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
Apple Seeks Order Compelling Psystar to Provide Financial Info
Friday, May 01 2009 @ 03:28 PM EDT

Apple has filed a letter brief, redacted, asking the court for an order compelling Psystar to turn over financial documents in discovery and to designate a knowledgeable person to testify as to Psystar's finances. They've been asking for a while, and they did a deposition with the CEO of Psystar, but they tell the judge it didn't work out well, since over 90 times he said he didn't know or couldn't recall even basic things.

Here's Apple's motion to seal confidential portions of the letter brief. The confidential parts have to do with "Psystar Corporation's financial information or testimony regarding its finances".

The unredacted portions of the letter brief show Apple telling the judge that Psystar's CEO and founder Rudy Pedraza "would not answer basic questions about Psystar's financials... Mr. Pedraza... stated approximately 90 times during the deposition that he did not know or recall answers to basic questions about Psystar's sales, its general costs and profits, its costs and profits by product line, how it determine it prices and profit margins"...

So Apple requests from the court an order compelling Psystar to produce "financial documents sufficient to determine Psystar's revenues, costs, profits, assets and liabilities." Apple would also like the order to include making Psystar make available "a knowledgeable 30(b)(6) designee" for another deposition "at Psystar's expense" on the topic. And it wants its costs covered for having to redo the deposition as a result of Psystar's "inordinate failure to produce and testify".

Psystar has some documents in particular that Apple wants regarding financial projections that Apple noticed attached to some emails that were turned over in discovery, but Psystar, Apple says, turned the emails over without the attachments. Oops. Send their lawyers to discovery dungeon. Seriously. If you are going to withhold, not that one should, you'd think they'd withhold the entire email, not turn over emails that show there were attachments that are not being turned over too.

Here's the docket info from Justia:

April 29, 2009 - 57 - MOTION to Seal Document (Miscellaneous Administrative Request For An Order Permitting The Filing Under Seal Of Confidential Portions Of Letter Brief Dated April 29, 2009) filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Permitting The Filing Under Seal Of Confidential Portions Of Letter Brief Dated April 29, 2009)(Chung, Megan) (Filed on 4/29/2009) (Entered: April 29, 2009)

April 29, 2009 - 58 - AFFIDAVIT re 57 MOTION to Seal Document (Miscellaneous Administrative Request For An Order Permitting The Filing Under Seal Of Confidential Portions Of Letter Brief Dated April 29, 2009) MOTION to Seal Document (Miscellaneous Administrative Request For An Order Permitting The Filing Under Seal Of Confidential Portions Of Letter Brief Dated April 29, 2009) (Declaration of Megan M. Chung In Support of Administrative Request) by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Chung, Megan) (Filed on 4/29/2009) (Entered: April 29, 2009)

April 29, 2009 - 59 - Letter Brief Dated April 29, 2009 filed byApple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Filed Under Seal), # 2 Exhibit B (Filed Under Seal), # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D (Filed Under Seal))(Chung, Megan) (Filed on 4/29/2009) (Entered: April 29, 2009)

Update: The judge has now scheduled a hearing for next week, according to World of Apple:
Within the past few hours, he issued an Order Scheduling a Hearing on the Discovery Disputes to take place on May 5, 2009. He further ordered that Psystar must respond to Apple’s allegations by May 4, 2009.

  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 )