|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 01:02 AM EDT |
I don't understand how a jury instruction like this can possibly be just - it
appears to give the jury license to imagine whatever evidence they like existed,
merely on one side's say-so. If such an instruction is indeed issued on behalf
of Samsung, too, the entire thing enters a fantasy land where the lawyers can
each invent their own story and the jury can simply choose who to believe.
Surely this can't be right.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 30 2012 @ 01:07 AM EDT |
> Spoliation is particularly complex. It drives thoughtful lawyers nuts.
AFAICT at least part of the problem here is where several people were
on a mail group, and some people have retained some documents,
and other people have retained other documents. The lawyers are going
nuts trying to reconstruct entire threads. I doubt that even a MS
Exchange server would help them there.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 31 2012 @ 04:33 AM EDT |
"Spoliation is particularly complex. It drives thoughtful
lawyers nuts."
But a double standard is crystal clear. If Samsung "spoiled"
evidence by failing to retain emails starting in August 2010,
so did Apple. You can't have it both ways.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
