Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
axanar_financials [2016/10/31 01:14] – Carlos Pedrazaaxanar_financials [2018/02/10 09:37] (current) – [Tit for Tat] Carlos Pedraza
Line 18: Line 18:
  
 On October 28, 2016, Federal magistrate [[federal_magistrate_judge_charles_f._eick|Charles Eick]] signed the order proposed by the studios' attorneys, while Axanar's lawyer [[Erin Ranahan]] made her case for why the magistrate should reject CBS and Paramount's new motion. On October 28, 2016, Federal magistrate [[federal_magistrate_judge_charles_f._eick|Charles Eick]] signed the order proposed by the studios' attorneys, while Axanar's lawyer [[Erin Ranahan]] made her case for why the magistrate should reject CBS and Paramount's new motion.
 +
 +<wrap em>UPDATE</wrap> On Monday, October 31, Judge Charles Eick formally denied the plaintiffs' ex parte motion but still granted them most of what they sought.
 +
 +<wrap lo>//See also: [[emergency_motion|Court Orders Peters Deposition, Other Plaintiff Requests]]//</wrap>
 +
  
 ===== What CBS and Paramount Want ===== ===== What CBS and Paramount Want =====
Line 51: Line 56:
 ==== Tit for Tat ==== ==== Tit for Tat ====
  
-Ranahan went on to tell the court the emergency motion was a tit-for-tat after part of her [[compel_discovery|motion to compel discovery]] resulted in a court order forcing the plaintiffs to hand over more of the documents sought be the defense:+Ranahan went on to tell the court the emergency motion was a tit-for-tat after part of her [[compel_discovery|motion to compel discovery]] resulted in a court order forcing the plaintiffs to hand over more of the documents sought by the defense:
  
 > Apparently in response to being required to finally undertake a diligent search for responsive documents, Plaintiffs suddenly decided to manufacture their own discovery issues. … Defendants have continued to engage in good faith efforts to resolve these disputes, but it appears Plaintiffs were more interested in filing the [emergency motion] than genuinely reaching an efficient and reasonable resolution.((Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Order, p. 2, 10/28/16.)) > Apparently in response to being required to finally undertake a diligent search for responsive documents, Plaintiffs suddenly decided to manufacture their own discovery issues. … Defendants have continued to engage in good faith efforts to resolve these disputes, but it appears Plaintiffs were more interested in filing the [emergency motion] than genuinely reaching an efficient and reasonable resolution.((Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Order, p. 2, 10/28/16.))