Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (31806)	7/13/1999 11:39:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71178

Interesting. What is the question? Can they do it? If they did it, it's done. Can they use the information in court? The general test for the admissibility of evidence is whether it is probative of a contested fact. It seems pretty clear that the evidence would be probative of many contested facts. Sometimes evidence is excluded as a sanction for abuse of the discovery process. So that would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Did GM abuse the discovery process by failing to tell the other litigating party (plaintiff, probably) that this device existed? If so, it's excluded, but only in that case. Now that everyone knows about it, presumably it will be available to all, regardless of who it helps. Larger questions. Does the device endanger the passengers in any way? If so, GM is dead meat. Even if not, it's not smart, public relations-wise. Is there something wrong with it? I can't tell, it seems not based on the limited facts, but I suspect that GM is gonna be sorry they ever got this cute.