|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 10:55 AM EST |
Was that mentioned in Samsung's motion to compel Apple to
reveal when it
learned about the jury foreman not answering
fully in voir dire? The judges
ruling only addressed
Samsung's motion to compel, not other motions made by
Samsung. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 01:43 PM EST |
That's because this is an order on the Samsung motion to compel directed at
Apple (which addresses just Apple's knowledge of the claimed misrepresentations
in voir dire), not an order on Samsung's motion for JMOL. The alleged jury-room
misconduct is relevant to the JMOL (which addresses all of the alleged jury
misconduct and seeks a remedy for it), but not the motion to compel (which is
just seeking information relating to one instance of alleged jury misconduct,
and essentially setting up that portion of the JMOL.)
I suspect, also, that Judge Koh may want to deal with the whole voir dire issue
(not just the motion to compel on that issue) first, because if the voir dire
issue is sufficient to grant Samsung demand for a new trial, she can resolve the
JMOL without hauling the rest of the jurors in and conducting an inquiry into
what actually went on the jury room. While many have (rightly, IMO)
characterized the allegations of jury-room misconduct as the more serious
allegations, they are also the ones the court will most want to avoid having to
address, since US courts strongly prefer to avoid inquiries into how juries
reached their verdicts. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 10:11 PM EST |
She does. You missed it. This is, she wrote,
important to straighten out before she rules
on Samsung's JMOL motion. That's the motion that
lists all the other problems with the jury's
conduct.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|