these people
know things that may be covered by the claims
(ii) a copy — or a description by category and location — of all
documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the
disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to
support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;
A full printed copy of the google database, without greater specificity in the
claims this is the best we can do your honour
(iii) a computation of each category of damages claimed by the
disclosing party — who must also make available for inspection and copying as
under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or
protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based, including
materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered; and
A detailed computation showing a very round answer
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
Here's a judge who might restore my sanity and belief in the legal system.
My reason, is this. The plaintiff had all the time in the world to draw up a
proper legal complaint. The fact this lawsuit fails to state a claim is the
fault of the plaintiff. I don't believe in wasting the court's time with
specious claims. It's one thing for a Pro Se (Nolo) plaintiff to file a faulty
claim. It's entirely something different for someone who passed a Bar Exam. They
knew, or should have known, the pleading was insufficient. Make them pay for it,
not the defendant. Fix it by the deadline or get off the pot, with prejudice!
Abuse of the legal process should come with heavy consequences.
At least, it's my hope and dream this is what the judge is thinking. It would be
my thought, if I were a judge (God help us).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
I've been thinking, is it possible Paul Allen is trying to make a point as to
just how broken the system is.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 02:18 PM EDT |
Under the circumstances (i.e. no way to tell what is really at issue) Google
might have to provide their entire employee directory, a long with a list of all
employees who've left the company in the last ten years.
I suspect that the judge wouldn't like this, but literally, it's the only way to
comply.
---
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 02 2010 @ 04:32 PM EDT |
(i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of
each individual likely to have discoverable information — along with the
subjects of that information — that the disclosing party may use to support its
claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for
impeachment;
The following individuals may have that
information
- All past and present employees who may have discoverable
information about technology which may be implicated in any claims the plaintiff
may eventually state.
- All workers in the technology field relating to
the quoted patents who may have information relating to prior art bearing on any
patent claims that the plaintiff may eventually
state.
(ii) a copy — or a description by category and
location — of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible
things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and
may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for
impeachment;
In response the defendant lists the following
documents.
- Those documents, electronically stored information, and
tangible things that the defendant has in its possession, custody, or control
that may relate to possible defenses against any claim that the plaintiff may
eventually state. Those documents are located in the defendants possession or
are stored electronically.
(iii) a computation of each
category of damages claimed by the disclosing party — who must also make
available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other
evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which
each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent
of injuries suffered;
In response he defendant submits the
attached spreadsheet program which may be used to make such a computation at
such time as more detail as to the nature of the plaintiffs claim becomes
available. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 04 2010 @ 02:57 PM EDT |
The defendents should file a joint initial disclosure, citing Rule (e) of the
Federal Rules of Court Procedures (specifically Rule 26 a 1 e).
The disclosure should state that we are unable to accurately provide initial
disclosures due to the vague claims made by the plaintiff, and until the claims
are amended to show specificity in where we violated their patents (if at all),
we have no clue as to who or what "evidence" falls under the discovery
motion.
Consequently, some of the evidence may fall under trade secret protections, and
until we know whether or not that evidence is required, we are unable to comply
fully within our rights.
Have a great day:)
Patrick.
IANAL, but you already know that. ;)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
