Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I can vouch for that. I just got done with jury duty and I was surprised how difficult it was for some of my fellow jurors to let something go that we were told to exclude or not be biased despite the hours and hours of questions when they were selecting the jury. Just becuase something makes since legally doesn't help you much if you get so jurors that vote for what they feel is right rather than what is legal.

 jonolikespie wrote:
It shouldn't have a bearing on the case, which should be all about whether or not something is is infringing upon someone else's copyright, but sadly the way the legal system works it will have an impact to some degree. Knowing that GW are the big company bullying the little guys will affect the jury's opinion them as would them being given the impression that CH are a rival company of equal size trying to beat their competitors.

What GW are doing by stopping that being brought up is stopping CH try to get the jury on their side since they are the little guys being picked on.

No jury in the world will believe that the CHS lawyers are working under any terms other than pro-bono. GW's only damages evidence is Defendant's profits. CHS is being represented by two law firms, and there very well may be at least half a dozen lawyers at the trial. People can do math. Trust me. They will not believe that a guy running a business out of his living room is somehow on an even playing field with a multinational corporation with revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

The inference is also helped by, well, all experts testifying that they have worked pro-bono, which they will. They have, according to the reports, and compensation is material to credibility.

Put yourself into the shoes of a juror. You have a guy under 40 who started a business in 2008 working out of his living room and spin casting in his garage. You know his unit sales. You know his profits. You know that three people who never met him and who all live 1,000 miles away from his place of business volunteered their time to stand up in his defense. Do you look at his high powered lawyers and think he must somehow be a secretly super-wealthy business tycoon?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wowsmash wrote:
I can vouch for that. I just got done with jury duty and I was surprised how difficult it was for some of my fellow jurors to let something go that we were told to exclude or not be biased despite the hours and hours of questions when they were selecting the jury. Just becuase something makes since legally doesn't help you much if you get so jurors that vote for what they feel is right rather than what is legal.

Behavior follows motivation.

A juror has to want to find in your favor in order to make the effort required to do it. It is just the way people are, all people. I could go deeper into theories of memory, information processing, retention, ethics, decision-making, and so forth, but that sums it up rather succinctly.

Give jurors a reason to find in your favor and then give them the tools with which to do it. Now, that said, jurors by and large want to be fair, they want to bring justice to a dispute, and they want to do the right thing. Jurors also generally take their tasks very seriously. But trials are long, boring, stressful, and complicated. All of that cuts against the work it takes to process information and make a decision. The less motivated to work that a juror is, the more likely the juror will fall back on pre-formed modes of thought, i.e. biases. Doing that is easy.

it is easy to assume that the big company is the bad guy. It is easy to assume that the plaintiff must have a point. It is hard to change the way that you think, such as excluding facts from your consideration.

All of this, of course, is why I have a job. The rules of the game change when a case goes in front of a fact finder, be it a jury, a judge, or even an entity like the ITC. Once human beings are in a position to weigh facts and required to make a final decision, the game changes.

 Aerethan wrote:


So the court is telling GW to properly identify what items they claim are infringing on what GW items?

Can we get a layman recap of what this entry means?

Unfortunately, I'm neck deep in exams to mark right now, and then I have to get back to writing.

czakk wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:


So the court is telling GW to properly identify what items they claim are infringing on what GW items?

Can we get a layman recap of what this entry means?

Unfortunately, I'm neck deep in exams to mark right now, and then I have to get back to writing.

Quite understandable. We all greatly appreciate the input from you, Weeble and Sean on this case and making the facts more understandable by those who aren't trained in the relevant fields.

 Aerethan wrote:
Quite understandable. We all greatly appreciate the input from you, Weeble and Sean on this case and making the facts more understandable by those who aren't trained in the relevant fields.

This so much.

Seriously, thank you guys.

Yes, seconded and thirded.

Fourthed.

n+1thed.

This case is fascinating in it's implications, so it's a massive help for someone to decipher the legalese and what are serious motions or points and what are lawyers basically blowing smoke

add my name to the list of people praising those who are smart enough to dumb stuff down enough for me to understand!

 Aerethan wrote:

czakk wrote:
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, April 25, 2013:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly:

Continued final pretrial conference held on 4/25/2013.

Rulings made, as stated in open court, on remainder of plaintiff's motion to enforce discovery orders; defendant's motions in limine 1 and 4, and plaintiff's motion in limine 11.

Plaintiff's disclosures identifying defendant's products alleged to have infringed the "icon marks" are to be made to defendant by no later than 5/2/2013.

Joint status report on prior use in commerce issue regarding trademark claims as to certain products is to be submitted by 5/6/2013.

Argument heard regarding privilege claw−back issue as identified in letter dated 4/8/2013; the Court concluded that the privilege claims, at this point, have not been sufficiently supported and described what would be necessary to support the claims.

Telephone status conference regarding prior use issue, to be initiated by counsel, is set for 5/9/2013 at 8:45 AM. (mk)


359, the latest ruling on the motions is attached as well.

So the court is telling GW to properly identify what items they claim are infringing on what GW items?

Can we get a layman recap of what this entry means?

It's late I'm tired but I believe the short version is that GW are being asked to pick specific CHS items to make there claims against rather than CHS's entire product line and the tell CHS which items these are which is something GW have refused to do so far, also GW are being asked to show that they have produced and sold certain items they are claiming against and that they actually hold relevant trade marks for these or have actually produced them.

Anything further than that would need me to pick back through the paperwork and it's 3 in the morning so I will give that a miss for now.

Again, is it legal this late in the lawsuit and after discovery time to ask the plaintiff to actually tell the court what exactly they are accusing Chapterhouse of? It doesn't make sense to me that the defendent is still left in the dark of what he is accused of and on what grounds. GW had time enough, discovery time is over, so why call a jury if there is no case?

 Kroothawk wrote:
Again, is it legal this late in the lawsuit and after discovery time to ask the plaintiff to actually tell the court what exactly they are accusing Chapterhouse of? It doesn't make sense to me that the defendent is still left in the dark of what he is accused of and on what grounds. GW had time enough, discovery time is over, so why call a jury if there is no case?

The relevant question is one of prejudice. How has the lack of clarification harmed the defendant's ability to defend against the claims? Would the defendant have conducted different discovery? Has the defendant missed an opportunity to depose a witness on a certain point?

It is sort of a no-harm-no-foul thing. It is like if you forgot to move one of your units in your turn, and in my turn you want to move it. Well, if the position of that unit and where you want to move it really doesn't matter to what I am doing now, then why not go ahead and move it, no worries. It would be different if I was getting ready to roll an assault and you were like, "Well I forgot to move that unit last turn."

Now, I will say that if you had moved your unit, maybe I would have made different decisions. And maybe you are benefiting from having seen what I am doing in my turn before committing to moving that unit. It might ultimately have a big impact on the game, or you may just be gaming the system and taking advantage of me. In either case, it is not appropriate.

That is the line I would take on the bull Foley & Lardner has been pulling for two solid years. At this point, it is against the rules, you had your chance, you are taking unfair advantage, so no, you can't move your unit. That, however, is not how the Court seems to be looking at it.

It is times like that in a case when you just sigh, take out your appellate points whiteboard, make a note, and deal with it. If the CHS case does not settle out, Judge Kennelly could very well be facing some serious appeal action, from either party.

Given that this case arose in late 2010, I do think GW might by now have told the defendant what they are accused of.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given that this case arose in late 2010, I do think GW might by now have told the defendant what they are accused of.

You expect a great deal. :-)

I'm actually surprised at the latitude that the judge has given GW's legal counsel in this case. In my time as paralegal, I was taken to task for calling the court one time for the attorney I worked for; something that small could have resulted in a bar complaint against me but apparently things are different in this judge's court and counsel may flagrantly traipse all over established procedure. Maybe he honestly expected it to settle out and just kept giving them rope...

Weeble has a great point in that if the case goes against CH, they've already got good grounds for an appeal.

 agnosto wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given that this case arose in late 2010, I do think GW might by now have told the defendant what they are accused of.

You expect a great deal. :-)

I'm actually surprised at the latitude that the judge has given GW's legal counsel in this case. In my time as paralegal, I was taken to task for calling the court one time for the attorney I worked for; something that small could have resulted in a bar complaint against me but apparently things are different in this judge's court and counsel may flagrantly traipse all over established procedure. Maybe he honestly expected it to settle out and just kept giving them rope...

Weeble has a great point in that if the case goes against CH, they've already got good grounds for an appeal.

Latitude (and attitude) can vary EXTREMELY between judges, even judges in the same court house.

 G. Whitenbeard wrote:


Latitude (and attitude) can vary EXTREMELY between judges, even judges in the same court house.

Right, though normally they try to run a tighter ship than taking several years to even get around to what the defendant is actually getting accused of. Most judges I've been around work that out long before 2 months before trial....

weeble1000 wrote:
It is sort of a no-harm-no-foul thing.

So in USA it is legal to drag anyone to a 3 year lawsuit without saying what you accuse him of? Chapterhouse was lucky to get pro bono lawyers, but not everyone is so lucky. And what do you tell the jury, why you summoned them, if there is no case? And what do you tell the tax payer, why you occupied a judge for so many days? Wouldn't it make more sense to ask the plaintiff: "Come back when you have a case!"

BTW harm was done: Chapterhouse had almost no new products for 3 years, while their competitors had more than a hundred new products.

Not... quite.

GW was trying for a broad ruling, one that is applicable in a wider range of releases.

Sometimes broad is allowed.

This time... if the judge begins pulling out individual items then the rulings will only apply to those items.

So, if GW wanted a ruling of 'No make shoulder pads! Shoulder pads GW!' they may just get 'No make Space Wolf shoulder Pads! Space Wolf shoulder pads GW!'

Not as useful when someone makes shoulder pads for new companies that are not an official part of the GW setting.

Also, because it is being narrowed down it is possible that the ruling might be even more strict. 'These no Space Wolves! Unpainted! Space Wolves painted! Yellow! Grey! Black! These no paint!'

GW would really not want the rulings to be narrow, in the event that they win. If they lose...?

Do not ask me why I am doing cavemen.... Me have no answer....

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Not... quite.

GW was trying for a broad ruling, one that is applicable in a wider range of releases.

Sometimes broad is allowed.

This time... if the judge begins pulling out individual items then the rulings will only apply to those items.

So, if GW wanted a ruling of 'No make shoulder pads! Shoulder pads GW!' they may just get 'No make Space Wolf shoulder Pads! Space Wolf shoulder pads GW!'

Not as useful when someone makes shoulder pads for new companies that are not an official part of the GW setting.

Also, because it is being narrowed down it is possible that the ruling might be even more strict. 'These no Space Wolves! Unpainted! Space Wolves painted! Yellow! Grey! Black! These no paint!'

GW would really not want the rulings to be narrow, in the event that they win. If they lose...?

Do not ask me why I am doing cavemen.... Me have no answer....

The Auld Grump

Caveman Judge is now my favorite character, and any legal statements from the judge in this thread I'll now hear in that voice in my head. Excellent.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Not... quite.

GW was trying for a broad ruling, one that is applicable in a wider range of releases.

Sometimes broad is allowed.

This time... if the judge begins pulling out individual items then the rulings will only apply to those items.

So, if GW wanted a ruling of 'No make shoulder pads! Shoulder pads GW!' they may just get 'No make Space Wolf shoulder Pads! Space Wolf shoulder pads GW!'

Not as useful when someone makes shoulder pads for new companies that are not an official part of the GW setting.

Also, because it is being narrowed down it is possible that the ruling might be even more strict. 'These no Space Wolves! Unpainted! Space Wolves painted! Yellow! Grey! Black! These no paint!'

GW would really not want the rulings to be narrow, in the event that they win. If they lose...?

If I go to a German court and tell them, I invented skulls, Roman numbers, and protection for shoulders and want anyone sued who uses skulls, Roman numbers and protection for shoulders, the court would say: "Give us proof that you own copyright/trademark for all skulls, Roman numbers and protection of shoulders, then we have a case." Just saying "Lackey, he annoys us, make him stop" is not enough anymore.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Not... quite.

GW was trying for a broad ruling, one that is applicable in a wider range of releases.

Sometimes broad is allowed.

This time... if the judge begins pulling out individual items then the rulings will only apply to those items.

So, if GW wanted a ruling of 'No make shoulder pads! Shoulder pads GW!' they may just get 'No make Space Wolf shoulder Pads! Space Wolf shoulder pads GW!'

Not as useful when someone makes shoulder pads for new companies that are not an official part of the GW setting.

Also, because it is being narrowed down it is possible that the ruling might be even more strict. 'These no Space Wolves! Unpainted! Space Wolves painted! Yellow! Grey! Black! These no paint!'

GW would really not want the rulings to be narrow, in the event that they win. If they lose...?

If I go to a German court and tell them, I invented skulls, Roman numbers, and protection for shoulders and want anyone sued who uses skulls, Roman numbers and protection for shoulders, the court would say: "Give us proof that you own copyright/trademark for all skulls, Roman numbers and protection of shoulders, then we have a case." Just saying "Lackey, he annoys us, make him stop" is not enough anymore.

However that is not the case here, now is it?

Your strawman does not look much like the target.

Trust me, German courts get a great deal of silliness flowing through in regards to IP as well. This particular U.S. case is being noticed in this particular forum because it matters to us. If a German automobile company sues another company over the shape of their rearview mirror closure... it is unlikely to be discussed on Dakka Dakka, and the German automobile manufacturer might well start with as broad a claim as possible, only to have it narrowed down by the courts. (Our rearview mirror has a plastic enclosure! These have a plastic enclosure! They copied us! may come down to 'What shape is the plastic enclosure for your rearview mirror? M'kay, denied. Next case!')

The fact that GW is being called on to show which particulars they are claiming shows that it really does not fly in other courts, either.

Saying 'shoulder pads of these particular shapes' have a chance, while your 'protection for shoulders' does not.

The question is going to be whether, in fact, the 'Shoulder pads of these particular shapes' is something that they can claim. Or even if 'Shoulder pads of these particular shapes with a stylized wolf's head' are protected.

Personally, I think that GW is going to be lucky if they even get 'Space Wolf shoulder pads' out of this. Odds are highly against 'shoulder pads of these particular shapes'.

And by the claims being narrowed... other changes will allow the shoulder pads to fly - flanged, unflanged, articulated, single piece.... Narrowing the descriptions really does not work in GW's favor. :lol: The Judge Dredd shoulder will hurt them.

We do not need to make their arguments look any weaker than they already are... GW has done a nice job of diluting their own claims with a pile of inconsequentials. Trying to bury the court in a mountain of inconsequential papers does not make for a happy judge.

GW lost a great deal of ground when CH decided to fight the claims at all - GW was likely hoping that CH would back down as so many have before. Now, if nothing else, GW has laid the possibility that their claimed IP will be proven indefensible.

Win or lose, GW is not going to come out as the clear victor - this has likely already cost them far more money than they are happy with, and there is a very real possibility that they will either lose or be left with a surviving description that has been so narrowed that other companies will be able to produce aftermarket parts for 40K even if GW technically 'wins'.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Saying 'shoulder pads of these particular shapes' have a chance, while your 'protection for shoulders' does not.

The question is going to be whether, in fact, the 'Shoulder pads of these particular shapes' is something that they can claim. Or even if 'Shoulder pads of these particular shapes with a stylized wolf's head' are protected.

Actually, when asked in court, GW acknowledged that their IP claims on skulls, fur, Halberds and Roman numbers have no basis, took them a while. They also said more or less that they own the copyright on the concept art, but the dog ate the documents.

And the appropriate government agency confirmed, what commen sense already knew, that the simple shoulder pad form is too generic for any chance of a copyright. That's why GW tried to hide that information. So they have no claim and there is actually no case to talk about.

"Dear jury, we can't really say, what the defendent is accused of. Can you just trust us and find them guilty? Please!"

 Kroothawk wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Saying 'shoulder pads of these particular shapes' have a chance, while your 'protection for shoulders' does not.

The question is going to be whether, in fact, the 'Shoulder pads of these particular shapes' is something that they can claim. Or even if 'Shoulder pads of these particular shapes with a stylized wolf's head' are protected.

Actually, when asked in court, GW acknowledged that their IP claims on skulls, fur, Halberds and Roman numbers have no basis, took them a while. They also said more or less that they own the copyright on the concept art, but the dog ate the documents.

And the appropriate government agency confirmed, what common sense already knew, that the simple shoulder pad form is too generic for any chance of a copyright. That's why GW tried to hide that information. So they have no claim and there is actually no case to talk about.

"Dear jury, we can't really say, what the defendant is accused of. Can you just trust us and find them guilty? Please!"

Hey! It worked for certain certain politicians that are no longer in office....

The good news (Great news!?) is that if they fumble the ball here then that will make it harder for them to try similar shenanigans in the future.

Be nice if this was labeled 'With Prejudice', but I will keep my hopes on that low....

