you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
With all due respect; post the document and section of the document that shows the reversal of Judge Robinison"s ruling of spoliation. I have read the CAFC ruling and they remanded for explanation of her decision only. As I read the ruling, the issue of spoliation was held intact.
"(Rambus' IP was stolen, it's business was grievously harmed, and no amount of bashing by paid shills screaming "shredding", without any understanding of just how irrelevant that is here, nor Judge Robinson's baseless in fact and
******law decision reversed by the CAFC*******
(her record of 39% reversals of decisions is w/o doubt the single worst in all the federal judiciary), alters the reality of what actually transpired over the years.)"
I read the CAFC decision too, and while you may be a RMBS "strong sell", there is no denying that she was reversed for the following reasons:
Not about her finding of spoliation, but for her ridiculously emotional and biased remedy of complete dismissal without any evidence supporting such a drastic remedy. She simply said spoliation= you're gone.
The CAFC said this approach is unacceptable. Finding spoliation is the BEGINNING of the inquiry, not the end.
There must be clear evidence that the spoliation was directly relevant, in deliberate bad faith and not just as part of a general document elimination policy that all companies have (oncluding Micron),was directly damaging to Micron in this instance. Micron did not present or establish any of that. There was no such evidence presented to her, and she had none.
That's why she is so often reversed, and independent studies have corroborated this beyond dispute.
She does not belong on the Bench, but rather in the office of Micron's general counsel.
The CAFC indicated that dismissal (or throwing plaintiff out of court) is an extreme, last resort kind of remedy and is unfavored in the law. So they sent it back to her for re-hearing. This by itself won't end her bias or guarantee an eventual changed result in her court, but if she is again typically shoddy, she'll be reversed again.
The mindless screaming by the bashers "shredding" is just that, idiotic in any forum that counts.
Once again, you are making false statements. The proof will be your post citing the link and exact wording you claim exists in the CAFC ruling. See my previous post.
Try reading page 36 of the following document.
Your statements are inconsistent with the conclusions of the CAFC. Also, Judge Robinson says she is ready to rule!
YOU ARE WRONG!!!
Specifically, when you said this:
"Micron did not present or establish any of that. There was no such evidence presented to her, and she had none."
What the CAFC has said is that the evidence was there, but that Judge Robinson did not specify what evidence constituted bad faith and prejudice, and on remand she is to SPECIFY what evidence already on record justifies this ruling.
If you read pages 26-27 you will find the following text unaltered and in the precise order in which I have copied below:
While these items may lead to a determination of bad faith, the district court did not make clear the basis on which it reached that conclusion.
“It is not our task to make factual findings,” Golden Hour Data Sys., Inc. v. emsCharts, Inc., 614 F.3d 1367, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and we will leave it to the district court’s sound discretion on remand to analyze these, and any other, relevant facts as they apply to the determina-tion of bad faith
XQ - you are correct that the CAFC ruling affirmed spoilation. It is stated on page 23 of the opinion that I quote here: "This court thus affirms the district court’s determination that Rambus destroyed documents during its second shred day in contravention of a duty to preserve them and, thus, engaged in spoliation."
However, they did not remand just for an explaination of her decision. The CAFC indicated that she used the wrong legal standard in making the bad faith determination on page 27 of the opinion.
They said: "We note that the district court applied a “knew or should have known” standard in its bad faith determination. On remand, the district court should limit its bad faith analysis to the proper inquiry: whether Rambus “intended to impair the ability of the potential defendant to defend itself,” Schmid, 13 F.3d at 80, without regard to whether Rambus “should have known” of the propriety of its document destruction."
YOU ARE CORRECT. Spoliation remains intact and remanded for consideration of a remedy based on various factors of intent.
I was just trying to make it a simple post with the attachment for a clear record of the case. I do believe that JSR will come to the same conclusion with her full opinion outlined as a basis for her ruling.