Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 11:02 PM EST |
Since the jury foreman didn't state the bankruptcy when he
was asked about litigation he had been involved in,
shouldn't Apple have brought the bankruptcy to the attention
of the court? I think this shows Apple had unclean hands.
That they failed to bring to the courts attention of failure
of a juror to correctly answer voir dire. They knew of
additional litigation he was a part of and didn't bring it
to the attention of the court. How can this not be held
against Apple? IANAL, but it seems logical to me that Apple
should have told the court of the additional litigation,
once they found it. It shouldn't matter if they felt it was
relevant, aren't they required to correct anything that they
know isn't correct in the record?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, December 02 2012 @ 11:05 PM EST |
The impact of Apple being ordered to disclose in Open Court or in the
alternative pleading for time to check is far more damaging than an electronic
filing.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: yorkshireman on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 04:55 AM EST |
Like Webster, I find Apple's answer inconsistent with
their behaviour on the
matter of Hogan's litigation
history
"... We have not
identified any attorney or
other member of the litigation teams who was
aware"
Could this be an admission that someone outside the
"litigation teams" did know?
For instance, Maybe the litigation team
asked a
specialist "research team" to undertake this search
instead?
If this were the case, could the "research team" have
standing instructions only to pass on
helpful results to the
litigation team in
anticipation of this exact scenario?
Is the term
"litigation team" sufficiently tightly
defined in a law firm that this is
definitely a "no one
knew" answer?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 11:17 AM EST |
If the only way to obtain the bankruptcy filing is via a
request then hopefully
any requests for the bankruptcy are
kept on file for some period of time. So
those records
should indicate who requested that information and when. I
would
think any request before the verdict to be rather
suspicious. But unless
someone can show otherwise this will
probably end with this.
I hope the
Judge provides some meaningful punishment to
Apple for time
wasting since time
schedules seem to be very important for
her.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, December 03 2012 @ 02:09 PM EST |
As far as known, Apple has not accused
Seagate of any wrongdoings.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|