|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|