World of Apple

Comments

1. 

   Tom 9th May 2009, 04.33 am

   So what does that mean in layman’s terms?
2. 

   Lucas 9th May 2009, 16.57 pm

   in layman’s terms it means that Psystar had been come up with the records they are required, by Florida and Federal law to have, including receipts for the purchase of all parts (including the copies of the OS software they say they legally bought retail), sales records etc.

   if they fail to produce such records they would likely be found in contempt and heavily fined, also in danger of some serious IRS trouble and the case could be tossed along with all rights to attempt any other cases. not to mention a summary judgment against them.
3. 

   dizzle 9th May 2009, 18.06 pm

   Lucas is correct. If they claim they didn’t keep such records from the beginning, considering that they knew for certain they could anticipate litigation, their case could be heavily prejudiced by spoliation of evidence. It is interesting that the Court did not buy their “we don’t have the attachments to the email” argument (or at least that is how it appears by the Order). Those attachments were projections for venture capitalists; whom I believe are the John Does that Apple added to the case.

   If they don’t produce satisfactorily by the deadlines, they are going to have to pay Apple’s attorneys fees and costs (and perhaps some punitive sanction) to have to pursue this.

   Now, who are they going to produce for the additional 30(b)(6) deposition? Rudy? The same Rudy who didn’t know the answer to about 90 direct questions about their financials? It would beg the “are you lying now or were you lying then?” scenario.

   If not Rudy, who? His brother? Their parents? Whoever this new gal is that is mentioned in the Order and appears to be a book-keeper?

   Remember though that Psystar said it has its own discovery grievances it plans on filing against Apple.

   But in short, Psystar lost this particular battle soundly. The only thing they escaped so far is monetary sanctions.
4. 

   piot 9th May 2009, 20.18 pm

   dizzie, is all this stuff just par for the course in these type of cases?

   Is Psystar just trying to drag the whole process out…. and also didn’t they mention some problems with Apple’s paperwork?
5. 

   dizzle 10th May 2009, 04.03 am

   @piot discovery disputes are indeed almost universal in any case. It is a bit less usual to let them get to the point where a Federal Judge has to get involved.

   But no, no one should be thinking this is some huge unusual event. What makes it unusual or more interesting is the nature of defective production. The CEO of a small company of two officers cannot remember even basic contours of their finances and claims not to have kept records when they knew from the beginning this was an undertaking that was going to be under legal scrutiny.

   No Psystar isn’t trying to drag the whole process out; that is nearly impossible in Federal Court. Last year people were belly-aching that the November trial date was a drawn-out situation, but that is actually right in line with typical Federal Court cases. The parties don’t decide on this dates, the Court does after hearing what the parties would suggest. There is a fact discovery deadline next month, and nothing any party can do will drag it out.

   Now, could Psystar be purposefully trying to stall until the discovery deadline passes? I suppose that is possible, but I think that would be a breach of ethics that their attorneys would not do.

   Yes Psystar in its letter brief told the Court to expect its problems with Apple’s discovery soon. They briefly complained that all Apple did was produce reams of publicly available documents. That really says nothing as we don’t know what Psystar requested; perhaps the only responsive documents are publicly available documents. They are a public company, so their financial information is out in the open. So without more detail, it is hard to know what they may be on about.

   I can tell you that the hearing was quick, so Judge Alsup had pretty much made up his mind OR the parties reached an agreement that they presented to the Judge at the hearing. I would guess that the hearing lasted under twenty minutes.

   I hope that answered your questions, let me know if you need any further clarification.
6. 

   dizzle 10th May 2009, 17.08 pm

   The minutes have been posted of the hearing. It appears that part of guess was correct, check it out:

   http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03251/204881/67/

   The parties were put in a cage match for three hours and resolved most of the issues themselves. Any remaining loose ends were resolved by the judge. I would be very interested in hearing what they were able to agree upon. I have my thoughts, but I would be interested in more than my speculation.
7. 

   mathue 21st May 2009, 17.41 pm

   Any news on what transpired on the 18th?
8. 

   dizzle 27th May 2009, 07.22 am

   It appears that nothing did, thus the bankruptcy filing.