|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 02 2012 @ 11:00 AM EDT |
Hence why I said:
...this evidence could include [reasonable]
suspicion which would require discovery to prove.
In this case (as
far as I can work out) the complaint is that Samsung copied the iPad. Thus
Apple should have had lots of compelling evidence to this fact BEFORE
they filed with the court to sue Samsung - like the physical designs of the two
devices; if they require to get evidence through discovery, then they should
have been able to specify what evidence they are looking for when they filed.
If they require to add evidence later there must be a very-very good reason that
it wasn't available when the case was filed.
If a plaintiff is
reasonably sure that the defendant is guilty, but needs evidence that only the
defendant could supply, then on filing the case they ought to file what evidence
they expect to get through discovery AT THE TIME of filing the case.
Then only the filed evidence (compelling and/or confirmed through discovery)
would be allowed for the plaintiff, unless they can show due diligence in how
late evidence comes to light.
With this requirement of plaintiff's
evidence/to be confirmed through discovery evidence presented at time of filing
it would curb what seems to happen at the moment that anyone can sue someone
else and then go on a fishing trip to find some evidence of some "crime" against
them (often seemingly not related at all to the original filed case), and cases
can be brought before a court with no apparent evidence and strung out for years
in a fiaSCO of legal precedings.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
