In order to be discoverable, a looser standard of relevancy is employed. While relevancy at trial means that the evidence has "a tendency, in reason, to prove or disprove a material fact", discovery is allowed if it could lead to relevant evidence.Far more latitude is given during "discovery" than at trial.
At the outset, there is circumstantial evidence of collusion, in that all EC complainants announced their actions at a common press conference, using a common PR firm, and filed common allegations, contemporaneously. (The facts that the CEO of Broadcom went to Finland and met with Nokia during the Santa Ana trial, and subsequently was awarded substantial business by Nokia, will be interesting to explore, as well.)Fishing expeditions at trial are counterproductive, discouraged,and curtailed, but they often (unwittingly) occur to some extent during "discovery". If the trail leads nowhere, it will never be attempted to be introduced at trial.If supported by good evidence and permissible inferences, Nokia will have at least a major problem with "unclean hands". As the Delaware Court of Chancery is a court of equity, "unclean hands" constitutes a valid defense. |
