|
Sep
23
Written by:
Owen Wengerd
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 2:04 AM
It's ostensibly just a small skirmish on the flank, but one can't help but be morbidly fascinated after reading the docket history of the battle between Autodesk and Open Design Alliance that took place in a Phoenix court this month. Autodesk essentially got what they wanted, and in the end ODA isn't much worse off than when they started - but there is a lot of drama packed into this short detour.
One can sense pandemonium in the ODA camp as court ordered deadlines loomed. On September 15, they submitted documents with missing attachments, then resubmitted with one correct and one incorrect attachment, then finally resubmitted again, only to get their wrists slapped for filing documents that they did not have permission to file in the first place. One wonders if the outcome might have been different were it not for "the abusive length of the motion for protective order" that the judge poignantly derides in his order.
Tags:
Re: Autodesk Wins Round 2
I think the docket is even more morbidly fascinating when your name is mentioned in the pleadings (as is the case with me), and when you know the players involved.
Once again, the ODA brought a knife to a gun fight, and it's going to cost them. They're going to get to pay a good chunk of money to Autodesk's lawyers, and they're going to get to produce all the materials at issue with no protective order.
I'd say that a better title for this comment would be "the ODA loses round 2." That's because it's doubtful that Autodesk's attorneys will get much useful information from the ODA.
By evanyares on
Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:36 PM
|
Re: Autodesk Wins Round 2
I agree that Autodesk doesn't stand to gain much in the way of actionable information, but ODA had limited options here. At least they put up a fight.
By owenw on
Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:16 PM
|
Re: Autodesk Wins Round 2
Some fights are appropriate, some are not.
It's long been public policy that people (individuals and companies) are required to give evidence in court, whether they want to or not. The only exception is in the case of self-incrimination. This policy is a foundation of our legal system, and is reflected in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
While I support the ODA's decision to fight Autodesk's subpoena, where I depart is in the matter of tactics -- mostly because I think they got owned.
Were I in the position that Autodesk's attorneys were in, I'd have done the same thing: Let the ODA think they're negotiating preferential terms, then file a motion to compel at the last minute.
What Judge Martone saw was that the ODA demanded payment for things which it was required to do for free (e.g., prepare for the deposition), didn't take any steps towards compliance (e.g., redesignate the TTAB document production for this case), dawdled for three months instead of filing a motion to quash when the subpoena was served, and then, when faced with a motion to compel at the eleventh hour, filed documents that violated local court rules. Given this, is it any surprise that he kicked the ODA's ass?
Chances are that, by now, document productions have been made, and the subpoena of the ODA's president is completed. Though discovery in the Autodesk v. SolidWorks officially ends today, it wouldn't surprise me to see a motion to extend.
By Evan Yares on
Friday, September 25, 2009 5:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Search
|