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.

East coast time is about 5 hours behind, so it still miight be today.

Alright, i've waited patiently all day, is there any progress as of today? Or at all that anyone knows about?

Status hearing held and continued until 7/6/11. The motion to compel was entered and continued until the status hearing date. Status reports are to be filed with the Court by 6/29/11.

Welcome to the world of litigation.

LOL. Thanks Weeble....more waiting in our future it looks like.

No wonder people hate our justice system, it just takes soooo long to even get to trial.

"Let's have a meeting about the meeting during which time we'll meet about the meeting that we plan to meet about."

Thanks weeble.

Now .... erm .....how can I put this, translation please?

Basically it translates to GW did what it said it intended to do... it requested the court demand CH answers those two questions. The court will now think on it.

Thank you my good man.

I do not consider myself to be thick, but some of these terms are just too easy to misinterpret.

aka_mythos wrote:Basically it translates to GW did what it said it intended to do... it requested the court demand CH answers those two questions. The court will now think on it.

I take it any objections from CH would be raised at the same time?

agnosto wrote:LOL. Thanks Weeble....more waiting in our future it looks like.

No wonder people hate our justice system, it just takes soooo long to even get to trial.

"Let's have a meeting about the meeting during which time we'll meet about the meeting that we plan to meet about."

you dont actually always want to get to trial either mate, you will be *amazed* with how many cases are settled out of court. Don't rely on television for your education.

Dysartes wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:Basically it translates to GW did what it said it intended to do... it requested the court demand CH answers those two questions. The court will now think on it.

I take it any objections from CH would be raised at the same time?

After GW files a motion CH is given a chance to respond. Weeble would probably know better about those types of deadlines.

The judge will probably decide the issue based on these filings and not a formal hearing. An order granting or denying the motion won't necessarily be published (although they usually are).

agnosto wrote:LOL. Thanks Weeble....more waiting in our future it looks like.

No wonder people hate our justice system, it just takes soooo long to even get to trial.

"Let's have a meeting about the meeting during which time we'll meet about the meeting that we plan to meet about."

Not familiar with american system, or with corporate side of things, but things are more or less the same. The following is a butchered summart: After a statment of claim is filed, you wait for the counter claim, and then carry on have to find your relevant material and evidence. Both parties produce it to the other party, and then carry on out-of court to see if you can settle... My experience says both sides have the chance to review the others' evidence and question them on it, and have them produce more relevant material. If there is no progress (favourable or otherwise) then they apply to take it before a judge, the court decides if it will see the case or if it compells the adversaries to sort their gak out before they come back....

The point is to dedicate 30 minutes or an hour or whatever to see if its worth going through 5 days of trial. spend a day weeding out the chaff, it seems like it slows the court system down, but it actually speeds things out by tossing out crap that shouldnt be there.

I am glad that I am walking away from studying law......

weeble1000 wrote:Welcome to the world of litigation.

It's rubbish, I've been brought up on a diet of CSI and was expecting this to be like the O J trial.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
It's rubbish, I've been brought up on a diet of CSI and was expecting this to be like the O J trial.

If the parts don't fit you must acquit!-Is that what you're trying to say?

aka_mythos wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
It's rubbish, I've been brought up on a diet of CSI and was expecting this to be like the O J trial.

If the parts don't fit you must acquit!-Is that what you're trying to say?

Forgeworld parts rarely fit. I don't know how that helps though...

weeble1000 wrote:Status hearing held and continued until 7/6/11. The motion to compel was entered and continued until the status hearing date. Status reports are to be filed with the Court by 6/29/11.

Welcome to the world of litigation.

Dang, this is going to take a while.

So, current status is that the court hasn't yet decided if CHS has to give them a list of every GW product that they've ever seen in their life?

Also, it still looks like GW is trying to get CHS to tell them which of their products is infringing on GW copyrights. Really? I mean, that just looks like a hideous misunderstanding of the law, and I can't believe that the court is considering it at all.


Although, if this case isn't going to go their way, they might be trying not to set a precedent for other lawsuits in the future.

Is anyone else amused by the argument that GW is making, that CH has to tell them what sources they used to come up with their ideas and if they don't do that they can't claim they made it up themselves?

