Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Darl had the Rest of Them! | 223 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Spoliation?

Authored by: PJ on Monday, February 04 2013 @ 01:19 AM EST

Discovery is complete. But it's an odd case, because
so much time has gone by, the parties felt that
they might need to brief the issues afresh, and
IIRC one of the parties said there was new
information to present to the court. All of which
means that there isn't going to be any penalty,
I wouldn't imagine. They'll get away with it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Discovery isn't complete in Red Hat. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 04 2013 @ 01:33 AM EST
Amicus brief? - Authored by: OmniGeek on Monday, February 04 2013 @ 08:22 AM EST
- Amicus brief? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 04 2013 @ 10:06 AM EST
  - Amicus brief? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 04 2013 @ 11:18 AM EST

Spoliation?

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 04 2013 @ 03:46 AM EST

I'm not entirely certain that a company could be hit with spoliation if they
have a court order granting them the power to destroy records.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Spoliation? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 04 2013 @ 07:59 AM EST

Darl had the Rest of Them!

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 04 2013 @ 12:31 PM EST

And, AFAIK, IBM has not requested to Court to Subpoena those
records. But I hope that they do still want to find the
Smoking Gun from Redmond.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )