Some Documents Released as Public Versions

As discussed earlier, a number of documents were filed as sealed documents, unavailable to those of us interested in monitoring the case.

Some of those documents have now been released in a public version.  The most important of these is the memo in support of summary judgment:

  • Docket as of 4/30/2007
  • Letter from Robert H. Jordan, Esq., Attorney for Defendants
  • Appendix 1 – Correspondence between counsel for parties regarding unsealing of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support Thereof
  • Appendix 2 – Public Version of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed April 2, 2007
  • Appendix 3 – Public Version of Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed April 2, 2007
  • Exhibit A to Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

We’d like to thank the attorneys in this matter for providing a public version of these documents.

2 Comments on “Some Documents Released as Public Versions”

  1. jonathan says:

    I’m no expert in contract litigation(despite getting an ‘A’ in contracts in law school!), but AETN makes a pretty compelling case.

    How do you claim there was an oral contract when you can’t even identify a date when the defendant allegedly agreed to the terms?

    I’d be very interested in reading Trademark’s response to the SJM.

  2. Micah says:

    I did not get an A in contracts in law school, but I am currently working for a judge as his clerk. The only thing I would say about this is that, as it is part of the advocacy for his client, there is only one side of the story being told here.

    I don’t know how many times I’ve reviewed MSJs where counsel has claimed that their point is backed by undisputed evidence when there is very clear evidence contradicting what they are saying. As with most of what a lawyer says, you have to approach it all as BS and sift through it until you find something worthwhile.

    If what this attorney has said is even remotely true, it would seem that Davis signed away his rights with that June 2005 agreement. That seems like a complete agreement unless some mention is made of ongoing negotiations that was left out of the lawyer’s brief – see above discussion.

    Regardless, Richard Davis is a good guy and I hope that business continues to go well for him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *