This is interesting, as far as I can make out both parties are
precluded from contacting certain third parties. The defending lawyer
introduced a Lantec v Novell antitust suit into evidence, this I
assume to discredit the Plaintiffs' case. Later on the Plaintiff
request to contact their own clients. I wonder are these two events
related and what it means for the case.
- quote -
MR. HOLLEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Yesterday there was a request
from the plaintiffs for a curative instruction with regard to a
question that Mr. Tulchin asked Mr. Bradford about a lawsuit brought
by Lantec, a competing maker of network software, against Novell
alleging violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
..
MS. CONLIN: Your Honor, my request or an instruction was, in fact, a
departure from our normal procedure because for the Defendant to ask
such a question was a departure from our normal procedure.
The purpose of testimony with respect to the FTC and the DOJ was to
assure that the witness was not vulnerable on cross-examination to a
surprise assertion that he was simply a pawn of the government or the
government was simply a pawn of his because DOJ, FTC all over the
documents in this matter, Your Honor, with respect to this witness and
others.
And there is also a difference in that it was Microsoft who was under
investigation. Microsoft is a party to this lawsuit. lawsuit. Novell,
however, is not a party, and the idea that there needs to be parity, I
think, is an erroneous idea.
..
MS. CONLIN: Your Honor, the Court issued an order some time ago which
precluded either side from contacting class members without the
permission of the Court.
Plaintiffs have honored that order and -- but now we request the
Court's permission to contact members of the Plaintiffs' class, all of
them. We want to -- we want that opportunity, Your Honor. The Court
may have seen the article today, and we thought perhaps it would be
time for us to contact our own clients.
THE COURT: Response?
MR. TULCHIN: Your Honor, this is a surprise to us. I didn't know
this motion was coming. I'd like an adequate opportunity to respond
some point next week.
THE COURT: Very well.
MR. TULCHIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. CONLIN: Well, I thought it would be noncontroversial, Your
Honor. I was wrong.
http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/1.25.07_transcript.txt
|