decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Fair for Oracle? | 396 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Fair for Oracle?
Authored by: darrellb on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 06:37 PM EDT
Oracle's option is to have another witness authenticate the email. The original
author is always a good choice.

Even though Google produced it, that doesn't mean the current witness knows
anything about it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Fair for Oracle?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 06:54 PM EDT
It's not clear from the post (and tweets) that the email was kept out of
evidence. Often, documents produced by an opposing party are
self-authenticating which means that the Court deems them authentic without
testimony from a witness that the documents are what they purport to be. If
that is the case, as long as the exhibits are otherwise admissible they come
into evidence. It appears from the tweets quoted that the emails may already be
in evidence and the witness simply refused to agree that they were sent by those
listed in the headers. If that's what happened, the recourse is
cross-examination. Fighting on points like this can quickly erode a witness's
credibility.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Fair for Oracle?
Authored by: Yossarian on Tuesday, April 24 2012 @ 07:09 PM EDT
>What is Oracle's recourse if any?

Oracle could, legally, question those witnesses in discovery
time and ask the witnesses to authenticate the e-mails.
Refusal to do so could be dealt in discovery with the judge
ordering Google to give clear answer.

IMO Oracle did not do that because they shoot for a "Perry
Mason" moment. Demanding authentication in discovery would
alert Google to that plan. So Oracle asked for an extra card
in the Blackjack and now it complains about getting 22...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )