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.

 Elemental wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
To me it doesn't matter that you can make an argument that shoulder pads have been around since forever. The shoulder pads created by CH are obviously intended to be used specifically for GW Marines.

If I said "Well, it's not obvious to me.", how would you then prove that they were intended for GW Space Marines?

Lets add to this "That is acceptable by 12 of your peers who will at the same time be confronted by someone trying to prove the exact opposite"

Trust me, common sense ~or what goes for it on the GW side~ does not go into a court. Common sense is thrown right out.

OH if you say "well if I put it on this model here then it is". Easy rebuttle is, "would that shoulder pad fit on these dozen of other models produced by a different company each?"

Trust me, any good attourney worth their salt can prove and disprove this case. It really comes down to chraisma how much you can get the Jury to like what you have to say, just as uch as it will come to the facts.

 Janthkin wrote:
That particular conversational thread is long-since exhausted. If you want to reread the back-and-forth, feel free to do so; we're not going to revisit it again.

On that subject, would it be possible to keep the topic title up to date with the latest developments, so that we can see what the current topic is about, and when developments happen in the case?

Motion to dismiss was about 2 years ago. What are we on now? Motion to exclude expert witnesses? Soon the trial.

Another transcript is up, but unavailable online:

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 4/25/2013 before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly. Court Reporter Contact Information: Valarie M. Ramsey valharam@aol.com (708) 860-8482.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the CourtReporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.
Redaction Request due 6/14/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/24/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/22/2013. (rp, )

Czakk, do we know from the schedule what those proceedings are likely to have been?

Also - question to the floor - how much is it usually to purchase one of these transcripts from the Court Reporter/Transcriber?

Motions in limine and a pre-trial conference on the 25th I think. I think it costs 10 cents a page to get a transcript from pacer - however unlike other pacer documents it doesn't cap out after 3 dollars, they'll charge you for every page.

Search for 2013-04-25

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.docket.html

 Dysartes wrote:
Czakk, do we know from the schedule what those proceedings are likely to have been?

Also - question to the floor - how much is it usually to purchase one of these transcripts from the Court Reporter/Transcriber?

The trial will be over by the time that transcript is accessible to the public. I wouldn't worry about it. It is the pretrial conference, and the court subsequently posted its rulings. One side or another requested a transcript of those precedings, probably to make an argument regarding the outstanding motion in limine issues.

The trial is on Monday, so by this point most of the court's rulings will be made from the bench or in conference. There likely won't be much to see before opening statements. That'll be the place to be on Monday if you are in Chicago. Openings will probably be right after lunch going by Judge Kennelly's preferred method of jury selection, which as planned would have a jury struck and in the box before lunch. Clearly, his honor does not follow the American Bar Association's recommended voir dire and jury selection procedures.

Monday?! After all this time it's suddenly upon us. Wish CH best of luck. Any Dakkites actually going?

-10 Internets to anyone that actually turns up that doesn't have to be there.

The result and judgement is interesting, actually being there for hours/days/weeks wouldn't be.

A trial where you know what is going on can be quite interesting. If I was in Chicago I'd be there for sure.

czakk wrote:
A trial where you know what is going on can be quite interesting. If I was in Chicago I'd be there for sure.

Me too.

I have a sneaky feeling that the vast majority of GW's claims will be rejected, but that they've thrown enough mud that one or two of them will stick.

weeble1000 wrote:
Openings will probably be right after lunch going by Judge Kennelly's preferred method of jury selection, which as planned would have a jury struck and in the box before lunch. Clearly, his honor does not follow the American Bar Association's recommended voir dire and jury selection procedures.

Could you elaborate a little, weeble? This sounds interesting - and, unfortunately, like a pre-laid ground for appeal...

 Dysartes wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Openings will probably be right after lunch going by Judge Kennelly's preferred method of jury selection, which as planned would have a jury struck and in the box before lunch. Clearly, his honor does not follow the American Bar Association's recommended voir dire and jury selection procedures.

Could you elaborate a little, weeble? This sounds interesting - and, unfortunately, like a pre-laid ground for appeal...

No, no grounds for appeal. The Judge can pretty much do what he wants when it comes to jury selection, within certain parameters, of course, but jury selection procedures nationwide vary considerably.

The American Bar Association has a recommended procedure that I happen to agree with: pre-trial questionnaires, oral voir dire, etc. etc. Compared to these recommendations, which I feel are essential to maintaining the integrity of the justice system, Judge Kennelly's jury selection procedure falls rather short in several significant aspects.

