warboss wrote:
Guys, while I agree the the general sentiment regarding this latest twist in the case.. it's probably best if people drop the memes, jokes, and flowery commentary and stick to a more factual discussion of the case before the red text starts appearing and suspensions start flying. There are probably almost as many mod warnings as there are pages in this thread so no one can resonably claim ignorance.

 Debbin wrote:
It all depends on how the judge handles it. If it made him mad, then GW is in for a world of hurt. If it just annoyed him, then probably not much. Hopefully it made the judge mad as hell.

 Dheneb wrote:
So, someone noted that CHS had been sitting on this for a little while; is the judge likely to frown on this, or are maneuvers like this normal (or at least not uncommon)? Also, for the non-lawyers, what sort of sanctions could be handed out ?

 Dheneb wrote:
So, someone noted that CHS had been sitting on this for a little while; is the judge likely to frown on this, or are maneuvers like this normal (or at least not uncommon)? Also, for the non-lawyers, what sort of sanctions could be handed out ?

czakk wrote:
This is the first time I've used pacer, but if it was electronically filed, shouldn't it automagically go up on pacer right away?

Perhaps they decided to paper file this time around? Most everything else has been electronic as far as I can tell.

5. Soon after the call and receipt of the prior discovery request, I began culling my records to gather such correspondence, none of which had existed at the time of the prior discovery. As I explained in my November 5 email to Ms. Golinveaux, I was also delayed in doing so as my office was closed for a week after Hurricane Sandy and I was then out of the office for part of the following week. In the process, I noticed that the Copyright Office had never responded to my June 26 email concerning the application for the Assault Squad Shoulder pad. I thus telephoned the Copyright Office to speak with the employee who had first contacted me on June 7 regarding the matter. I left a message with one of her colleagues inquiring generally about the status of the matter, following which I received the November 7 email included in Exhibit A.

6. Although we were preparing to produce all of the correspondence as part of trial preparation (and eager to spare Games Workshop the burden of obtaining certified copies of all the copyright registrations), on November 15, the Court vacated the trial date and shortly thereafter rendered its decision on the summary judgment motions. Moreover, in the interim in discussions with Chapterhouse concerning the new complaint, filed November 12, Chapterhouse made very plain that it recognized no duty to supplement its own discovery responses, leading Games Workshop to seek to bring the issue to the attention of the Court. Games Workshop, to the contrary, consistently acknowledged its duties under Rule 26(e) and never purported to renege on its agreement to produce all correspondence with the Copyright Office.

7. Regarding the suggestion that Games Workshop deliberately concealed evidence from the Court, the reality is that, given the lack of any response from the Copyright Office following my June 26 email, I assumed the matter was resolved. It has been my experience in filing copyright applications that the examiners are very prompt in responding. The failure of the examiner in this case to respond at all for over four months together with the passage of so much time since Chapterhouse served its discovery did not present this as a live issue warranting attention. As noted, I did not review the status of the applications until Chapterhouse raised the issue in November.

Chapterhouse’s motion is based on numerous false statements and a distortion of the factual and legal significance of an initial question raised by a low level Copyright Office employee (who is not even a lawyer) in connection with one application filed by Games Workshop for a shoulder pad design. The statement, which is simply inadmissible hearsay, is entitled to no deference whatsoever.

.....

Although, under certain circumstances not present here, some courts have shown some degree of deference to a final refusal by the Copyright Office to register works, at least where such a refusal is indeed final and sets forth adequate reasoning for the refusal, there has been no such final or even initial refusal here, only a question to which Games Workshop has been invited to respond, and no analysis whatsoever. Even should the examiner ultimately decide to deny registration to the work, Games Workshop would then be entitled to take advantage of the multi-step administrative and judicial review procedures, including: (1) a written objection to the refusal with a request that the Copyright Office reconsider its action; and (2) a written request for reconsideration to the head of the appropriate Examining Division section. Only if this second request were denied would the decision considered a final agency action (supra note 5). Judicial review under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) could then also be sought.
The point informally raised here by a low level employee, supported by no analysis whatsoever, warrants no deference at all.

 jonolikespie wrote:

2) GW had already been unable to copywrite their assault marine shoulder pad design ages ago.

3) That fact could be highly relevant to the case and they new it but didn't come forward with it.

4) Chapterhouse caught them hiding it and now they are saying "Oh, uh, I was busy and forgot" in a way that totally doesn't sound like a middleschooler trying to explain why he didn't do his homework.

Have I missed anything or did I get anything wrong there?

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
To my untrained mind something really sticks out. Moskin states he thought the matter with the copyright office was closed. Why then, as shown in the email chain, was he the one that then pursued the copyright office later in the year. I can only see this as the facts contradicting his affidavit.