In follow-up to my article of yesterday correcting misinformation reported by some sites regarding the Case Management Scheduling Report, there is another issue being discussed that also desperately needs a heavy dose of reality. There is no shortage of articles and comments bemoaning that this case is going to be “dragged out” for a year. Once again, this perception stems from naivete on legal issues. A trial date a year out from the Case Management Scheduling Report is not unusual nor is it “dragging out” the case.

Here are a few examples that will help to explain.

Depositions. This case is not the only matter that either law firm is working on. It is incredibly difficult to schedule depositions that are amenable to everyone’s schedule, including the deponent’s.

Other Discovery. “Discovery” is the process by which parties obtain information from each other. These will often take the form of Requests to Produce Documents or Things, Interrogatories, and Requests for Admissions. Once propounded, the party has thirty days to respond. Realistically speaking, extensions are commonplace professional courtesy, so it is not at all difficult to see how basic discovery between the parties can easily take many months. Throw in the near certain expectation of disputes over objections to discovery with corresponding Motions to Compel and the like, the time needed expands rapidly.

Experts. Experts need time to review all the information obtained in discovery. Like the attorneys, this will not be the only thing they are working on.

Dispositive and other Pre-Trial Motions. These are quite time intensive to prepare. The other party then gets a certain time frame to respond (usually twenty days). The moving party may also be given the opportunity to reply to the response (usually five days). Then the Court has to consider the arguments. It is not unusual for a Court to take a month to render a decision on very important motions. Like the attorneys and the experts, this is not the only case the Court is working on.

Counterclaim. This is not one suit, it is two lawsuits. Apple is suing Psystar, and Psystar is counter-suing Apple. Unless Apple’s Motion to Dismiss is granted, which is highly unlikely in my opinion, these two cases are being litigated simultaneously. While obviously the cases are inseparably related, there are claims and defenses unique to each one.

Hopefully, with just these few examples, which could be multiplied five-fold, the reader can see that a one-year scheduling request is not dragging the case out, but is simply, like most everything else that has been sensationalized in this case, normal. Once again, I implore the Apple web, step back and wait until it is reasonably certain that there is a proper understanding of the process before making extravagant statements.