Well, it now looks like this will be a non-issue. Computerworld today reports that the plaintiffs (after what I'm sure was some real scrambling) have obtained the certified copies from the Copyright Office. But Thomas' counsel Joe Sibley insists the fight over admissibility isn't over:
"We are going to be objecting that it is too late," Sibley said. "They shouldn't be presenting this two business days before the trial."But I think it's highly unlikely that the court would exclude these certified copies, which no one has suggested differ in any material respect (if at all) from the copies Thomas has had in hand for years. And it's a bit rich for Thomas' defense to be complaining about last-minute maneuvering, when (as the labels pointed out in their motion) her team first raised this issue June 1, 2009, and Thomas testified in May 2007 that she had no evidence to dispute the validity of the plaintiffs' registrations -- not to mention that the defense never raised the issue of certified copies at the first trial in 2007.
Also of note, Sibley tells Computerworld:
Going forward, "I don't know if we are going to present any evidence that is going to be different" from the first trial, Sibley said. "We are just going to tell a different story, really. I think Jammie was viewed by the jury in a less-than-favorable light in the last trial. That was unfortunate. We are going to bring the truth out in this case and make sure she wins."But, as someone once said, "You can put lipstick...."