The only meaningful bit is that jury selection will be over before lunch, so opening statements will likely take place after lunch, after which the jurors will likely be dismissed. Openings in a 40 hour trial will probably be 45-90 min, but I would bet on 60. It depends on the court though. Judge Kennelly may say that both sides only have 15 min. for openings and leave it at that. I have seen that happen before. But the likely scenario is 45-90 min.

In other words, if you want to see some interesting stuff, go to the courtroom after lunch on Monday and watch both parties give their opening statements. If the trial was a movie, that would be like watching the extended trailer. If it was a book, it would be like reading the cliff's notes. You may be intrigued and want to see more, or you may realize that you've seen all the good parts and watching the rest would be a waste of time.

Edit: Remember though that the jury has to watch the movie, whether or not they thought the trailer sucked. Giving a lackluster opening is therefore rather damning to a case. Some attorneys believe (although I professionally disagree) that a trial is won or lost in opening statements. I would not go that far, but I will say that a good opening is essential to an effective trial presentation, and a bad opening will cause potentially irreparable harm to one's case.

It is like starting in a race. A good start is essential. A great start can help a not-so-perfect runner succeed anyway, or make a good runner's win a virtually foregone conclusion. A bad start can cripple your chances for a win, no matter how good you run.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Openings will probably be right after lunch going by Judge Kennelly's preferred method of jury selection, which as planned would have a jury struck and in the box before lunch. Clearly, his honor does not follow the American Bar Association's recommended voir dire and jury selection procedures.

Could you elaborate a little, weeble? This sounds interesting - and, unfortunately, like a pre-laid ground for appeal...

No, no grounds for appeal. The Judge can pretty much do what he wants when it comes to jury selection, within certain parameters, of course, but jury selection procedures nationwide vary considerably.

The American Bar Association has a recommended procedure that I happen to agree with: pre-trial questionnaires, oral voir dire, etc. etc. Compared to these recommendations, which I feel are essential to maintaining the integrity of the justice system, Judge Kennelly's jury selection procedure falls rather short in several significant aspects.

We get by just fine in Canada doing jury selection based solely on name, occupation, and area of residence, with a handful of peremptory challenges and maybe, just maybe the ability to ask if someone is biased against a race. Of course it is illegal to talk about jury deliberations up here, so almost impossible for jury consultants to get any real data about what sorts of jurors favour what sort of arguements etc...



-------

Some of the examinations in chief and the cross examinations should be interesting too. Dr. Grindley for instance...





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Speaking of Dr. Grindley, we can expect CHS response to GWs motion soon:

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, May 29, 2013:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Response to plaintiff's motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Grindley, which was filed on 5/20/13, is to be filed by 12:00 noon on 5/31/13. (mk)

czakk wrote:


We get by just fine in Canada doing jury selection based solely on name, occupation, and area of residence, with a handful of peremptory challenges and maybe, just maybe the ability to ask if someone is biased against a race.


But then again, this case wouldn't be heard by a jury in Canada, it would be judge alone.

Well, czakk, Canadians can do things how they like up in Canada .

In any case, this is off topic. Always interesting to discuss such issues though. I am, obviously, personally biased about it as an important part of my job is striking juries.

Showing bias when in for jury selection gets you kicked out of the pool quick, at least it did for me, when I answered a questions with, "Once a felon, always a felon."

 Debbin wrote:
Showing bias when in for jury selection gets you kicked out of the pool quick, at least it did for me, when I answered a questions with, "Once a felon, always a felon."

Yea, that's what we call a challenge for cause.

czakk wrote:
just maybe the ability to ask if someone is biased against a race.

I love Tau and Eldar, but Orks not so much. Does that count?

There was a proposed list of jury questions floating around, but I don't remember which filing it is.

czakk wrote:
There was a proposed list of jury questions floating around, but I don't remember which filing it is.

"Do you feel that GW neglects Xenos armies to focus on the many iterations of Space Marines?"

At which point someone will show the list of codices running back for a year or two and show that...that's not the case!

So what is the forecast for trial length? I heard months back that the judge wanted closing arguments Friday morning, is that still correct? Can we expect a verdict that quickly? Seems like such a short time for a case with huge implications beyond it's own small scope.

 Aerethan wrote:
So what is the forecast for trial length? I heard months back that the judge wanted closing arguments Friday morning, is that still correct? Can we expect a verdict that quickly? Seems like such a short time for a case with huge implications beyond it's own small scope.

Given Judge Kennelly's comments, the timeline is going to be followed pretty much down to the minute. My going theory is that by providing a timeline shorter than GW and CHS wanted Kennelly was suggesting that GW cut / drop / or settle a bunch of the claims rather than being left with ~20 hours to try to explain their expansive and vague claims to a confused jury.

