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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Judge Koh Asks For Lists Proving Compliance with Order Re Attachments ~pj
Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 04:09 PM EST

It seems that Judge Lucy Koh has it in mind to hold the parties to what she told them would be the rules of the road for post-verdict filings in Apple v. Samsung. Her order [PDF] said that they were limited to certain space limits and couldn't work around them via attachments. Specifically, they couldn't present new points in attachments that were not argued in the briefs themselves:
Any argument that is not explicitly articulated within the briefing page limits will be disregarded. Any supporting documentation shall be for corroboration purposes solely and shall not be used as a vehicle for circumventing the Courtís page limits.
Both parties have accused the other of violating her order. Now, a new order [PDF] tells them to file a cross-linked list, showing where in the briefs each attachment is referenced. She says both parties have submitted voluminous documents with their briefs, and the new order is to make *them* do the hard work of cross-checking, so she can disregard anything not in the briefs.

Here is the docket entry:
2181 - Filed & Entered: 12/04/2012
ORDER TO FILE LISTS OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 12/4/2012. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2012)
The order:
ORDER TO FILE LISTS OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

In its Order setting the post-trial briefing schedule, the Court advised the parties that: ďAny argument that is not explicitly articulated within the briefing page limits will be disregarded. Any supporting documentation shall be for corroboration purposes solely and shall not be used as a vehicle for circumventing the Courtís page limits. Any citations to the record must include the relevant testimony or exhibit language.Ē ECF No. 1945. Despite this clear direction, both parties submitted voluminous documents with their post-trial motions. The Court plans to strike from the record all of the material submitted in violation of the Courtís Order.

To facilitate this process, the parties are hereby ORDERED to file, by Friday, December 7, a list of all the supporting documentation submitted with the post-trial motions (JMOL motions, non-jury motions, and injunction/enhancement motion), oppositions, and replies; the ECF number assigned to each document; and identification of the page and line-number of the post-trial briefing that cites each document. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Can you hear the groans coming from the lawyers having to work on this? What am I saying? They'll probably make the paralegals do it, with lawyer "supervision". But if they were doing it right, they should have had such a list, at least in mind, when they filed the attachments. They had her order, so presumably they already did such a list, and that should make it easier.

Except if they cheated.

Like that would ever happen.


  


Judge Koh Asks For Lists Proving Compliance with Order Re Attachments ~pj | 115 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT posts go here
Authored by: charlie Turner on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 06:43 PM EST
OT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Come goes here
Authored by: charlie Turner on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 06:44 PM EST
Please don't ask me to parse that!

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks go here
Authored by: charlie Turner on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 06:46 PM EST
Keep things to gnus picks, please!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Korections > corrections go here
Authored by: charlie Turner on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 06:49 PM EST
Keep it correct.

[ Reply to This | # ]

n/t posts go here.
Authored by: charlie Turner on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 06:51 PM EST
n/t

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • So basically this is like a twitter conversation? N/T - Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 08:21 PM EST
    • Yes, but limited to 3 characters. - Authored by: charlie Turner on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 08:30 PM EST
    • #no - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 09:00 PM EST
    • Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 10:21 PM EST
      • you - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 10:22 PM EST
        • are - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 10:24 PM EST
          • all - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 10:25 PM EST
            • mad - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 10:27 PM EST
              • cap - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 10:28 PM EST
  • OK - Authored by: albert on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 12:56 PM EST
Planning
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 06:53 PM EST

If they did their planning, they should be able to file a cross reference the
next day. Of course they'll wait till the last minute to give the opposition as

little time as they can to study it.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hmm... who has the more troubling work?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 06:56 PM EST

The more a given party attempts to play loose with her order, the more methinks said party isn't going to be too happy with the end result.

If party Y claims party Z argued something Z didn't and Z easily shows that via the docs filed.... methinks party Y is not going to be too happy.

I don't think they'll be particular punished for such behavior. I think the extent of their punishment will be their extra filings are ignored - as the Court said it would be while the other party's filings are not trimmed down.

So they won't be too unhappy. The cheater never feels too bad when the only punishment is that the cheat didn't work.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 07:07 PM EST
>> Both parties have accused the other of violating her order.

Lewis Carrol mocked this childish rubbish a hundred and fifty years ago.
Of course lawyers wouldn't read it, he was a mathematician.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge has a sense of humor, This will be a Day that Lives in Infamy! LOL
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 07:22 PM EST
Filed by December 7th!

Love it!

[ Reply to This | # ]

    ...groans...
    Authored by: webster on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 07:51 PM EST
    .

    Each side will do their own and their opponents just to check. If one started
    to do it, the other matched it. A billion dollar verdict and they are counting
    pages!

    This pruning is a little late. It shows the brilliance of Judge Alsup's
    preliminary pruning --make the plaintiff proceed on their four best claims so as
    not to confuse the jury. They can try the rest in future years!

    Imagine jamming this issue along with a hundred others into an appeal brief.

    .

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Vote for Groklaw Thread
    Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 08:16 PM EST
    Up to 264, that's *pulls out calculator* 100001000 in binary.

    Sustained enthusiasm is a good thing. This is great for getting the word out about Groklaw.

    http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100 (Legal Technology)

    And all this formatted posting is great for keeping my HTML from getting rusty :P.

    ---
    I voted for Groklaw (Legal Technology Category) in the 2012 ABA Journal Blawg 100. Did you? http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100. Voting ends Dec 21.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Are page limits usual?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 08:48 PM EST
    It seems to me that the time limits and page limits imposed
    on the parties during the trial favour Apple, considering
    that their arguments are only to allege infringement whereas
    for all 11(?) patents, Samsung has to deny infringement AND
    prove the patents invalid, which I would consider to be a
    much more difficult and time consuming task.
    Meaning that in the end, Samsung has to go over their
    arguments briefly and perhaps unconvincingly, whereas Apple
    could go over them in detail.
    I understand that without such limits we could possibly
    still be in trial right now, but it would seem more fair if
    each party had a certain page limit per claim brought by
    /brought against them.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Order seems to be kind of goofy.
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 09:48 PM EST
    Not in itself, it seems like a perfectly reasonable order --two weeks from the
    hearing.

    This is more the way a nasty lawyer would work then a judge, providing a last
    minute surprise that takes up the resources of the lawyers the day before a
    hearing. It also makes it harder for lawyers to react should she bring up a
    surprise tomorrow. Of course, if a judge were biased such a surprise would be a
    perfect way of undermining one of the parties.<sarcasm> Good thing we know
    this judge is not biased. </sarcasm> [1]

    I also do not think it is proper for a judge to try and be tricking attorneys,
    which this sort smells like.

    Mouse The Lucky Dog
    [1] ATM I do not think the judge is outright biased, however when she has let
    her biases show they have tended to indicate a bias towards Apple.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Lawyers hunting elephants
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 11:48 AM EST
    LAWYERS don't hunt elephants, but they do follow the herds
    around arguing about who owns the droppings.

    SOFTWARE LAWYERS will claim that they own an entire herd based
    on the look and feel of one dropping.

    [ 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 )