% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • nubuzzman nubuzzman Dec 13, 2012 8:43 PM Flag

    Sleep Well This Weekend 16+ Mil Shorts

    Having spent a lifetime in the courtroom there are some assumptions I have made, be they personal, with regard to the Mondays production order.

    1. Every lawsuit starts with two elements: 1) liability and 2) damages. Before entertaining the issue of damages the issue of liability must first be determined.

    2. The Judge and Magistrate have spent countless hours reviewing and discussing the various documents that have been filed in this case. They are privy to same; we are not. They have ample and sifficient knowledge of the facts surrounding the Complaint, to have reached some conclusions regarding liability.

    3. Please note that in the Magistrate's order (which I assume is with both the approval and direction of the Court) paragraphs 3. A-F are all pertaining to potential damages.

    I have drawn my own conclusions re where this litigation stands. I believe my experience warrants the obvious..

    P.S. It will be interesting to see how the shorts "spin" the above.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Overbrook is right (or mostly right). Unless the parties agree to bifurcate liabilities from damages (or unless one side moves the Court to bifurcate and the Court grants the motion), liability and damages discovery occur at same time. Have you really "spent a lifetime in a courtroom"? Are you like some habitual offender or do your routinely get called for Jury duty? Maybe you are a court reporter.

    • Having spent a number of decades in courtrooms, I must disagree. Whether in state or federal court, a plaintiff is entitled to obtain discovery on matters that relate to both liability and damages at the same time - regardless of the strength or weakness of a liability case. You could have the worst liability case in the world, and still be entitled to discovery on damages. Judges don't pre-judge a case and then decide that a plaintiff is entitled to discovery on damages - it doesn't work that way.

      The only significance that I see in this Order is that the Magistrate is very displeased with Q's failure to provide discovery - especially with the failure to answer interrogatories 21-25. That crosses the line into bad faith.

      Although I am a strong long and believe that PV will get a very favorable Markman ruling, I wouldn't read any significance into the hearing scheduled for Monday. It's just to hear some discovery motions.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • From a quick look at your posting history you clearly were never a legal professional, so I assume you're a spectacularly unsuccessful career criminal.

      Would somebody sufficiently dumb to have been caught so often necessarily have learned anything from what he observed during his time in the courtroom?

0.20+0.01(+2.56%)Oct 9 3:59 PMEDT