So in other words, anything that they don't have a source for (IE they made it up themselves) they aren't allowed to claim they made it up themselves.

TBH, I think this case is moving kind of fast in relative comparison to the typical legal action. We are only 6 months in, and that is infancy for most cases.

Eldanar wrote:TBH, I think this case is moving kind of fast in relative comparison to the typical legal action. We are only 6 months in, and that is infancy for most cases.

That's infancy for most people too.

I'd worry if a legal case ever got old enough to drink.

I'm re-posting this from Warseer. I went through the Motion to Compel and took a look at the rules of civil procedure. This is what is going on:

Games Workshop sent interrogatories Nos. 1-2 on March 25th, 2011 at which time Chapterhouse Studios had a pending motion to dismiss based on lack of specificity.

"Chapterhouse’s refusal to comply with its obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure leads to the current Motion. Games Workshop served Interrogatory Nos. 1-2 on March 25, 2011, at which time Chapterhouse was seeking leave to move to dismiss on grounds that the Complaint purportedly did not contain sufficient information regarding the works Chapterhouse is alleged to have infringed. Because Chapterhouse’s entire business is devoted to trading on the success of Games Workshop’s extensive portfolio of copyrighted works devoted to its popular WARHAMMER and WARHAMMER 40,000 games, Games Workshop believed it was most efficient as an alternative to possible motion practice simply to determine at the outset which Games Workshop copyrighted works defendant had in its possession and whether it even purported to claim as inspiration for its accused products any other works of any third parties. Although the Court did not permit Chapterhouse to proceed with the motion, Games Workshop’s initial limited discovery requests remain highly relevant to the basic issues in this action." - GW Motion to Compel paragraph 1

The idea here is that GW sent those questions supposedly to clarify its claims, shifting the burden of that clarification onto the Defendant. Judge Kennelly denied the renewed motion to dismiss, but stated in open court that Games Workshop would be required to respond to early discovery from Chapterhouse aimed at clarifying the copyright infringement claims. Games Workshop is arguing that its interrogatories, objected to for good reason by the Defendant considering the nature of GW's claims and the motion to dismiss, are still relevant at this time.

So, these interrogatories from Games Workshop remain intimately tied to the inherently flawed nature of the first amended complaint. Judge Kennelly did deny the motion to dismiss, but his reasoning implicitly supported the inherent validity of the motion, i.e. Games Workshop's claims were too vague.

Games Workshop is asking the Court to compel Chapterhouse to respond to these interrogatories in spite of Chapterhouse's objections to them.

The motion indicates that "Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Chapterhouse’s answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1-2 were due on or before April 28, 2011."

Rule 33(b)(2) reads: "(2) Time to Respond.

The responding party must serve its answers and any objections within 30 days after being served with the interrogatories. A shorter or longer time may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court."

So, what Games Workshop means is that, not by order of the Court, but simply by the 30 day time limit, Chapterhouse Studios was required to respond. However, Chapterhouse Studios objected to the interrogatories under 33(b)(3) and (4)

"3) Answering Each Interrogatory.

Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.

(4) Objections.

The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure."

So, Chapterhouse Studios is not required to answer interrogatories that it objects to. Games Workshop is asking Judge Kennelly to compel an answer over the Defendant's objections, as far as I understand.

This seems like a pie in the sky request given that Judge Kennelly denied the motion to dismiss but implicitly agreed with the merits of the motion, i.e. that Games Workshop's claims were insufficiently specific. I don't expect Judge Kennelly will grant this motion.

Thanks again, Weeble.

Just to flesh out what Weeble has said.

CH has properly objected to the interrogatory, which means that they do not have to respond. CH doesn't actually have to prove that they have a good objection. Making the objection is sufficient to absolve them of the responsibility to respond.

In response, GW can ask the court [Rule 37 motion] to order CH to respond to the interrogatories (provided that they communicated with CH and attempted to resolve the dispute). At this point the judge will hear the merits of both sides: CH's objection and GW's reason for demanding the answer.

I disagree that this is a "pie in the sky" request, because the motion to compel is really accomplishing two things: First, it forces CH to defend their objection; second, they could win the motion and get the information requested.

However, on further reflection, I think that the "options" GW gave CH really sets up a problem for Games Workshop.

