Interplay files motion in limine against Bethesda

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
As Bethesda made its proposed ground rules in its motion in limine, Interplay responds with its own, Duck and Cover reports. Their motion appears to be mostly Interplay's lawyer Jeffrey Gersh noting Bethesda is unreasonably dragging its feet on this case, specifically the deposition of expert witnesses. From Gersh's letter to Bethesda:<blockquote>I have spoken with our client [Interplay] concerning the proposed dates for the deposition of your supposed expert in Washington D.C. [Editor's note: Interplay and their lawyer are based in California] and it is not going to be feasible for us to travel to Washington D.C. for at most a 3 hour deposition, especially given the fact that you have refused to propose any alternative dates for the three officers of Bethesda around the same time or even close. Interestingly, it took you two weeks to even let me know that none of the dates I gave you worked for your client. It is inconceivable that this simple query about available dates could not have been answered in 48 hours. It is even more inconceivable that you have not even proposed alternative dates, even if a date conflicted with my schedule, which had I known weeks ago I might have found a way to move things around. But you delayed again to respond making it impossible for me to do anything. This has been going on since July as I recall and you have just put up road block after road block, even knowingly trying to force me to travel and take deposition on the Jewish holidays.

I am not going to debate this with you any further. It is obvious that we are going to have to now bring this to the Court's attention.</blockquote>
 
Bewitched said:
The style is really non-official.
Click to expand...

It looks to be informational only (we'll let the court arrange a date) and really reads as a speech-to-text dictation letter which would explain the

protoncharging said:
That is a really poorly worded letter.
Click to expand...
 
Brother None said:
protoncharging said:
That is a really poorly worded letter.
Click to expand...

Probably the frustration speaking.
Click to expand...
I don't blame him. It took two weeks to inform them that the dates don't work for Bethesda? Who do they think they are,movie stars? What,does Todd Howard need to restock his make-up bag first?
 
I just checked the link, you posted the letter from Gersh to Bethesda (probably included in the filing with other letters) rather than the actual filing, hence why it's not in legalese. That said, it does give the most information about what's going on behind the scenes.

The actual filing.
[spoiler:c20c562dad]
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Interplay Ente1iainment Corp. ("Interplay") respectfully moves this Court for an order to exclude Bethesda Softworks LLC's ("BSW") expe1i, Thomas Bidaux, from testifying at trial; or in the alternative, for an order precluding him from testifying to opinions concerning the meaning of contract terms contained in the Trademark License Agreement ("TLA") or performance thereof. As set forth below, BSW identifies opinion testimony in the Joint Pre-Trial Report, that must be excluded because neither the opinion nor its underlying basis is contained in Mr. Bidaux's report, as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") Rule 26(a)(2). Mr. Bidaux's testimony also should be excluded because his Rule 26(a)(2) report lists only opinions concerning development of Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOG) generally, but do not relate to the requirements of the TLA, the terms of which BSW contends are obvious and unambiguous. Finally, BSW refused to provide dates for the depositions of certain of its officers and employees so that Mr. Bidaux's deposition could be coordinated with that travel. BSW also refused to permit Interplay to take Mr. Bidaux's deposition via telephone despite Interplay's reasonable requests. For these reasons, the Court should issue an order precluding Mr. Bidaux's testimony at trial.

Their number 1 reason for this is pretty straight forward:

BSW should not be permitted to introduce any expert opinions at trial that were not previously identified during discovery. FRCP Rule 26(a)(2) requires not only that BSW disclose the identity of any expert that it may use at trial, but also that BSW must produce a written report concerning the proposed testimony. Among other things, the report must contain:

(1) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them; and,

(2) the facts or data considered by the witness in fonning them.
(See, FRCP 26(a)(2(B)(i-ii).)

Rule 37(c) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure clearly authorize a court to preclude the introduction of evidence not disclosed in violation ofFRCP Rule 26(a). Rule 37(c) provides in relevant part:

(1) Failure to Disclose or Supplement.'lf a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.
(FRCP Rule 37(c) (1), emphasis added.)
Click to expand...
[/spoiler:c20c562dad]
 
Sub-Human said:
Borat would totally fire this lawyer, straight away.
Click to expand...

Why?

While our opinon doesn't count, the general opinion here is Interplay's lawyer is doing a first-rate job especially compared to BethSoft's third-string (or is it forth string now) lawyers.

And Interplay's filing reads very legal... thanks UncannyGarlic!
 
boy I hope this whole farce will find some end soon. It gets really embarrassing for both. Bethesda and Iplay.
 
Does anyone have any idea when we can expect an end to this lawsuit? It seems like its been going on forever, I'm not sure what the hold up is.
 
Filing a motion is essentially fill-in-the-blanks. Beth attached a memorandum to their filing that is very likely required to understand their reasoning for their motion. Interplays makes more sense as they simply included their rationale in the motion.

Regardless, the letter looks like Interplay is gearing up to move for sanctions against Beth. Step 1 in moving for Rule 11 sanctions is the "safe harbor" rule where you notify the other party of the offending behavior and give them a chance to correct it before going to the judge.

Since this case is filed in the Maryland district court, I'm not sure it is unreasonable to expect Interplay's lawyer to come to Maryland on occasion.

On the other hand, scheduling depositions on Jewish holidays is just down-right unprofessional and mean.

As to the end of litigation, well, it's still in the pre-trial discovery phase (hence, the dispute over depositions). Could be months and appealed for years, could be settled tomorrow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top