Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
discovery_order [2016/10/22 00:04] – Shorten headline Carlos Pedraza | discovery_order [Unknown date] (current) – external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
//**__ __ **// <wrap lo>**By [[user> | //**__ __ **// <wrap lo>**By [[user> | ||
</ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <wrap lo>//See also: [[compel_discovery|Motion to Compel Discovery]]//</ | ||
In a decision issued just hours after a hearing, [[federal_magistrate_judge_charles_f._eick|Federal Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick]] ordered CBS and Paramount to give Axanar' | In a decision issued just hours after a hearing, [[federal_magistrate_judge_charles_f._eick|Federal Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick]] ordered CBS and Paramount to give Axanar' | ||
Line 13: | Line 15: | ||
On Twitter, Axanar producer [[Alec Peters]], a named defendant, called the order "a big win in court today." | On Twitter, Axanar producer [[Alec Peters]], a named defendant, called the order "a big win in court today." | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP right round download 50%> | ||
+ | <wrap lo>< | ||
+ | </ | ||
> " | > " | ||
However, with the exceptions in discovery requests listed below, the order officially denied the defense motion to compel discovery.((Judge Eick wrote: " | However, with the exceptions in discovery requests listed below, the order officially denied the defense motion to compel discovery.((Judge Eick wrote: " | ||
- | |||
- | --> Read the Full Text of the Court Order# | ||
- | <wrap lo>The Court has read and considered all papers filed in support of and in opposition to " | ||
- | \\ | ||
- | Defendants have withdrawn the Motion as to those matters subsumed under "Issue 3." See " | ||
- | \\ | ||
- | On or before October 28, 2016, Plaintiffs shall: (1) serve supplemental responses without objection, and produce all documents responsive to, the following requests (except documents withheld under claim of attorney-client privilege): 14, 35, 36, 37 (limited to the works allegedly infringed and also limited to documents (which may be summary documents) sufficient to show revenues and profitability), | ||
- | \\ | ||
- | Except as expressly stated herein, the Motion is denied. \\ | ||
- | \\ | ||
- | Any party seeking review of this Order shall cause the preparation and filing of a transcript of the October 21, 2016 hearing. \\ | ||
- | \\ | ||
- | //Hon. Charles F. Eick, Judge//</ | ||
- | \\ | ||
- | \\ | ||
- | <-- | ||
===== Withdrawals and Exemptions ===== | ===== Withdrawals and Exemptions ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The judge' | ||
<WRAP right round info 50%> | <WRAP right round info 50%> | ||
<wrap lo> | <wrap lo> | ||
</ | </ | ||
- | |||
- | The judge' | ||
The order exempted the required studio documents covered under attorney-client privilege but rejected the plaintiffs' | The order exempted the required studio documents covered under attorney-client privilege but rejected the plaintiffs' |