Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Next revision
Previous revision
evidence_denied [2017/01/18 14:02]
Carlos Pedraza created
evidence_denied [2009/05/26 00:24] (current)
Line 16: Line 16:
 Although the requests denied by federal [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge R. Gary Klausner]] were technically submitted by plaintiffs [[CBS]] and [[paramount_pictures|Paramount Pictures]], the evidence to which they refer was marked by the defense as confidential. Although the requests denied by federal [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge R. Gary Klausner]] were technically submitted by plaintiffs [[CBS]] and [[paramount_pictures|Paramount Pictures]], the evidence to which they refer was marked by the defense as confidential.
  
-Among the evidence ordered submitted without redaction were:+Among the evidence ordered submitted without redaction were:((Order re Application 143, Application 148 and Application 183, Docket 209, 1/18/17.))
  
-[{{ ::christian-tregillis.jpg?nolink&100|**Christian Tregellis**}}]+[{{ ::christian-tregillis.jpg?nolink&100|**Christian Tregillis**}}]
  
 ==== Expert's Financial Report ==== ==== Expert's Financial Report ====
  
-A redacted version of a financial report by defense expert witness [[witness_list#defense_s_witnesses|Christian Tregellis]]. Tregillis is a certified public accountant and avowed expert expected to offer an expert opinion on whether Axanar resulted in real damages to the studios’ copyrighted property. +A redacted version of a financial report by defense expert witness [[witness_list#defense_s_witnesses|Christian Tregillis]]. Tregillis is a certified public accountant and avowed expert expected to offer an expert opinion on whether Axanar resulted in real damages to the studios’ copyrighted property. 
  
 His redacted report said he found indications that fan films generally benefit the studios’ franchises, and that Axanar specifically has benefited the plaintiffs, and that the defendants had earned no profits as any possible copyright infringement. His redacted report said he found indications that fan films generally benefit the studios’ franchises, and that Axanar specifically has benefited the plaintiffs, and that the defendants had earned no profits as any possible copyright infringement.
  
-Tregellis' report is based on the financial statements Axanar's attorneys have tried to keep away from the jury.+Tregillis' report is based on the financial statements Axanar's attorneys have tried to keep away from the jury.
  
 ==== Defense Redactions ==== ==== Defense Redactions ====
Line 49: Line 49:
  
 This was the latest in Klausner's [[order_exclude_evidence|rulings on evidence]], though his earlier decisions remain [[evidence-tentative|tentative]]. {{:axamonitor-ico.gif?nolink|}} This was the latest in Klausner's [[order_exclude_evidence|rulings on evidence]], though his earlier decisions remain [[evidence-tentative|tentative]]. {{:axamonitor-ico.gif?nolink|}}
 +
 +----
 +**Keywords** {{tag>evidence judge defendants plaintiffs}}