The purpose of this round of early discovery is to enable Chapterhouse and GW to share information that will lead to CH learning:
1) which products are infringing
2) which copyrights they infringe.

If that basic knowledge can't be satisfied, then we go back to Chapterhouse's motion to dismiss which would be granted.

GW has basically said "if you don't tell us which products you infringe, then you can't claim independent creation."

The problem with this is that independent creation is a defense to a charge of copyright infringement, it is not something that must be proven (or disproven) by the plaintiff. If GW can't meet their burden to show infringement, then the existence or nonexistence of CH's defense is irrelevant.

As an example: if the state accuses you of murder and you claim self defense, if the state fails to prove you were the murderer, the issue of whether you acted in self defense or not is irrelevant.

So GW may be shooting themselves in the foot with this demand. They appear to be giving Chapterhouse an easy way to not respond to the interrorgatory and get the case dismissed.

Note that I don't know what else was discovered during this pre-discovery period, so GW may be able to satisfy their burdern on pleading to defeat CH's original motion to dismiss.

Thanks for that biccat.

Strategically, I can see why Games Workshop filed the motion to compel. I think you're right that it could walk the Plaintiff into trouble, but what I meant by a pie in the sky request was simply that I don't think Judge Kennelly will be disposed to grant the motion. Whether he grants it or not, it puts the issue before the Court once again and, as you've said, forces Chapterhouse to defend its objections. Thus the motion is potentially useful regardless of the outcome.

I could also be stretching a bit in saying that Judge Kennelly will not be disposed to grant the motion. We don't know what else has gone on in discovery. I do think that it is awkward for Games Workshop to voluntarily put this issue before the Court once again, that is, the definition of its claims. I think it is clear that up to this point Judge Kennelly has been leaning towards the Defendants on this issue. This would be especially problematic for the Plaintiff if Games Workshop was not very forthcoming in its responses to Chapterhouse's interrogatories.

At the end of the day, I think the Court is interested in seeing this case narrowed down to a manageable level. Unfortunately for Games Workshop, the impetus for narrowing the scope of the claims falls on the Plaintiff, or at least it should. My personal speculation is that Judge Kennelly feels the responsibility should lie with the complaining party, and I'm guessing that he will be willing to dismiss the case if Games Workshop continues to insist that the Defendant is the only party able to provide this definition.

Granted, this case is in its very early stages, but Games Workshop hasn't seemed to budge from the position it took in the original complaint; that any particular accused work infringes a melange of copyrights inherent in a wide variety of disparate works too vast and intertwined to be individually distinguishable. In spite of how much as Games Workshop keeps insisting on this argument, I don't think it has much merit and I don't think it will be sufficient to satisfy the Court. Moreover, I think the Court has thus far not been satisfied with this argument, and so continuing to emphasize it seems to be a good way to get the case dismissed, but then that might be Games Workshop's ultimate goal.

.... I have yet to encounter a legal situation where a plaintiff believes that the defendant has the power to specify how the plaintiff was grieved.... this is absolutely nuts! What was GW's legal team smoking, and where can I get some???

weeble1000 wrote:Strategically, I can see why Games Workshop filed the motion to compel. I think you're right that it could walk the Plaintiff into trouble, but what I meant by a pie in the sky request was simply that I don't think Judge Kennelly will be disposed to grant the motion.

I may not remember much from my civil procedure class, but I do recall that motions to compel are usually filed when an opponent objects to responding to a discovery request. Unless it's an assertion of privilege, I expect the court would entertain the motion.

weeble1000 wrote:I could also be stretching a bit in saying that Judge Kennelly will not be disposed to grant the motion. We don't know what else has gone on in discovery. I do think that it is awkward for Games Workshop to voluntarily put this issue before the Court once again, that is, the definition of its claims. I think it is clear that up to this point Judge Kennelly has been leaning towards the Defendants on this issue. This would be especially problematic for the Plaintiff if Games Workshop was not very forthcoming in its responses to Chapterhouse's interrogatories.

I don't know if it's stretching to say he won't grant the motion, but calling it "pie in the sky" is a bit much . The evidence GW is seeking isn't any type of regularly kept documentation or information, in fact, it looks more like a request for admission of infringement coached as an interrogatory. Presumably GW's lawyers realize that a request for admission to satisfy pleading requirements wouldn't go over very well with the Judge.

