|
|
|
|
||
Re: Today in Whyte's CourtNuke’s post contained much of what happened today. I'll add some more notes. Samsung was represented by Powers and Healey was sitting in the gallery. Rambus had Stone, Leudkte, and Hamilton. Judge Whyte seemed to be in chipper mood and started off the CMC by saying, "It looks like we are in pretty good shape for this trial as far as organization goes." Mr. Powers started off by saying Samsung decided to drop some of their defenses with prejudice. I believe the 'with prejudice' part is particularly important because it means Samsung can no longer use this defense in other courtrooms, such as Judge Kramer's. Powers said they were dropping the JEDEC claims and most of the Steinberg claims. He also said they were dropping their claims regarding the original RDRAM contract but would pursue the post-2000 contract claims. He said the unclean hands/spoliation would still be pursued. Judge Whyte then moved onto the use of privileged documents by Samsung in the upcoming trial. Judge Whyte said Hynix made a prima facie showing that resulted in some pierced documents being produced. He continued by saying Hynix was then able to use those pierced documents, but since he found no fraud, those documents can no longer be used by Hynix. Judge Whyte asked, “Why shouldn’t that same procedure be used for the Samsung trial?” It seemed to me Judge Whyte knows exactly what the documents are and what the arguments are going to be. I believe he is allowing the documents to be presented to remove a reason Samsung might use later on appeal. Judge Whyte has been down this road before and knows the likely outcome. Ms. Leudkte rebutted by saying the standards had changed since Judge Whyte first made his decision during the Hynix trial. The Napster case changed the standard to pierce from a reasonable possibility to a preponderance of the evidence that fraud occurred. Mr. Powers then made one of several misstatements by saying that Rambus had never submitted a brief on this issue and never cited Napster in a motion. Powers declined Judge Whyte’s request to debate Napster because he never got a brief from Rambus. Leudtke quickly corrected him because Rambus cited this issue over a month ago. Powers then complained about Rambus’ extensive witness list of 8 will-calls and 32 may-calls. Judge Whyte sympathized and suggested Rambus atleast reduce the may-calls. Mr. Stone agreed and said that would be no problem because Samsung had dropped some of their defense claims. Powers changed topics and wanted Rambus to clarify the issues they will raise during trial. Powers said Rambus' claims lacked clarity. Judge Whyte quickly popped the hot air balloon by asking Powers exactly what topic needed clarification. Judge Whyte asked, “Give me an example. What is on your mind?” Powers’ showed his weak argument by answering, “I don’t have a particular issue on my mind.” Powers made an additional misstatement by saying Judge Whyte had already ordered Rambus to clarify their issues. Ms. Leudkte quickly debunked Powers’ false claim about any order that had been issued by Judge Whyte. She also said Rambus sent in two pretrial statements that listed exactly the issues Rambus would raise. The first statement was based on Rambus’ original understanding that Samsung would drop some defenses with prejudice and the second statement was based after Samsung backed out of that prejudice understanding. Now that Samsung finally agreed to drop with prejudice, the original statement could be used. Ms. Leudkte was impressive today. She spoke with a confident voice, mastered the facts, and punched several holes in Powers’ credibility. Powers then made a request to issue post-trial briefs before closing arguments. Judge Whyte asked, “Is there any topic that really needs a briefing that hasn’t already been briefed?” Powers argued spoliation would need further post-trial clarification and would make closing arguments all the more effective for the court. Stone pointed out the obvious that the court is already familiar with all the issues, but if Judge Whyte wanted to, he would agree to that schedule. Judge Whyte said he would think further about it, but he seemed skeptical of Power’s request. Judge Whyte confirmed each side would get 12 hours each during the trial. He also confirmed that the next CMC would discuss the motion in limine about the Steinberg-related pierced documents. |
return to message board, top of board |
Msg # | Subject | Author | Recs | Date Posted |
257615 | Re: Today in Whyte's Court > thanks drive! ... and ... | davesue5450 | 13 | 9/11/2008 10:13:08 PM |
257616 | Re: Today in Whyte's Court | RambusWins | 22 | 9/11/2008 10:13:51 PM |
257621 | Re: Today in Whyte's Court | ThinkandGrowRich | 1 | 9/11/2008 10:23:33 PM |
257638 | Re: Today in Whyte's Court - Go Leudtke!!! eom | gorambus2005 | 3 | 9/11/2008 10:48:09 PM |
257646 | Re: Today in Whyte's Court | stkhawk | 128 | 9/11/2008 10:58:20 PM |
257659 | Re: Today in Whyte's Court | nordicprince | 48 | 9/11/2008 11:18:23 PM |
257676 | Re: Today in Whyte's Court | NukeJohn | 74 | 9/12/2008 12:08:33 AM |
257734 | Re: Today in Whyte's Court /////Drive 1968//// | sab63090 | 10 | 9/12/2008 9:03:38 AM |
258659 | Re: Today in Whyte's Court | third_derivative_of_x | 103 | 9/15/2008 2:10:59 PM |