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
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.


  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 )