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.


To read comments to this article, go here
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.


  View Printable Version


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 )