The Auld Grump, no similarities to TSR there...?

 Kroothawk wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
It is sort of a no-harm-no-foul thing.

So in USA it is legal to drag anyone to a 3 year lawsuit without saying what you accuse him of? Chapterhouse was lucky to get pro bono lawyers, but not everyone is so lucky. And what do you tell the jury, why you summoned them, if there is no case? And what do you tell the tax payer, why you occupied a judge for so many days? Wouldn't it make more sense to ask the plaintiff: "Come back when you have a case!"

I'm shocked, shocked to see international corporations flouting the spirit of a justice system...

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
It is sort of a no-harm-no-foul thing.

So in USA it is legal to drag anyone to a 3 year lawsuit without saying what you accuse him of? Chapterhouse was lucky to get pro bono lawyers, but not everyone is so lucky. And what do you tell the jury, why you summoned them, if there is no case? And what do you tell the tax payer, why you occupied a judge for so many days? Wouldn't it make more sense to ask the plaintiff: "Come back when you have a case!"

I'm shocked, shocked to see international corporations flouting the spirit of a justice system...

Not really, but I am shocked to see a Judge allowing them to do it.

It's a judge from Chicago.

 sourclams wrote:
It's a judge from Chicago.

Hey now. Funny joke though it may be, insinuations of corruption are, I think, unfair here. If you want to talk about corruption, head down to Marshall, Texas.

While I do not entirely agree with all of Judge Kennelly's rulings in the case, his rulings, even those that may indeed be reversible, have been based on a desire to be a fair and impartial arbiter of the dispute. The justice system tends to be plaintiff favorable, and taken as a whole, Judge Kennelly appears to be taking a conservative approach in his rulings that tends to favor putting more facts and evidence in front of the jury, rather than less.

It is difficult and time consuming for a Judge to rule on an issue that comes down to he said she said, and many of the present issues can be traced all the way back to disputes in 2011. For example, regarding ownership of works, Alan Merrett testified that all works were created by GW employees within the scope of their employment. We know now that this was absolutely not the case. But to uncover any solid evidence of that required a significant amount of hard work on the part of defense counsel.

Now, if you look at requests for production and requests for admission, GW was asked for specific information such as the author of the asserted works, the date of creation, assignments or transfers of rights, employment agreements, and so forth. GW provided very little, but GW's 30(b)(6) witness, Alan Merrett, testified that the works were created by GW employees during the scope of their employment. For the Judge, that is witness testimony. Alan Merrett is the living representative of the corporation and he said under penalty of perjury that such was the case. It is very difficult for a Judge to step in and start weighing the veracity of a witness. That is the duty of a fact finder, which in this case is the jury.

So unless the Judge has a firm, factual basis on which to find otherwise, the jury should be making its own collective decision about Mr. Merrett. Certainly, Judge Kennelly could have found otherwise. He could have granted certain of the defendant's motions to compel discovery. He could have dismissed such claims as he saw fit to dismiss. However, those decisions would be subject to appeal. And if he went through a whole trial, and then the appellate court reversed him and remanded the case, it would have to be tried again at significant expense to the parties and the taxpayer.

It is important to understand the factors that go into such decisions. It is hard to say that a jury verdict is wrong when the jury had all of the facts in front of it. Judges like it when juries make the decision; and it is easier, safer, and in many cases quite appropriate to fall back on the idea that a reasonable person could find either way on an issue.

The case is huge, complex, and confusing. In many ways this has worked in GW's favor pre-trial, but also remember that lots of weird, spurious looking claims are still around for the jury, and for witnesses to be cross-examined about.

However, if you ever hear Judge Kennelly complain about the size of the case, there are only two places to lay blame, GW and Judge Kennelly.

I'm sorry but while I deeply appreciate all the work you've had so far in translating this mess for those like me that are less legally inclined, you have to see the case under our layman eyes to try and understand how we feel about it.

To me at least, this is as simple a case as it can be, GW accused CHS of copyright infringement, all they have to do is show which pieces of GW's catalogue are infringed by which pieces of CHS's catalogue... Its as simple as it gets, I can't possibly fathom any reason why the judge as allowed the case to reach this far without even those simple accusations having been filed by GW.

