tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post8791847823596153169..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: Judge in Thomas-Rasset case may scuttle third trialBen Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-76488600968641307022010-10-16T07:49:31.525-07:002010-10-16T07:49:31.525-07:00Ben,
My "sua sponte" use was literary l...Ben,<br /><br />My "sua sponte" use was literary license simply to avoid treading old ground pertaining to the spate of post-verdict motions. In my view, the bottom line is that the judge in JRT was troubled by the size of the award and may very well have ordered remittitur even absent motions given a court's inherent equity powers.<br /><br />To some degree the same can be said of the judge in Tenenbaum.<br /><br />In both cases it seems clear that the judges simply did not believe that the awards were a fair reflection of what they perceived as appropriate, and then used protective legal cover to simply substitute their judgment for that of the juries.<br /><br />"Groundhog Day" is only a possible scenario because of each judge's predisposition to override the jury awards.<br /><br />I still hew to the line that these cases would already be briefed and set for argument had the judges simply finalized the awards and passed the cases along to the appealls courts where all of the issues would have been presented at oral argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-54471941696951991812010-10-15T15:51:41.264-07:002010-10-15T15:51:41.264-07:00@Anonymous:
It is not correct to say that the jud...@Anonymous:<br /><br />It is not correct to say that the judges in the Thomas-Rasset and Tenenbaum cases "decided to overrule sua sponte the jury verdicts." The orders reducing the jury's award of statutory damages were not "sua sponte"; they followed motions filed by the respective defendants.<br /><br />It is true that following the first Thomas-Rasset trial, the court sua sponte raised the issue of a flawed jury instruction on "making available": http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=virgin_thomas_080515OrderOralArgument<br /><br />However, the court issued its decision only after receiving briefing from both sides, including a motion by the defendant: http://beckermanlegal.com/Documents/virgin_thomas_080630DeftBrief.pdfBen Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-51668331696277008332010-10-15T15:31:13.170-07:002010-10-15T15:31:13.170-07:00Saying this is a "Groundhog Day" scenari...Saying this is a "Groundhog Day" scenario is completely disingenuous. The only reason this and the Tenenbaum cases seem repetitive is because in each case the judge has decided to overrule sua sponte the jury verdicts.<br /><br />These cases could have easily been made final and the matter moved, as they would no matter what the outcome, to the appellate courts. Had the courts originally chosen to pursue this course, it seems likely that the cases would already be on the appellate dockets and fully briefed, awaiting only oral argument.<br /><br />It seems to me all that has been accomplished to date is unnecessary delay and a waste of court resources, and it is the judges who should look in the mirror before trying to assign blame.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com