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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: limtex who wrote (61434)	3/24/2007 1:43:15 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197270

But the lawyers should have found them. It was a core issue, They did find them and used them to prepare the witness for her trial testimony. They were not produced to BRCM despite the fact that they were presumably requested early on, during discovery. Broadcom on the same day, 1/24/07, made an "oral motion for sanctions re: production of documents" against Q on which I don't see a ruling or a transcript. I suppose it is still technically pending. It clearly refers to the unproduced emails as it relates to the lady who first talked about them. These kinds of motions often go to the wayside after a trial is concluded. Maybe not, Rudi seems like a straight arrow and won't put up with game playing. All this happened literally they day before the jury got the case, at the very end. And if the oral motion was made in front of the jury, who got to witness the motion for sanctions and its grounds, then that would be, ah, not very good for Q. Most judges excuse the jury for these kinds of proceedings, but a sharp lawyer like Lee would have started his arguments about them before the jury is excused. I've done similar things, all perfectly OK in the field and heat of combat. So, if the jury heard that Q was hiding evidence, then it might have been influenced by the shenanigans. The judge might have given them an instruction to disregard any argument Lee may have made, but that is done after the horse is out of the barn. This is all speculative, as it is impossible to tell whether the jury heard about the missing emails. So, IMO, the Q lawyers either did an exteremely poor job of document gathering in preparation for trial or intentionally hid the documents or got bushwhacked. The fact that they had the documents in their possession then had to produce them after the witness discussed them on the very last day suggests to me that they probably hid them, but it is hard to say to a 100% certainty. Where this bit of inept lawyering will hurt will be on the appeal. After making a record of the hidden emails, BRCM's appellate brief will skewer Q for its lapse. Ouch.

To: limtex who wrote (61434)	3/24/2007 2:30:57 PM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 197270

The lawyers should have found them, but that is not the same thing as they hid them. Her testimony says the emails were found during her preparation for her testimony, not for her deposition or discovery. Her preparation for testimony would have been shortly before trial. The judge had expressed skepticism of the JVT argument at the summary judgment hearing, because there were no written rules. I haven't had a chance to read the opinion, but reliance on some unwritten thing seems thin to me. Plus, the problem that the emails were sent without having been requested and were not read. That means all the SSO has to do is create the largest email blast list in the world. If you have an unwritten policy, it seems to me it has to be accepted in the sense of a contract would be in order to be enforceable. You have to have agreement by Qcom that the unwritten policy applies. Instead, it is being imposed. On the other hand, the emails did go to a video compression expert at Qcom. I guess one can no longer ignore emails that you didn't ask for and are cluttering up the inbox.