Recent

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

Rambus Inc. Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • xquestor xquestor Nov 6, 2011 9:05 AM Flag

    From former Rambus Senior Legal Advisor

    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.)"

    XQ

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • 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.

    • 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."

    • The usual troll on the intertubes.

 
RMBS
12.50+0.11(+0.89%)Sep 30 4:00 PMEDT