Friday, September 30, 2011


News is coming fast now.  Here is a schedule with a warning.

"The court notes the parties' agreement to produce to one another copies of all documents obtained from non-parties and assumes that any variance from this agreement will be based on subsequent agreement of counsel or by protective

I think this is a reference to the defendants' questioning of one of the inventors.  The defendants' ambush APPARENTLY made an impression on the judge.

This is how the SkunK strings the beads we know together:

ICM declared in a Press Release they had information they had not showed the court.  It appears they were saving it to spring it on the inventor during disposition.  They did.  The inventor's lawyer told him not to answer any questions since the defendants apparently had not fulfilled their duty to share information during discovery.  The defendants' were hoping for some kind of Perry Mason moment.  Having failed that, the defendants complained to the judge who had now publicly reminded them of their duty to share.

These upcoming briefs will be fascinating - you can then see if I beaded together a necklace or a knapsack of wet goat hair.


Anonymous said...

Correct me if im wrong but the mystery 3rd party document came out in the ibec deposition(versus ICM, yes?? Also it seems to me that in the filing re IBECs agenda, IBEC implies that the document that they produced should have been produced by the inventor. Is that why they thought they could get away with surprising cantrell with it? they could argue it was his to produce? so then who is the judge chastising? IBEC, GERS or both? IBEC talks about in the deposition did they question Cantrell, get answers, then present this mystery document that might have hurt his credibility? isnt that whats meant in this context by "impeachmend document"? all conjecture here but what drama.--Ollie

Anonymous said...

"the document that they produced should have been produced by the inventor. Is that why they thought they could get away with surprising cantrell with it?"

I am also not a lawyer, but if you take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion then you could surprise a defendant in a murder case with all your evidence at trial. After all it would be the procecutors take that the defendant created the fingerprints, blood stains, dna evidence etc. and therefore was aware of it and therefore the evidence does not need to be shared.

Of course that does not happen and cases routinely get thrown out because the prosecutor does not share his information with the defense during discovery.

Of course sharing needs to be done so that the defendant can challange or explain the evidence. Evidence that appears to prove one thing, may actually prove the opposite when the actual circumstances are known. That is why in the US your have to share all your evidence at discovery.

It appears that greenshift was not made aware of this evidence at discovery and was unable to challange or explain the evidence.

Fruit of the poisonous tree???

Anonymous said...

ok, thank you, whew, that makes all sorts of sense. Ollie.

Free Blog CounterTamron