|
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
JoeChartreuse
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:41 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
|
birdofsong wrote: JoeChartreuse wrote: HarringtonLaw wrote:
Because as far as I'm concerned, nothing went wrong. The other attorney claims that we didn't send him two things that I have a record of having sent him, that I personally put in the mail. I've verified the address. If there is a problem, it's on his end.
Since my original reply to this part was deleted for reasons unknown ( it was simply observation, no personal negativity involved), I will try again. When important legal documents are sent via mail, they are normally sent- at the very least- Certified, so that a signed receipt of the document is sent to the sender. If the sender didn't receive verification of receipt, and didn't follow oup, the sender dropped the ball. If the sender didn't use Certified Mail, then the sender dropped the ball. It seems that if there was a problem, it was NOT on the other attorney's end. It was with the alleged sender. Sorry, Joe - I'm actually going to have to disagree with you. Normally, legal documents in the course of an ongoing lawsuit are sent regular first class mail, just like anything else. The only exceptions, based on requirement of the court, are a summons or subpoena, both of which must either be served by process server or certified mail. A party that cannot be served in those ways can be served by alternative service with permission of the court. Once a party has been served with a lawsuit, there is no such requirement, and everything can be served regular mail. Far be it from me to argue with people more knowledgeable than I on BOTH sides of the fence. However, if HL had a signature card verifying the receipt of the documents the case would not have been dismissed. Though I am not as knowledgeable as Birdofsong and HL, I STILL see that verification of receipt would have kept SC's case alive, had they chosen to pursue it. Just my not so humble opinion, of course....but it sure looks like they blew it by not following procedure. Again, just an uneducated guess....
_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:36 am |
|
 |
| Extreme Poster |
 |
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
|
Where did you get the idea that the case has been dismissed? It hasn't. One of the defendants has filed a motion. We've responded with documentation that demonstrates that the factual basis of their motion is false. There has not been a ruling.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:55 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
|
|
I was in error regarding my statement about dismissal- the oversight of a tired host, not misinformation. My apologies. Like all others, I await the outcome- dismissal or not yet to be determined.
To re-phrase: If SC had been able to verify receipt of the documents, they wouldn't be in the current position.
In other words, per Bird and HL, sending them Certified may not have been required, but it would have been something that would have been of benefit to expedition SC's case- a very good idea, and one used by many attorneys, as well as their clients.
_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:43 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
|
Judge Holland just issued an order on the motion. We will not be prohibited from calling witnesses or putting on evidence. We are being required to disclose information from the investigative report. The defendant who filed the motion is limited at trial to showing those discs he actually disclosed ownership of to us in his original disclosures, to exclude the possibility that he obtained the discs later.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:55 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: Judge Holland just issued an order on the motion. We will not be prohibited from calling witnesses or putting on evidence. We are being required to disclose information from the investigative report. The defendant who filed the motion is limited at trial to showing those discs he actually disclosed ownership of to us in his original disclosures, to exclude the possibility that he obtained the discs later. Yes he did. The bad part for you however, is that he shot down your "priviliged/work product" claim: Judge Holland wrote: Nevertheless, defendant XXXXXX is entitled to know what trademarks he is alleged to have infringed, and presumably the report will provide that factual information. The factual information upon which plaintiff will rely to support its claim is not privileged. If and to the extent that the report may disclose investigative techniques, defendant XXXXXX is entitled to test the witness’ information-gathering by inquiring into how information as to alleged infringement was gathered. That information is not privileged, nor is it work product of counsel. Although it seems unlikely, if the report repeats instructions given to the witness by counsel, counsel’s thinking about the witness investigation may be excised. However, reports as to what the witness did and how information was gathered may not be excised from the report. With the foregoing limitation, the report shall be produced. I would expect this would be a similar approach from many of the defendants out there... Kind of a bummer huh?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JimHarrington
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:53 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am
Posts: 3011
Been Liked: 1003 times
|