Otherwise, yeah, GW's position seems to be "you infringe, pay up" without even a minimum level of particularity. If they keep this up, they're going to get a dismissal. I have no idea why GW's attorneys aren't hammering this home with their client.

GW: "We accuse Chapterhouse!"
Judge: "Of what?"
GW: "If we told you, we would have to kill you."

Guess GW is so used to secrecy, they won't stop this habit in court

So if a case gets dismissed because of bad "tactics" (for want of a better word) before trial I take it that no precedent is set? So, if GW have bitten off more than they can chew then being obtuse to the point of dismissal is actually an effective strategy?

fullheadofhair wrote:So if a case gets dismissed because of bad "tactics" (for want of a better word) before trial I take it that no precedent is set? So, if GW have bitten off more than they can chew then being obtuse to the point of dismissal is actually an effective strategy?

I actually mentioned a couple of months ago that GW might find it a good idea to try to get the case dismissed without prejudice if they can. It's possible that they weren't prepared for the type of vigorous defense they've gotten, and being given the opportunity to regroup, prepare a better case, and try again might be the best thing they could hope for.

Kroothawk wrote:GW: "We accuse Chapterhouse!"
Judge: "Of what?"
GW: "If we told you, we would have to kill you."

Shouldn't that be "We can't tell you. But if you place an order now, you can receive our complaint when it is released."

fullheadofhair wrote:So if a case gets dismissed because of bad "tactics" (for want of a better word) before trial I take it that no precedent is set? So, if GW have bitten off more than they can chew then being obtuse to the point of dismissal is actually an effective strategy?

Depends on what you mean by "precedent." But generally losing a case is not an effective strategy. If GW thought they would lose they would offer to settle with CH with a royalty-free license. Then again, maybe they did and CH refused.

If the case is dismissed, the issue of CH infringing GW's copyrights with their current works will be settled (likely, there are circumstances where it wouldn't), GW couldn't raise the issue again against Chapterhouse for the same works.

For other companies, it's more complicated. They can't use the case against GW unless they're essentially copying Chapterhouse's products. However, because of the fact sensative nature of copyright cases, even a full decision on the merits wouldn't necessarily be a huge benefit to smaller companies. Here's some possible outcomes (assuming CH wins):

The best case would be if the court actually struck down some of Games Workshops copyrights. I think this is unlikely to happen.

A lesser case would be the court limiting the scope of some of GW's copyrights. For example, GW can claim exclusivity to arrows on shoulderpads, but not arrows on helmets (or something). This would allow those companies to avoid some of GW's copyrights by staying outside of the limited scope.

The worst case would be where the court determines that CH's products don't infringe GW's products. This doesn't tell the infringers anything, but really it is within the proper role of the court. The court doesn't decide for all defendants against GW, they should only decide the case before them (GW v. CH). If CH wins on a technicality, this is essentially the result that you can expect.

However, actually reaching a conclusion in this case will have the advantage of emboldening further bits producers. If they see CH getting out with a small amount of legal fees, they might be more willing to resist GW's attempts to shut them down. Even if GW knows they're going to lose, if they draw out the case, it will serve as an incentive to future defendants to settle early.

It might also mean that they can come back and sue CH again, hopefully without the benefit of pro-bono defense. Of course, I have no idea how this will affect the counter from CH's legal team.

Would a dismissal also negate CH's claim for legal fees?


Edit: spelling. I is smart.

agnosto wrote:It might also mean that they can come back and sure CH again, hopefully without the benefit of pro-bono defense. Of course, I have no idea how this will affect the counter from CH's legal team.

Only if the case is dismissed without prejudice, which is pretty darn unlikely at this point in the case.

agnosto wrote:Would a dismissal also negate CH's claim for legal fees?

Probably not. Might make it stronger.

Note that the judge could dismiss the entire case, including CH's claim for legal fees, but (more likely) he might only dismiss GW's claims and grant CH's claim for legal fees. IIRC, the claim was for a frivilous lawsuit, so a dismissal of the claim would tend to support CH's assertion that there was no factual basis for GW's complaint.