He's also preserving judicial resources and saving the taxpayer money.

czakk wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
So what is the forecast for trial length? I heard months back that the judge wanted closing arguments Friday morning, is that still correct? Can we expect a verdict that quickly? Seems like such a short time for a case with huge implications beyond it's own small scope.

Given Judge Kennelly's comments, the timeline is going to be followed pretty much down to the minute. My going theory is that by providing a timeline shorter than GW and CHS wanted Kennelly was suggesting that GW cut / drop / or settle a bunch of the claims rather than being left with ~20 hours to try to explain their expansive and vague claims to a confused jury.

He's also preserving judicial resources and saving the taxpayer money.

I absolutely agree with his tactic, both in terms of getting one side to give up what they feel are "crap" claims, and in terms of saving court/state resources.

So if each side has 20 hours, and assuming court is an 8 hour day, we're looking at 40 hours +5%(unless he intends the entire case be finished in exactly 40 hours before deliberation) then a few hours for the jury to decide? That would put the verdict at 6/10/13 by my count.


Side note, can one volunteer for jury duty? I'd have paid to fly myself out there to be part of this.

 Aerethan wrote:

czakk wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
So what is the forecast for trial length? I heard months back that the judge wanted closing arguments Friday morning, is that still correct? Can we expect a verdict that quickly? Seems like such a short time for a case with huge implications beyond it's own small scope.

Given Judge Kennelly's comments, the timeline is going to be followed pretty much down to the minute. My going theory is that by providing a timeline shorter than GW and CHS wanted Kennelly was suggesting that GW cut / drop / or settle a bunch of the claims rather than being left with ~20 hours to try to explain their expansive and vague claims to a confused jury.

He's also preserving judicial resources and saving the taxpayer money.

I absolutely agree with his tactic, both in terms of getting one side to give up what they feel are "crap" claims, and in terms of saving court/state resources.

So if each side has 20 hours, and assuming court is an 8 hour day, we're looking at 40 hours +5%(unless he intends the entire case be finished in exactly 40 hours before deliberation) then a few hours for the jury to decide? That would put the verdict at 6/10/13 by my count.

I can't speak to the US system, but I think it is very similar to my own. "Court days" are around 6 hours long on a good day. Generally speaking there is an a hour and a half in the morning, a 30 minute break, go until lunch, have an hour break, go until around 230, have a break, and then end around 430. I think Kennelly said they might go later than 430 (5 pm or maybe even 530) in order to get through the trial faster.

That's not to say the judge rolls in at 930 and then goes home right away. Normally there is a lot of reading to be done and the judge has to be 'switched on' the whole time (so does the jury you hope). In our system that doesn't use juries for most civil cases the judge is sitting there reading all of the transcripts and affidavits long into the night and checking on the parties legal submissions (or having their clerk do it ).

The lawyers on each side will also be in 'trial mode' and working very long days.


-----

Edit - here we go, from the judge himself:

If one assumes a trial day of five and one-half hours, a relatively generous assumption, this would indicate a trial of about 14 full days. This does not include the time needed for jury selection.

The Court sets aside the following dates for trial in this case: June 3, 2013 (a.m. session - jury selection; p.m. session - trial), June 4-7, 2013, June 10-11, 2013, and, if needed for closing arguments, the morning of June 12, 2013.

The trial day typically will extend from 9:45 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and from 1:30 or 1:45 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., with morning and afternoon breaks. The Court notes that this is longer than its typical trial day. The Court reserves the right to extend any given trial day to 5:30 if warranted in order to complete the trial within the dates set aside.

The Court allocates a total of forty hours to the trial. The Court allocates half of this time to plaintiff and half to defendant – twenty hours per side.

The Court believes this to be a fair and equitable calculation and distribution given its understanding of the evidence and the fact that the case involves both claims that Games Workshop must prove and affirmative defenses that Chapterhouse must prove.

(http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.361.0.pdf)

As much as I want to see Chapter House win, I shudder at the thought of the Endor celebrations that will ensue. Mods take note: Dancing Ewoks should be shot on sight.

In this regard the good news is that Chicago politics is notoriously corrupt, which puts the odds in GWs favor.

What do Chicago politics have to do with a federally appointed judge? Or a UK based gaming company?

No. --Janthkin

czakk wrote:
There was a proposed list of jury questions floating around, but I don't remember which filing it is.

It is in the Proposed Pre-Trial Order. Those questions are case specific questions to be added to Judge Kennelly's standard SJQ.

Considering that 30 months ago Chapter House only produced;

Carnifex to Tervigon conversion kit
Shoulder pads with signs on
Doors with signs on
er...
That's it (I think)

It's difficult to see why the GW claims should be so long.