c. staley wrote: HarringtonLaw wrote: Judge Holland just issued an order on the motion. We will not be prohibited from calling witnesses or putting on evidence. We are being required to disclose information from the investigative report. The defendant who filed the motion is limited at trial to showing those discs he actually disclosed ownership of to us in his original disclosures, to exclude the possibility that he obtained the discs later. Yes he did. The bad part for you however, is that he shot down your "priviliged/work product" claim: Judge Holland wrote: Nevertheless, defendant XXXXXX is entitled to know what trademarks he is alleged to have infringed, and presumably the report will provide that factual information. The factual information upon which plaintiff will rely to support its claim is not privileged. If and to the extent that the report may disclose investigative techniques, defendant XXXXXX is entitled to test the witness’ information-gathering by inquiring into how information as to alleged infringement was gathered. That information is not privileged, nor is it work product of counsel. Although it seems unlikely, if the report repeats instructions given to the witness by counsel, counsel’s thinking about the witness investigation may be excised. However, reports as to what the witness did and how information was gathered may not be excised from the report. With the foregoing limitation, the report shall be produced. I would expect this would be a similar approach from many of the defendants out there... Kind of a bummer huh? Whatever you do, please don't throw me in the briar patch. Look...I have said all along that my purpose is claiming privilege--which I respectfully disagree with Judge Holland about whether it is work product of counsel, when the investigator is acting at my specific direction--is to prevent defendants from committing spoliation of evidence. Having to disclose the information from the report AFTER the defendant has committed to the identification of the discs that he has (and therefore doesn't have) is not such a big deal. Judge Holland's solution to that problem is a good one, particularly in this case. By the way, we identified the investigator from the beginning. The defendant never sought to depose him (or anyone else). I know some of you were dancing with glee that the case might be dismissed. Sorry to disappoint.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:10 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
|
As a private investigator, I've testified in Court once. I'm in Court quite often to assist the lawyer assessing testimoney/evidence and any concerns I may have and to help with questions that may have been missed. My attorneys and I work as a team catching things that may have been missed. I have met and discussed my findings with the lawyer on the other side (whether criminal or civil) with my findings, only with the attorney I'm working for present. When I work for an attorney, it is under lawyer/client privlege. Remember the old attorney's adage, "Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to".
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:41 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
HarringtonLaw wrote: Whatever you do, please don't throw me in the briar patch. I'm not throwing you anywhere... I simply commented that it appears as though the judge has ruled that there isn't the privilege or work product that you were seeking. HarringtonLaw wrote: Look...I have said all along that my purpose is claiming privilege--which I respectfully disagree with Judge Holland about whether it is work product of counsel, when the investigator is acting at my specific direction--is to prevent defendants from committing spoliation of evidence. Having to disclose the information from the report AFTER the defendant has committed to the identification of the discs that he has (and therefore doesn't have) is not such a big deal. Judge Holland's solution to that problem is a good one, particularly in this case. By the way, we identified the investigator from the beginning. The defendant never sought to depose him (or anyone else).
I know some of you were dancing with glee that the case might be dismissed. Sorry to disappoint. And this is the part that you do not understand: the problem I have is that it doesn't appear as though you actually collect evidence first. The complaint on your California suit, appears as though the only factors that determine whether a KJ gets sued, is if they are a: running a computer and b: have over 8,500 tracks in their library. This is not "evidence" this is simply an assumption based on what your client feels the popularity of their tracks are. You want the defendant to show you all of the discs they have in their collection, but at the same time you refuse to name which tracks you claim actually infringed on your trademark. I understand your entire theory of spoliation of evidence, however from this side of the fence it seems very easy for your investigator, once they know which discs the defendant has, to simply say "well we didn't see any of those, but we are not telling you what we did see." Why doesn't your discovery simply consist of a meeting at one attorney's office where you bring the list of songs that infringed and the KJ brings his disc collection. You name the song, they will show you the disc. this way, they don't know what songs you will name, and you don't know what disks they actually own. Now if you want to take the point, that they are simply violating the law by using a computer to display your trademark whether or not they are 1 to 1 with your permission, then there does not need to be any discovery at all simply prosecute them for trademark infringement based on the evidence you have actually collected, and get as much money as you can out of them. End of story. this precludes of course any opportunity of you making "Pirates into customers" because I'm sure they wouldn't want to buy anything from you afterwards.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
timberlea
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:00 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 4094
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Been Liked: 309 times
|
|
A lawsuit ot complaint will only contain the complaint, the particulars, and requested remedy. Evidence is not a part of it. The evidence is given during a Discovery or Trial.