If CHS hadn't gotten pro bono representation, there is no way that a small company could have sustained a legal battle for this long! It just seems like a legal system that is being unfairly skewed to favour the rich and powerful and this judge seems to be actively supporting it by dragging this along for close to 3 years without even a formal accusation having been made!

PhantomViper wrote:

If CHS hadn't gotten pro bono representation, there is no way that a small company could have sustained a legal battle for this long! It just seems like a legal system that is being unfairly skewed to favour the rich and powerful and this judge seems to be actively supporting it by dragging this along for close to 3 years without even a formal accusation having been made!

I don't see that at all. Imagine the scenario...judge dismisses the case and tells GW to come back when they actually have a case. GW re-files the claim later, but CHS no longer has pro-bono representation. CHS has to fold because it cannot afford to defend itself.

PhantomViper wrote:
I'm sorry but while I deeply appreciate all the work you've had so far in translating this mess for those like me that are less legally inclined, you have to see the case under our layman eyes to try and understand how we feel about it.

To me at least, this is as simple a case as it can be, GW accused CHS of copyright infringement, all they have to do is show which pieces of GW's catalogue are infringed by which pieces of CHS's catalogue... Its as simple as it gets, I can't possibly fathom any reason why the judge as allowed the case to reach this far without even those simple accusations having been filed by GW.

If CHS hadn't gotten pro bono representation, there is no way that a small company could have sustained a legal battle for this long! It just seems like a legal system that is being unfairly skewed to favour the rich and powerful and this judge seems to be actively supporting it by dragging this along for close to 3 years without even a formal accusation having been made!

But there are two sides to the dispute. GW says that it has stated which products infringe which rights. GW points to its oft-amended claim chart. The problem is that GW's claim chart is woefully ambiguous. But GW says that it isn't. The defense has sought for years to get GW to define and refine its claims. The defense has sought for years to get the Court to force GW to define and refine its claims, or else toss out those claims. GW has worked vociferously to avoid it, and the Court has been reluctant to step in.

Honestly, this is largely how litigation proceeds. Courts expect parties to work together professionally, and many Judges are reluctant to get their hands dirty. Judge Kennelly has, in very colorful language, afore described why he was reluctant to get his hands dirty deciding who was or was not acting professionally. However, you will note that the behavior of GW lead counsel in this case is remarkably similar to the case in which he and his firm were sanctioned in 2007, E&J Gallo Winery v Cantine Rallo. Is Judge Kennelly aware of that case, probably not. He has however sanctioned Mr. Moskin for very similar behavior in this case.

What is the point I am driving at here? GW's counsel has taken advantage of the trust that the system places in attorneys behaving in an honest, professional, and ethical manner. This has placed a ton of weight on the shoulders of defense counsel, who has been getting reprimanded by the Court for repeatedly bringing disputes before the Judge. It seems like the Judge is to blame, because he is taking a somewhat hands off approach, right? But there are reasonable motivations for the Court to take such an approach. There is no reasonable reason for plaintiff counsel to deliberately withhold relevant discovery and spoliate evidence. And yet, what have we seen in this case? But it has taken years of hard work to gather sufficient proof of such wrongdoing to convince the Court to make a determination that counsel behaved in that manner.

On the one hand, the Court cannot act without good cause. On the other hand, the Court assumes that reputable attorneys at reputable firms behave ethically. This is because most of them do, and a Judge with 100+ cases on his desk does not have the time to settle complicated arguments wherein making a decision requires a significantly nuanced understanding of the facts. In other words, I admonish those following the case to at least understand the context in which the Judge is making his decisions. Does part of the burden fall on the shoulders of the Court? Sure, but a ton of it also falls on the plaintiff and especially plaintiff counsel, Jonathan E. Moskin. And rather than suggesting that the Court is corrupt, one can look to proven instances of wrongdoing on the part of plaintiff's lead counsel.

When a defendant goes to a Judge and says, "Judge, these guys are not giving us what we asked for," the Judge has to turn to the other party and get a response. When that response is, "We totally gave them everything, they are trying to waste your time with this," the situation is now he said, she said. The burden for the accuser to overcome is high, institutional bias is in favor of the accused, the potential harm an incorrect decision may cause is significant, and the effort required to make an informed decision is significant. An unscrupulous individual can use that to play havoc with the system. Mr. Moskin has twice now been sanctioned. Is he going to stop? I have no idea, but if you are looking for someone to be upset with, may I suggest that you look to the cause rather than the symptom.