_________________
You can be strange but not a stranger
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:11 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
timberlea wrote: A lawsuit ot complaint will only contain the complaint, the particulars, and requested remedy. Evidence is not a part of it. The evidence is given during a Discovery or Trial. Duh...... However, in this (and other cases) the plaintiff has been keeping that evidence as though it is protected...... it isn't. It's their case - they have no case without evidence - period.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Alex
|
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:29 am |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:40 am
Posts: 1094
Songs: 1
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Been Liked: 53 times
|
c. staley wrote: HarringtonLaw wrote: Whatever you do, please don't throw me in the briar patch. I'm not throwing you anywhere... I simply commented that it appears as though the judge has ruled that there isn't the privilege or work product that you were seeking. HarringtonLaw wrote: Look...I have said all along that my purpose is claiming privilege--which I respectfully disagree with Judge Holland about whether it is work product of counsel, when the investigator is acting at my specific direction--is to prevent defendants from committing spoliation of evidence. Having to disclose the information from the report AFTER the defendant has committed to the identification of the discs that he has (and therefore doesn't have) is not such a big deal. Judge Holland's solution to that problem is a good one, particularly in this case. By the way, we identified the investigator from the beginning. The defendant never sought to depose him (or anyone else).
I know some of you were dancing with glee that the case might be dismissed. Sorry to disappoint. And this is the part that you do not understand: the problem I have is that it doesn't appear as though you actually collect evidence first. The complaint on your California suit, appears as though the only factors that determine whether a KJ gets sued, is if they are a: running a computer and b: have over 8,500 tracks in their library. This is not "evidence" this is simply an assumption based on what your client feels the popularity of their tracks are. You want the defendant to show you all of the discs they have in their collection, but at the same time you refuse to name which tracks you claim actually infringed on your trademark. I understand your entire theory of spoliation of evidence, however from this side of the fence it seems very easy for your investigator, once they know which discs the defendant has, to simply say "well we didn't see any of those, but we are not telling you what we did see." Why doesn't your discovery simply consist of a meeting at one attorney's office where you bring the list of songs that infringed and the KJ brings his disc collection. You name the song, they will show you the disc. this way, they don't know what songs you will name, and you don't know what disks they actually own. Now if you want to take the point, that they are simply violating the law by using a computer to display your trademark whether or not they are 1 to 1 with your permission, then there does not need to be any discovery at all simply prosecute them for trademark infringement based on the evidence you have actually collected, and get as much money as you can out of them. End of story. this precludes of course any opportunity of you making "Pirates into customers" because I'm sure they wouldn't want to buy anything from you afterwards. I double like this Chip!  That way they actually would have to investigate thoroughly before they sue a KJ. Right now it seems like you said: "Oh, he's using a computer and has more than 10,000 songs... must be a pirate!" - .... (can't say what I would like to say here) And then I hear rumors that SC wants to get back into producing disks. Do they really think that KJ's would keep buying their disks after all this? Maybe the cheerleaders will, but that's about it. SC, I personally believe you've pretty much put yourself out of business just about now.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:17 am |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
|
|
I don't know of other, but I am not dancing with glee in hopes of dismissal.. I am actually hoping that :
A) It actually goes through the court system.
B) The defendant is smart enough to do what has to be done.
SC has to be VERY careful if they are forced to name the tracks that were supposedly used without disc support. They have to make sure that the tracks in question were not supported by Dan's discs, they have to prove that these particular tracks were used, and most importantly, they have to prove that U.S. licensing for said tracks by SC was current
at the time. As for number 3, good luck with that.
Additionally, if Dan comes to court with a full list of tracks that produced without permission of the owner/publishers (unlicensed, such as the Eagles and many MANY others) with trademarks added without that permission, not only will it kill SC's case, but leave them open to a slew of suits from the publishers, owners, possible class actions from previously embattled KJs, etc...
It is my ( and my advisors) opinion that if SC goes through the case from beginning to end, they will not only lose this case, but any possible future income from "settlements", and may possibly be brought down completely by future class action suits fromKJs, and publisher difficulties as well.
That's why I am NOT hoping for a dismissal....
_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Paradigm Karaoke
|
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 3:28 am |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:24 pm
Posts: 5107
Location: Phoenix Az
Been Liked: 1279 times
|
|
an add on to Joe's post......
it seems that mysteriously all the 8125 songs are no longer available for custom anymore.....that is except for
one of these nights
new kid in town
hotel california
now here is where it gets weird.....
all 3 of these are Henley and Frey.
but the others are no longer available so all of you who bought a replica 8125, you got lucky.
_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
MtnKaraoke
|
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:01 am |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:40 pm
Posts: 1052
Images: 1
Been Liked: 204 times
|
How many 8125's still on the market? All of my originals just went up in $value$  Thanks for the info.
_________________
Never the same show twice!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
JoeChartreuse
|
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 11:24 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:12 pm
Posts: 5046
Been Liked: 334 times
|
|
No worries- besides 8125, there's SC8438, SC2029, SC8435, SC 2163, and and whole bunch of others.. . Walk into court and show a long history of this sort ( which they have) and see what happens....
_________________
"No Contests, No Divas, Just A Good Time!"
" Disc based and loving it..."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Murray C
|
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:05 am |
|
|
| Super Poster |
 |
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:50 pm
Posts: 1047
Been Liked: 1 time
|
c. staley wrote: Dan has principles and IMHO, is just as well within his right to refuse and protect his privacy. You are correct in that. I agree with Rumbolt though, that if Dan Dan is indeed 1:1 compliant, simply showing the discs would probably be in his best interest as it would result in a dismissal due to reasons previously discussed, and there would be no need for a settlement. However I have my own reasons to question Dan Dan's "principles" or, more to the point, his ethics. For those reasons, anything stated by him I treat with extreme scepticism and I would seriously doubt any affirmations he has to being 1:1 compliant. Isn't it interesting that one of the Youtube Channels Dan Dan subscribes to is this one? http://www.youtube.com/user/KaraokeNetKinda indicative of where his principles lie, eh?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
kjathena
|
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:36 pm |
|
|
| Super Plus Poster |
 |
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:51 pm
Posts: 1636
Been Liked: 73 times
|
went to go look but http://www.youtube.com/user/KaraokeNet has been taken off YouTube....wonder what I missed ....Hum 
_________________
"Integrity is choosing your thoughts, words and actions based on your principles and values rather than for your personal gain."
Unknown
"if a man has integrity, nothing else matters, If a man has no integrity, nothing else matters."
Lee McGuffey
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Murray C
|
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:47 am |
|
|
| Super Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:50 pm
Posts: 1047
Been Liked: 1 time
|
I don't think you missed anything Athena... "suspended due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's Copyright Policy" pretty much sums it up! 
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
hiteck
|
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 7:56 am |
|
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:39 am
Posts: 884
Location: Tx
Been Liked: 17 times
|
Murray C wrote: I don't think you missed anything Athena... "suspended due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's Copyright Policy" pretty much sums it up! Copyright or Trademark?
_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
c. staley
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:35 pm |
|
|
| Extreme Poster |
|
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:26 am
Posts: 4839
Location: In your head rent-free
Been Liked: 582 times
|
FILED DEC. 1, 2011 Arizona Court wrote: SLEP-TONE ENTERTAINMENT CORP. v. DENNIS GORREL
THE HONORABLE H. RUSSEL HOLLAND CASE NO. 2:09-cv-1462-HRH
PROCEEDINGS: ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
Plaintiffs’ request for a status conference and/or continuance, filed November 14, 2011 (Docket No. 114), is denied as moot in view of the pending settlement conference. This should be interesting....
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 232 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
